PONE-D-23-42942Political Participation and Voluntary Associations : A Hypergraph Case StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Azaiez,

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 Aug 10 2024 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 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,

Hocine Cherifi

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. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data 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. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

4. 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:

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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 article brings in its essence a proposal that brings originality and relevance to the field. The summary is well structured and adequately presents the article and its findings. The observations to be made, in this opinion, seek to improve the reader's experience, given the relevance of the work, as well as explore the study's potential contribution to the field of understanding political phenomena, especially participation, in democratic societies.

In the introduction, the context is clear, and the objectives of the article are presented precisely.

From a writing point of view, a small revision in long and exhaustive paragraphs is recommended, especially in the presentation of theories in section 2. In this way, it would be possible to improve readers' experience in relation to the study, understanding the origin of the study variables, and more clearly, when analyzing, the relationship with theory.

Furthermore, in section 2, it would be possible to make the concept of political participation clearer, given its complexity and the relationship with other concepts, which derive from its understanding.

The methodology is relevant, it is clearly exposed, as is the data analysis process. As pointed out in the article, this is the most relevant point of the work, considering that the approach has a strong relationship with practical work in the field of politics, at the same time that it advances the understanding of the creation of ties in the process of political participation, observing both citizens, from multiple sectors, as well as institutions and their roles.

As for the conclusions of the study, although very well presented and structured, it would be appropriate, as a suggestion, for a slightly greater discussion of what was observed, not only as political participation in this specific context, but also to explore some possibilities for understanding the democratic process as observed. This can inspire paths for new works and approaches in different contexts.

Reviewer #2: The theoretical contributions of the article are clear and significant. The study extends existing theories of social networks and political participation by applying them in a novel context using advanced methodological tools. The use of hypergraph analysis to capture complex, higher-order interactions in social networks is particularly innovative.

I must commend the authors for revisiting well-grounded theories, particularly Granovetter's strength of weak ties and Burt's structural holes concepts, a practice that more political scientists should adopt. I also think that the attempt to step away from self-reported data and shift to real-world data from a single municipality has the potential to capture higher-order interactions that survey designs and even traditional network analysis research may miss. The authors provide convincing evidence, particularly regarding the contribution of heterogeneous activities’ participation on political participation for political participation among association members.

That being said, I have a few misgivings and suggestions which I believe the authors could address in a revised version of the paper.

1. What was the selection criteria for the 2 organizations out of each association group?

2. Why external motivation must be limited to neighbors and not include other external forces, such as those I see active on the news (a farmers road blockade, someone running for mayor, etc.), which I am not familiar with, but push me to do something.

3. The study is limited to a single municipality in France, which with its higher than average retirees and farming, hampers generalizations, even within the French population. It is not just how it differs in nature to Paris, , but also demographically. I think the authors can do better job in explaining that the nature of the individuals in town are not as important as their findings.

4. I understand that the explanation is driven by organizational membership ties, however, as someone who lives in the village of 3,000 people, many of the social ties within our community are based on the social connections originally created by classroom membership of our children at school, not through our vocation, art or sport or social groups. Till this day, years after my kids left home, it is the parents of my kids’ peers which compose my ties within the community, the ones who inform me and activate me, and vice versa. Obviously, this may be different for the older residents of an agricultural rural community, but then we are back to generalizability.

5. Given PLOS One’s general readership, you may want to provide benefit from a more detailed explanation of the hypergraph methodology and its advantages over traditional network analysis approaches. An illustration may do wonders here.

6. The authors find that “people who are active, in general, and compared to others in their community, have more access to local politics”. However, given the correctional nature of this study, could it be that those who are active in one dimension (politics) become active in other dimensions (art, social, etc.), or perhaps both are driven by an external force (extroversion, for example). Is there a sub sample within your data which at the beginning of the year did not participate in politics but were drawn to it later by their ties?

7. The authors may want to check the following. The first one for its method and the second as another example of the benefits of network heterogeneity.

Like-minded and cross-cutting talk, network characteristics, and political participation online and offline: A panel study. Jörg Matthes, Franziska Marquart, Christian von Sikorski. Communications 46 (1), 113-126, 2021.

Scheufele, D. A., Hardy, B. W., Brossard, D., Waismel-Manor, I. S., & Nisbet, E. (2006). Democracy Based on Difference: Examining the Links Between Structural Heterogeneity, Heterogeneity of Discussion Networks, and Democratic Citizenship. Journal of Communication, 56(4), 728–753.

Quitellier et al in text introduction is missing parentheses.

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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.

Political Participation and Voluntary Associations : A Hypergraph Case Study

PONE-D-23-42942R1

Dear Dr. Azaiez,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Hocine Cherifi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: