Weight-normative messaging predominates on TikTok—A qualitative content analysis

Marisa Minadeo; Lizzy Pope

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0267997

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 19, 2022
15 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Eliana Carraça, Editor PONE-D-22-11377Weight-Normative Messaging Predominates on TikTok – A Qualitative Content AnalysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Pope, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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. ACADEMIC EDITOR: This is a very relevant topic nowadays, addressed in a well-written paper. Still, there are some concerns with regard to the contribution of the paper to the scientific literature, rigor and depth of analysis, and extrapolation of authors' interpretations of their results. Although our decision is minor revisions, some of these concerns are considered major issues. Thus, these aspects should be well addressed by the authors. Pay close attention to the reviewer's comments. As finding reviewers for this paper was very difficult at this moment, I have also reviewed the paper. Find attached the paper with my comments/suggestions. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 19 2022 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 plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. 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, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Eliana Carraça Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. In your Methods section, please include additional information about your dataset and ensure that you have included a statement specifying whether the collection and analysis method complied with the terms and conditions for the source of the data. 3. You indicated that ethical approval was not necessary for your study. We understand that the framework for ethical oversight requirements for studies of this type may differ depending on the setting and we would appreciate some further clarification regarding your research. Could you please provide further details on why your study is exempt from the need for approval and confirmation from your institutional review board or research ethics committee (e.g., in the form of a letter or email correspondence) that ethics review was not necessary for this study? Please include a copy of the correspondence as an "Other" file. 4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. "Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: This is a very relevant topic nowadays, addressed in a well-written paper. Still, there are some concerns with regard to the contribution of the paper to the scientific literature, rigor and depth of analysis, and extrapolation of authors' interpretations of their results. Although our decision is minor revisions, some of these concerns are considered major issues. Thus, these aspects should be well addressed by the authors. Pay close attention to the reviewer's comments. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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 ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE 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 ****** 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: This is an interesting study presented well however there are some concerns with regard to the contribution to scientific literature and rigor of methods. 1. The analysis done is a content analysis with quantification - please clarify this in the methods 2. There are some findings presented in the discussion such as - line 27 on page 5 An example pattern would be users showing their weight transformation, paired with explaining “what they ate on their journey.” and line 245 on page 13 Dialogue, sounding like a pep talk from a coach or a trainer, containing phrases such as “no excuses,” “get up” and “if you want it bad enough, you’ll do it,” implies that not trying to lose weight makes you lazy, and inferior to those who are pursuing weight loss. These findings have not been presented in the results..the analysis could include a thematic analysis -all transcripts (text) could be coded and then themes identified. 3. Much of the discussion reads meaning into the text of the videos this is not scientifically appropriate nor robust as a method 4. Limitation - please mention that this reflects only one social media platform and the study would have been richer if other platforms such as Instagram would have been included 5.Please specify clearly what time period the data was collected- some places 'fall' is mentioned and another place September...this analysis is very sensitive to time and what was trending then may not be trending now..please mention in limitations 6. The discussion currently presents new data with interpretation..please consider deepening the analysis on what the study tells us, who it would benefit what kinds of action can be recommended ..how this study contributes or relates to other scientific literature. ****** 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. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: 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.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-11377_editor revision.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267997.r001
Revision 1
12 Sep 2022 Author Response Reviewer #1: This is an interesting study presented well however there are some concerns with regard to the contribution to scientific literature and rigor of methods. 1. The analysis done is a content analysis with quantification - please clarify this in the methods We have clarified that the analysis was a thematic analysis with quantification. 2. There are some findings presented in the discussion such as - line 27 on page 5 An example pattern would be users showing their weight transformation, paired with explaining “what they ate on their journey.” and line 245 on page 13 Dialogue, sounding like a pep talk from a coach or a trainer, containing phrases such as “no excuses,” “get up” and “if you want it bad enough, you’ll do it,” implies that not trying to lose weight makes you lazy, and inferior to those who are pursuing weight loss. These findings have not been presented in the results..the analysis could include a thematic analysis -all transcripts (text) could be coded and then themes identified. We did conduct a thematic analysis, where we coded all videos including their dialogue, sounds, and actions to identify predominate themes. We have restructured our paper with a combined results/discussion divided by theme to more clearly delineate the themes we identified in the data. 3. Much of the discussion reads meaning into the text of the videos this is not scientifically appropriate nor robust as a method We respectfully disagree that the discussion reads meaning into the text of the videos. The discussion section identifies themes that emerged from the videos and then uses examples from the videos to illustrate those themes. The discussion also explains why these themes may be helpful or hurtful to a viewer. The authors are not implying that a particular creator meant to for example, glorify weight loss, but any video that spoke positively of weight loss was coded into this theme, and then previous research has indicated how the glorification of weight loss may be harmful. In the discussion we hoped to help readers realize why the themes we identified were important, we meant to provide meaning to our themes, not to interpret particular videos beyond categorizing them into our themes. We have made sure to tone down any causative language that may have been in the discussion which hopefully will help with this concern. If you can provide specific examples of where you feel we have over-reached in our discussion, we are happy to revise. 4. Limitation - please mention that this reflects only one social media platform and the study would have been richer if other platforms such as Instagram would have been included We have added this as a limitation. 5.Please specify clearly what time period the data was collected- some places 'fall' is mentioned and another place September...this analysis is very sensitive to time and what was trending then may not be trending now..please mention in limitations The posts were collected in September 2020, we have specified this throughout the manuscript. We have added a limitation about how trends continue to change on TikTok, although the hashtags we analyzed have substantially more views today than they did when we analyzed them, indicating that they continue to be popular on TikTok. 6. The discussion currently presents new data with interpretation..please consider deepening the analysis on what the study tells us, who it would benefit what kinds of action can be recommended ..how this study contributes or relates to other scientific literature. We have restructured the paper to have a combined results/discussion section presented by theme. We feel that this structure better presents our quantitative and qualitative data. In the discussion section we have also added several tie ins to previous literature on social media. We have recommended that adults help young adults curate their social media feeds and improve their evidence analysis skills. We also think it’s important for experts to begin to engage on social media platforms to highlight weight-inclusive content. We have highlighted these suggestions in our discussion. As this paper didn’t study possible solutions to the weight-normative inaccurate content on TikTok, we can only offer suggestions for future research. Editor’s Comments We believe we have addressed all of the editor’s comments. Thank you. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer Response_8_15_22.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267997.r002
26 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Eliana Carraça, Editor PONE-D-22-11377R1Weight-Normative Messaging Predominates on TikTok – A Qualitative Content AnalysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Pope, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR:The authors have replied satisfactorily to all reviewer's queries. There are still some minor issues to address. Please make those amendments and resubmit and improved version of the paper. Please check the attached file. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by October 10, 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. 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, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Eliana Carraça Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: - [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.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-11377_R1_AcEdit.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267997.r003
Revision 2
26 Sep 2022 Author Response Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. We have checked all references and do not believe any articles have been retracted. We also updated the reference formats for several of the references to make sure they had correct links included. We are happy to update additional references if anything has been missed. Thank you! Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLOS ONE Response To Reviewers 9_26_22.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267997.r004
4 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Eliana Carraça, Editor PONE-D-22-11377R2Weight-Normative Messaging Predominates on TikTok – A Qualitative Content AnalysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Pope, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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 Nov 17 2022 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 plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. 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, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Eliana Carraça Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Dear Dr. Pope, Please, resubmit your paper addressing all the editor's comments. Thank you. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: [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.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267997.r005
Revision 3
4 Oct 2022 Author Response PLOS ONE Response To Reviewers 9/26/22 Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. We have checked all references and do not believe any articles have been retracted. We also updated the reference formats for several of the references to make sure they had correct links included. We are happy to update additional references if anything has been missed. Thank you! Editor’s Comments Lines 243-246. Not sure you can make this interpretation. I believe you could say that those sentences imply that one might be lazy or lack strong will to move or do something, bu I cannot see how it can directly imply inferiority and social comparison. Please adjust sentence. Also, find some references that support this interpretation of yours. We agree that perhaps the dialogue does not imply social comparison directly. We have revised and removed the social comparison language, replacing it with an interpretation that the dialogue implies that not being able to lose weight is a personal failing of motivation. We hope this edit addresses the editor’s concern. Adjust sentence. There are two "reported". Sentence is confuse. Thank you, the sentence has been revised. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLOS ONE Response To Reviewers 9_26_22.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267997.r006
20 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Eliana Carraça, Editor Weight-Normative Messaging Predominates on TikTok – A Qualitative Content Analysis PONE-D-22-11377R3 Dear Dr. Pope, 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 http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. 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 onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Eliana Carraça Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267997.r007
Formally Accepted
24 Oct 2022 Acceptance Letter - Eliana Carraça, Editor PONE-D-22-11377R3 Weight-normative messaging predominates on TikTok – a qualitative content analysis Dear Dr. Pope: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Eliana Carraça Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267997.r008

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .