Climate Denialism on Social Media: Qualitative Analysis of Comments on Portuguese Newspaper Facebook Pages

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to review this manuscript. It is based on Comments on Portuguese Newspaper Facebook Pages and uses textual analysis to explore types of discourse on climate denialism. Overall, the article is very interesting and revealing. However, it has elements that need to be improved.

C1. Introduction This section needs to clearly state the research objectives of the manuscript.

C2. Materials and Methods. I suggest a more detailed description of the methods. What is the role of qualitative analysis? What are the advantages? What are its operational steps in a subsequent study? Did this study only collect data from the September 2024 book? I would suggest a more detailed description of the sample data. What keywords did the authors primarily rely on when screening the reviews to determine that it was climate denialism. Were misleading comments removed? What was the sample size?

C3. three national newspapers with large followings. What is the specific list of these three newspaper outlets? What types of newspapers do these newspapers primarily publish? What is the subscription base of the newspapers they publish? As an international-oriented scholar, they are new to me.

C4. conclusions. this section should fully interact with the existing literature. Clearly state the unique research findings and literature contributions of this study.

C5. The manuscript does not appear to have a specific literature review. I recommend supplementing the literature review with a comprehensive and detailed presentation of what the existing literature has contributed to the field and what needs to be improved. A clear statement of the study's unique literature contribution is suggested.

C6. Theoretical analysis. In the resulting section, the manuscript appears to provide only a descriptive analysis of the newspaper comments, without analyzing the underlying reasons for these comments. What drives these comments? Are there any relevant psychological cases or theories to support the material?

I have made a thorough examination of the manuscript and find nothing that needs detailed annotation.

Author Response

 

Dear reviewer;
thank you for your suggestions and criticisms. We have read everything very carefully, and below, we have sent you all the changes we have made to the article. You can also see them in the original article, in yellow for easier identification: 

C1: We include the objectives of the work at the beginning well defined;

C2: in the materials and methods, we use content analysis, where comments were categorized by type of denialism and rhetoric used, we include more information about a detailed description of the sample data, how the comments were collected;
C3: We gave a better description of the newspapers from which we collected our sample, with the number of subscribers, main news stories etc.
C4: We have bridged the gap between the conclusion and the specific bibliography on the subject;
C5: we have added a paragraph with possible psychological reasons for these negative comments. 

Thank you very much for your comments

please let us know if you have any more corrections or suggestions

Reviewer 2 Report

1. **Introduction** - The introductory section requires further development. It is essential to provide a general overview of your study, considering that your audience is diverse. Additionally, the latter part of the introduction should clearly present the statement of the problem, followed by the research question and objectives, in that order. - There is currently no research question included. A research question should be articulated in the latter part of the introduction.

2. **Literature Review** - An additional section on the literature review should be included to explain what has been done regarding the research topic.

3. **Gap and Contribution** - In the gap and contribution section, strengthen your arguments by referencing recent literature on the topic and clearly identifying the existing gaps.

4. **Practical Implications** - There is a missing section on practical implications that needs to be addressed.

 

5. **Discussion** - The authors should invest significant effort into improving the discussion part of the article. It is crucial to integrate findings and arguments from previous literature effectively. The aim should be to create a clear and convincing narrative in which the hypotheses formulated are logical conclusions drawn from the overall storyline of the paper. Additionally, the discussion section should not only report results but also discuss the contributions and implications of the research.

1. **Introduction** - The introductory section requires further development. It is essential to provide a general overview of your study, considering that your audience is diverse. Additionally, the latter part of the introduction should clearly present the statement of the problem, followed by the research question and objectives, in that order. - There is currently no research question included. A research question should be articulated in the latter part of the introduction.

2. **Literature Review** - An additional section on the literature review should be included to explain what has been done regarding the research topic.

3. **Gap and Contribution** - In the gap and contribution section, strengthen your arguments by referencing recent literature on the topic and clearly identifying the existing gaps.

4. **Practical Implications** - There is a missing section on practical implications that needs to be addressed.

 

5. **Discussion** - The authors should invest significant effort into improving the discussion part of the article. It is crucial to integrate findings and arguments from previous literature effectively. The aim should be to create a clear and convincing narrative in which the hypotheses formulated are logical conclusions drawn from the overall storyline of the paper. Additionally, the discussion section should not only report results but also discuss the contributions and implications of the research.

Author Response

Dear reviewer;
thank you for your suggestions and criticisms, we have read everything very carefully and below we have sent you all the changes we have made to the article. You can also see them in the original article, in green for easier identification: 

C1: A problem question was introduced, the introduction was developed so that it was clearer for everyone;

C2: We have included information about the contributions of this study, we have also included limitations and challenges of the study;

C3: we link the results with existing literature;

C4: We improved the English;

C5: The results have been improved, where we have included studies by other authors to reinforce this work;

Thank you very much for your valuable comments;
Please let us know if we need to change anything else.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors did a good job of addressing my earlier concerns. I have no additional comment at this time.

The authors did a good job of addressing my earlier concerns. I have no additional comment at this time.