PCSY-D-25-00103

Online identity and action discourse around the 2020 and 2024 U.S. presidential elections

PLOS Complex Systems

Dear Dr. Lipatov,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Complex Systems. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Complex Systems's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 04 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at complexsystems@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pcsy/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to any formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Qinghua Chen, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Complex Systems

Qinghua Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS Complex Systems

Hocine Cherifi

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Complex Systems

Journal Requirements:

1. In the online submission form, you indicated that your data will be submitted to a repository upon acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors deposit their data before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire minimal dataset will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption.

2. We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex.

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Complex Systems’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.-->

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Complex Systems does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: The paper addresses an interesting and important research question concerning online identity and action discourse in U.S.. Overall, the manuscript presents an interesting analysis. However, I believe several issues need to be addressed before the paper can be considered for publication. Below are my detailed comments:

1.Clarity of the Research Narrative and Logical Flow.

Concern: The manuscript’s overall logic and the articulation of the research problem could be strengthened. The connection between the Introduction and the Discussion sections feels somewhat disjointed, making the narrative arc of “problem-method-finding-implication” less than fully coherent.

Suggestion: Sharpen the logical progression throughout the paper.

In the Introduction, more explicitly state the research gap by clearly critiquing the limitations of prior studies, and then precisely position your study's necessity and innovation in addressing that gap.

In the Results and Discussion, ensure that each finding is systematically linked back to your research questions and theoretical framework. The conclusions should form an integrated system that collectively answers your central research problem.

2.Abstract and Introduction.

Abstract: The current abstract is more descriptive than synthetic. It should be revised to provide a clearer, more concise summary of the research problem, core methodology, key comparative findings (2020 vs. 2024), and the main theoretical implication (i.e., the context-dependency of mobilization pathways). The innovation needs to be highlighted more prominently.

Introduction: The literature review, while covering key theories, is somewhat brief. It would benefit from a more nuanced synthesis that not only names relevant theories (e.g., SIMCA, SIT) but also critically identifies the specific unresolved questions or methodological challenges in the existing literature that your study directly tackles.

3.Methodological Justification and Rigor.

Operationalization of Expression Categories: The justification for defining the five core expression categories (Grievance, Validation, etc.) based on “theories of social identity formation” requires elaboration. Please provide a more detailed rationale for why this specific theoretical framework and these particular operationalizations are the most appropriate for your research context and data. Furthermore, please explicitly explain how you handled potential overlaps between these categories in the coding process, as posts could contain multiple types of expressions.

Sample Representativeness and Generalizability: A discussion on the representativeness of the “hate universe” sample is necessary. Given the specific sampling criteria, to what populations or online phenomena can your findings be reasonably generalized? Please address the potential biases and clearly state the scope of the conclusions’ applicability in the Methods or Limitations section.

4.Depth of Analysis and Interpretation.

The Results section is rich in statistical findings. However, the Discussion should go further in interpreting the “why” behind the “what”. For instance, what are the plausible social, political, or technological drivers behind the fragmented dynamics observed in 2024 compared to the coherent pathway in 2020? Providing deeper, evidence-based reasoning will significantly enhance the explanatory power and impact of your conclusions.

5.Presentation and Readability.

Figures and Tables: Some figures lack sufficient detail in their annotations and could be of higher graphical resolution. Consider adding direct labels or annotations to highlight key data points, trends, or comparative takeaways within the charts themselves to improve reader comprehension.

Language and Style: The manuscript would benefit from a thorough proofreading to correct minor grammatical errors and streamline language. Some sentences are overly long or complex. Simplifying the prose, avoiding unnecessary jargon where possible, and using more active voice will greatly improve readability and make the paper more accessible to a broader interdisciplinary audience.

References: Please ensure that all in-text citations and the reference list consistently adhere to the journal’s required style guide.

Reviewer #2: The paper examines how shared identities emerge through communication and how online expressions of grievance, identity, and efficacy converge into collective action, analyzing approximately 60 million posts spanning the period from 3 March 2020 to 8 June 2021.

The work is interesting and well written, with interesting results. But there are a few methodological aspects that could be improved.

Introduction

Pros:

The text is well written and easy to read.

Well-structured and comprehensive bibliography and theoretical approach.

Cons:

The paper shows clear predictive associations among grievance, validation, identity, and efficacy, but it remains unclear when these relations transition from simple correlated fluctuations to a coherent, system-level pattern of collective action. This is especially relevant because large-scale coordination can sometimes resemble self-organized criticality (SOC).

A brief reflection on SOC could strengthen the discussion. For instance:

• Do the temporal patterns suggest critical transitions or threshold effects rather than purely linear VAR dependencies?

• Could the observed peaks and cascades reflect avalanche-like dynamics typical of SOC?

• How do the authors distinguish VAR-predictable autocorrelation from emergent collective escalations?

Even a short note on this point would help situate the findings within broader complex-systems theory and clarify whether the escalation toward action reflects coordinated psychological processes or emergent critical dynamics.

Results

Pros:

Identity and validation show an upward trend to a sign of a progressive strengthening of collective identity and mutual validation among members.

It is interesting to see the reinforcement in period 1, and almost a relapse of action in period 3, perhaps emphasising the fear of what has been done.

Cons:

Personal analysis: The authors do not take into account the five deaths, and therefore the emotional aspect, as a possible factor reducing action in period 3. It is possible that efficacy (i.e. confidence in the strength of the group) has a negative effect on action, given that people have died.

I know it is difficult to observe, but it would be useful to assess the situation using emotion detection to compare emotions before and after 6 January.

After all, the aim of the paper is to see how 'shared identities emerge from communication, as well as how online expressions of grievance, identity, and efficacy coalesce into action'.

I think this indicator could be significant for observing the emotional impact (if any).

Problem with the management of ‘4Chan1’: why not normalise it in line with the others?

Discussion

General Observation:

Very long text, but also straightforward and easy to read. I would recommend shortening it a bit.

Currently, the MAGA movement is experiencing divisions over the Epstein case, and I wonder if this could become a grievance for future social dynamics. Unfortunately, the data only goes up to 1 March 2025.

Materials and methods

Cons:

The chapter is very short compared to the rest of the paper, so I would suggest expanding it.

I don't know if it's a journal guideline, but I would like to read the cap method and data after the introduction and before the results.

The regex methodology is not incorrect, but it could be improved. Even if the regex compared with past work shows very few differences, it is not necessarily correct (especially considering that researchers did not have access to today's computational resources or LLM-based tools).

Even with human quality control, it would be advisable to use LLMs to truly validate the regex, as a 30% possible false positive rate is excessive, because it could highlight or emphasise the behaviour of one category over another over time, highlighting a notable or significant importance in the temporal analysis.

Reviewer #3: I. Overall Evaluation

The core contribution of this study lies in its operationalization of social psychology theories of collective action into computable text metrics and their subsequent examination using large-scale social media data from the 2020 and 2024 U.S. presidential election cycles. The research design is clear, and the analytical methods are relatively advanced. Through cross-cycle comparison, the paper highlights the "context dependence" of the theoretical pathways, a finding of significant theoretical importance. However, the manuscript presents several critical issues concerning measurement validity, methodological transparency, causal inference language, and sample representativeness, which require substantial attention in revision.

II. Specific Issues

1. Operationalization of Theoretical Constructs and Measurement Validity

Issue: The study employs regular expressions to classify text into five theoretical constructs, but:

(1) The process for constructing the regular expressions is not detailed (merely mentioned as "based on prior experience and existing literature"), lacking replicability.

(2) Examples of the expressions are not provided (e.g., what specific words or phrases constitute "Identity" talk?).

(3) The authors state that manual verification indicates about 30% of matched posts do not actually belong to the intended category. This is noted as containing "considerable noise" but still being able to "track the expression categories." Such measurement error could introduce systematic interference in the time-series analysis results.

2. Research Methodology and Data Analysis

Issues:

(1) The data originates from the "Hate Universe" database, which selects communities based on hate speech criteria. This may lead to a sample concentrated among extreme or highly mobilized groups, failing to represent the broader population discussing "MAGA" or election fraud, thus introducing significant selection bias.

(2) While Vector Autoregression (VAR) models can only reveal predictive associations between variables, the authors frequently use causal language like "triggers," "leads to," and "strengthens" in describing results (e.g., Page 10: "Grievance expression reliably triggers validation"), which can be misleading.

(3) For the 2024 data, Period 1b could not support a reliable VAR model due to insufficient data, but the implications of this gap for the comparative conclusions between the two election cycles are not discussed.

(4) In Period 3 of the 2020 data, a negative predictive relationship was found between efficacy and action. The authors interpret this as "increased efficacy reduces action urgency." This counterintuitive finding warrants further exploration into potential moderating variables (e.g., threat of repression, perceived legal consequences) or mediating mechanisms.

3. Scholarly Ethics and Framing

Issue: Although the authors state they "do not adjudicate the truth of any claims," the use of terms like "Hate Universe" and "alleged electoral fraud" may still carry implied stances. The research involves events of extreme political violence, requiring careful phrasing to avoid being misinterpreted as endorsing or criticizing specific political claims.

III. Other Suggestions

It is recommended to add a brief summary paragraph at the beginning of the Results section to outline the main findings for each period, thereby improving readability.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Andrea Russo

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

Figure resubmission:

-->While revising your submission, we strongly recommend that you use PLOS’s NAAS tool (https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis) to test your figure files. NAAS can convert your figure files to the TIFF file type and meet basic requirements (such as print size, resolution), or provide you with a report on issues that do not meet our requirements and that NAAS cannot fix.-->-->

After uploading your figures to PLOS’s NAAS tool - https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis, NAAS will process the files provided and display the results in the "Uploaded Files" section of the page as the processing is complete. If the uploaded figures meet our requirements (or NAAS is able to fix the files to meet our requirements), the figure will be marked as "fixed" above. If NAAS is unable to fix the files, a red "failed" label will appear above. When NAAS has confirmed that the figure files meet our requirements, please download the file via the download option, and include these NAAS processed figure files when submitting your revised manuscript.-->

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review Comments for Manuscript Number PCSY-D-25-00103.docx

Online identity and action discourse around the 2020 and 2024 U.S. presidential elections

PCSY-D-25-00103R1

Dear Dr. Lipatov,

We're pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you'll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you'll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pcsy/ click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support at https://plos.my.site.com/s/.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact complexsystems@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Luca Maria Aiello

Section Editor

PLOS Complex Systems

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

All the reviewer comments have been addressed. The paper is now ready for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

--------------------

-->2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Complex Systems's publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

--------------------

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

--------------------

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

--------------------

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Complex Systems does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

--------------------

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: The paper addresses an interesting and important research question concerning online identity and action discourse in U.S.. The use of trend analysis, stationarity tests, vector autoregression, and pathway analysis is methodologically appropriate and provides valuable empirical evidence. Overall, the manuscript presents an interesting analysis. All my comments have been fully addressed. I believe several issues need to be addressed before the paper can be considered for publication. Below are my detailed comments:

1.The manuscript would benefit from improved logical flow in certain sections. Take the “2024 elections” subsection as an example. The authors first present the time series and trend analyses. Only later, in the VAR subsection, do they explain that Period 1b could not be analyzed due to data limitations. This arrangement may cause confusion for readers. A brief statement should be added at the beginning of the section. This statement would clarify which periods are subject to which analytical procedures.

2.The discussion of self-organized criticality (SOC) appears somewhat disconnected from the surrounding narrative. Its placement within the section feels abrupt and interrupts the logical flow of the argument. I recommend relocating this content to a more natural position, such as within the “Study limitations” subsection. This would improve coherence and better integrate the SOC discussion with the rest of the manuscript.

3.There are a few typographical errors, such as “they way” (which should be “the way”) and “ha[s]” (which should be “has”).

4.Some square brackets appear to be leftover editing marks and should be removed where they are not part of the intended formatting.

5.Some sentences are lengthy and could be simplified for readability (e.g., in the Introduction and Discussion).

Overall, the authors propose an important and interesting question, conducts complete analysis, and draw conclusions with many policy implications. The authors should address the above issues to improve the clarity, depth, and impact of the paper.

Reviewer #2: Introduction

Pros:

The section remains clear, well-written, and easy to follow. The authors have strengthened the theoretical positioning by better clarifying the research gap and situating their contribution within existing literature. In particular, the added reflections linking their approach to broader theoretical and methodological challenges improve the overall framing. The inclusion of a discussion on self-organized criticality (SOC), even if concise, is especially appreciated, as it situates the findings within a wider complex-systems perspective.

Cons:

None of major relevance.

Results

Pros:

The analysis remains solid and well-structured. Importantly, the authors have now incorporated the role of contextual factors, such as the deaths associated with January 6, into the interpretation of the results. This significantly strengthens the explanatory depth of the findings, especially regarding the dynamics observed in the later period. The discussion of the trends is now more nuanced and better connected to real-world events.

Cons:

While the authors acknowledge the importance of emotional dynamics, a quantitative assessment (e.g., emotion detection) is still not included. However, this is now clearly framed as a limitation rather than an oversight.

Discussion

Pros:

The section has improved considerably. The restructuring into subsections enhances readability and helps clarify the logical flow of the argument. The addition of interpretative elements addressing the “why” behind the results strengthens the contribution. The integration of emotional framing and contextual interpretation is particularly valuable.

Materials and Methods

Pros:

This section has been significantly improved and expanded. The methodological choices are now more clearly explained, particularly regarding the operationalization of categories and the handling of overlaps. The discussion of limitations, especially concerning the dataset and potential biases, is appropriate and increases transparency. The justification of the regex-based approach, including the treatment of false positives, is also clearer and more rigorous.

Cons:

The use of more advanced NLP techniques (e.g., LLM-based validation) is not implemented. However, the authors provide a clear and reasonable justification for their methodological choices.

General Evaluation

Pros:

The authors have engaged carefully and constructively with the review comments. The manuscript is now more theoretically grounded, methodologically transparent, and interpretatively robust. The revisions meaningfully improve the quality of the paper.

Cons:

No major concerns remain.

In conclusion, I am satisfied with the revisions and believe that the manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.

Reviewer #3: I thank the authors for their thoughtful and thorough revisions. The authors have addressed all of my previous concerns in a satisfactory manner. The manuscript has been substantially improved in terms of methodological transparency, analytical rigor, and scholarly precision.

--------------------

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Andrea Russo

Reviewer #3: No

--------------------

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer Comments on Revised Manuscript.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PSCY-D-25_00103_R1_reviewer.docx