PONE-D-24-03586The Interfaces Twitter Elections Dataset: construction process and characteristics of Big Social Data during the 2022 presidential elections in BrazilPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Iasulaitis,

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.

 The manuscript presents a substantial data collection campaign focusing on Twitter activity during the Brazilian presidential elections of 2022. The main contribution is the dataset, which is deemed to be of significant value for computational social science and political science research. The data collection is unique due to its focused scope, comprehensive coverage, and the volume of data generated. However, the reviewers have identified several major areas that need to be addressed before publication. 

Major Points for Revision

Data Sharing and Volume:

Issue: More details are required about the nature, volume, and mode of data sharing, including any restrictions.

Action: Provide comprehensive information on how the data will be shared, including specifics on the nature and volume of the data, and how researchers can access it. Address any restrictions that may apply, especially concerning the full text of tweets and user information in accordance with Twitter’s terms of service (ToS).

Compliance with Twitter's Terms of Service:

Issue: Concern about the legality of sharing full tweets and user information according to Twitter’s ToS.

Action: Outline the restrictions from Twitter’s ToS and explain how these will be navigated. Ensure that all shared data complies with these terms and provide a clear plan for how this compliance will be maintained.

Ethics Statement:

Issue: Lack of an ethics statement addressing the collection and aggregation of potentially sensitive data.

Action: Include a detailed ethics statement. Explain why ethical considerations do or do not apply, and whether a human subject review was conducted or exempted by the authors’ institution.

Data Storage and Repository:

Issue: Details on what will be available on GitHub, including file formats and data preprocessing, are lacking. GitHub storage limitations are also a concern.

Action: Clarify the types of files that will be available on GitHub, their formats, and any preprocessing done. Consider using scientific repositories like Dryad or Zenodo for long-term archival and provide detailed information on how the data will be stored and accessed.

Data Validation:

Issue: Unclear validation of the relevance of content downloaded when querying for candidate nicknames.

Action: Describe the methods used to validate that the downloaded content is relevant, especially for generic candidate nicknames. Provide specific examples or methodologies used to ensure data accuracy.

Minor Comments for Revision

Clarify Terminology:

Page 2, Line 41: Replace "data mining" with a more precise term as it usually does not refer to data gathering.

Page 2, Lines 47-49: Clarify the connection between AI and "geographically dispersed" datasets.

Literature Review:

Explicitly mention if the datasets reviewed share tweets or have usage restrictions.

Correct Errors:

Page 11, Line 361: Correct the Twitter handle for Ciro Gomes.

Page 14, Line 476: Indicate if there was an optimization to check if the reference ID had been encountered before.

Enhance Interpretation:

Table 7, Figure 4: Provide additional interpretation, especially for non-Portuguese readers.

By addressing these major and minor issues, the manuscript will be significantly strengthened, ensuring it meets publication standards and provides clear, valuable information to the research community.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 05 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 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,

Gábor Vattay, PhD, DSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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 note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This work is supported by FAPESP under grant number 2022/03090-0 under the coordination of the Prof.a Dr.a Sylvia Iasulaitis and BCO number 2023/03704-0 and number 2023/17214-5. This research was funded by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001."

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "This work is supported by FAPESP under grant number 2022/03090-0 under the coordination of the Prof.a Dr.a Sylvia Iasulaitis and BCO number 2023/03704-0 and number 2023/17214-5. This research was funded by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "This work is supported by FAPESP under grant number 2022/03090-0 under the coordination of the Prof.a Dr.a Sylvia Iasulaitis and BCO number 2023/03704-0 and number 2023/17214-5. This research was funded by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. 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.

7. Please upload a copy of Supporting Information Figure/Table/etc. Tables 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and Figures 1,2,3,4,5, and 6 which you refer to in your text on pages 24 and 25.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: This paper describes a very important and substantial data collection campaign focusing on Twitter and the Brazilian presidential elections of 2022. The authors go in detail to present the context, the challenges encountered and some solutions, along with some statistical overview of the dataset.

I believe that the main contribution in the paper is the dataset itself, that will be of immense value to computational social science and political science researchers in the future. The data collection campaign described in this article is unique in its focused scope, comprehensive topical and temporal coverage and the amount of data generated. Based on this, I find this work clearly worthy of publiction (subject to some clarifying questions, see below). However, I'm unsure of PLOS ONE's policy about publishing primarily dataset papers -- my recommendation is based on the assumption that this is indeed in scope, but I leave the decision on this (or whether to e.g. transfer to an adequate sibling journal) to the editors.

Having said the above, I have the following questions that I believe should be addressed before publication:

1. The main contribution is the presentation of the dataset itself, including that it will be available to other researchers upon publication (as claimed in the "data availability statement"). I find this of immense value, however, given the issues of sharing / redistributing this volume of data, I believe that more details should be given about the nature, volume and mode of data sharing, along with any restrictions.

2. Specifically, I'm concerned whether sharing the full text of tweets, along with information about users (Tables 2-5) is in accordance with Twitter's terms of use (ToS) and policies. I know that in the past, public sharing of data was hampered by restrictive license on tweet content. I believe that the authors should outline (either in the article, or as declarations to the editors) what restrictions from the ToS might apply, and how these can be overcome.

3. I'm surprised that the authors provide no ethics statement for this article. While I understand that the dataset includes the collection of data that was shared publicly by its creators, collection and aggregation of sensitive data (such as political opinions) can still raise ethical issues. I believe that at least a detailed explanation of why such considerations do not apply (along with details whether a "human subject" review took place at the authors institution, or whether the study was exempted) would be necessary.

4. The authors state that "All files will be made available on GitHub". Please outline what this entails in more detail (i.e. file format -- whether it is the raw download results, or after preprocessing, etc.), the size of the dataset, and any anticipated issues related to storage (as far as I know, regular Github repositories have storage limitations). Given the important nature of the dataset, I would also recommend the authors to consider depositing in scientific repositories (e.g. Dryad, Zenodo or similar) that pledge long-term archival as well.

5. Regarding data collection, a very important question is how the authors validated that the content they downloaded, especially when querying for the "nicknames" of candidates (which seem to be quite generic) are indeed relevant?

I have some further, minor comments:

-- Page 2, line 41: "data mining" is a bit unclear, since it is usually not about "gathering" data

-- Page 2, lines 47-49: it is unclear to me what is the connection of AI to "geographically dispersed" datasets

-- literature review section: it would be good to mention explicitly if the datasets share tweets themselves, or any restrictions on use

-- Page 11, line 361: Twitter handle for Ciro Gomes is likely wrong

-- Page 14, line 476: was there an optimization to check if the references ID was encountered before?

-- Table 7, Fig. 4: it would be good to show some more interpretation (especially for readers who don't understand portoguese)

Reviewer #2: The dataset has interest due to the topic, as the authors rightly argue. The pipeline is described in an understandable way, yet innovation in this field is particularly difficult. The authors could publish the dataset with accompanying documentation in a public repository, or, for eventual publication, they could deepen the analysis in some methodologically or theoretically meaningful direction. I wish the authors the best with this interesting dataset from which I am sure interesting results will emerge.

**********

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.

PONE-D-24-03586R1The Interfaces Twitter Elections Dataset: Construction process and characteristics of Big Social Data during the 2022 presidential elections in BrazilPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Iasulaitis,

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.

We thank you for responding to the reviewers' earlier concerns. However, we request some additional detail and clarification in several parts of the submission. Specifically, please provide:

- A clearer response to Reviewer 1's comments on the use of broad terms and false positives- if the authors aren't able to do some validation as suggested, then this may be discussed as a limitation in the Discussion

- Additional supporting references, particularly in the Discussion. Specifically, this section contains statements that are not directly supported by the results or other citations. For example, the authors say "Negative propaganda against opponents, a resource commonly employed in electoral disputes, has played a prominent role in Jair Bolsonaro’s campaigns since the 2018 Brazilian presidential election." This would need a supporting reference or removal.

- In addition to the above point, the authors state "In such scenarios, the potential for negative propaganda through disinformation arises, as the connection between official coalitions or party federations (from 2022) and unofficial groups responsible for disseminating campaign content cannot be easily proven [32], making it challenging to penalize those involved." This seems to be saying that they can't confirm the campaign members were directly involved. As such, we request that the authors simply report objectively what happened here, rather than framing it speculatively as is.

- Clarification on what the date range of published tweets that were included in the study are

- Finally, Fig 5 appears to be copyrighted, and we require clarification on the appropriate permissions for this image

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 21 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 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,

Avanti Dey, PhD

Staff 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 (if provided):

[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.

The Interfaces Twitter Elections Dataset: Construction process and characteristics of Big Social Data during the 2022 presidential elections in Brazil

PONE-D-24-03586R2

Dear Dr. Iasulaitis,

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,

Nazim Taskin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear authors,

I have gone through your manuscript and comments from the reviewers. I believe that you have done good job with the responses and improved your manuscript significantly. As it is on an interesting topic, developed rigorously and contributes to the field, I suggest your manuscript is published.

Good luck with your research.

Regards,

Nazim Taskin

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 #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. 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: (No Response)

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The manuscript presents solid, well-explained, and ethically conducted research. The dataset is a useful asset for researchers.

**********

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.

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 #3: Yes: Yunus Emre Bulut

**********