PONE-D-24-56411South China Sea Issue and Southeast Asian Countries’ Perception of China’s Image: An Empirical Study Based on GDELT Big DataPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. XUAN CHEN,

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 30 March, 2025. 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,

Vincenzo Basile, PhD

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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that the data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 

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: Partly

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: No

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 study examines the effects of South China Sea events on Southeast Asian countries’ perceptions of China’s image, utilizing data from GDELT. While the topic of perceptions of China’s image in Southeast Asia is valuable, the study faces significant limitations regarding its theoretical contributions and empirical rigor.

My major concern is the lack of clear theoretical contributions. This shortcoming could be addressed in several dimensions. The study’s engagement with the current literature on South China Sea disputes and related discourses appears limited. For instance, recent work by Song and Kim (2024) reviews extensive studies on China’s maritime disputes, detailing the temporal variation in discourses and the nuances across different media. Without deeper engagement with such literature, the theoretical value of this study remains limited. The authors could benefit from situating their analysis within this broader scholarly context to enhance its contribution.

Another relevant body of literature concerns public opinion toward China. Extensive research has explored the determinants of public attitudes toward China (e.g., Huang, Cook, and Xie, 2024; Mattingly and Sundquist, 2023). This study should engage with this literature and clearly articulate how it distinguishes itself from previous works.

There are several concerns related with empirical analysis.

The use of GDELT data also requires stronger justification. Aggregating data at the annual level raises questions about what GDELT offers beyond what could be derived from public opinion data. Why not conducting the analysis at the monthly level? Also, at a minimum, the authors should cross-validate their measures with available public opinion datasets. While public opinion data may not cover all countries or years, validation with the existing data is necessary to bolster the study’s empirical reliability. Furthermore, the decision to analyze data at the aggregate annual level seems suboptimal. GDELT provides daily coverage, and a monthly-level analysis might capture more nuanced relationships between independent and dependent variables, offering richer insights.

The study appears to present correlational findings without adequately addressing endogeneity concerns. Media coverage in GDELT is likely influenced by prevailing perceptions of China’s image—negative (positive) perceptions may drive increased reporting of negative (positive) events, and vice versa. The authors should explicitly acknowledge these limitations. Moreover, lagging the independent variable could help assess the temporal precedence of events relative to the dependent variable.

The analysis examines GDP as a moderating variable, but GDP correlates with various economic and political dimensions in Southeast Asia. It would strengthen the study to explore alternative moderators, such as trade volumes between these countries and China or the receipt of Chinese foreign aid. These factors may also shape perceptions of China and could provide more targeted insights into the dynamics at play. With these findings, I am not confidence that the observed relationship would be specific to GDP.

It is similarly unclear whether the observed relationships are specific to South China Sea events. Would similar patterns emerge for other types of events involving China? The authors should test whether the findings hold when examining other positive or negative events. This would clarify whether the effects are unique to the South China Sea disputes or reflective of broader dynamics. This additional analysis is essential because the manuscript is currently framed around the effects of South China Sea events.

Lastly, while GDELT offers a systematic way to measure media tone, it lacks the nuanced understanding of narratives needed to uncover the key drivers of China’s image. A combination of GDELT data with text analysis of media reports from Southeast Asian countries could illuminate the specific narratives and themes shaping public perceptions. Such an approach would provide greater depth and sophistication to the analysis.

References:

Huang, Junming, Gavin G. Cook, and Yu Xie. "Between reality and perception: the mediating effects of mass media on public opinion toward China." Computational Social Science. Routledge, 2024. 5-23.

Mattingly, Daniel C., and James Sundquist. "When does public diplomacy work? Evidence from China's “wolf warrior” diplomats." Political Science Research and Methods 11.4 (2023): 921-929.

Song, Esther E., and Sung Eun Kim. "China’s dual signalling in maritime disputes." Australian Journal of International Affairs 78.5 (2024): 660-682.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is an interesting read, with the focus on the South China Sea issue and its impact on the perception of China’s image in Southeast Asian countries. The use of the GDELT database as the primary data source is modern and the study’s methodology, like the regression models, adds credibility to the findings.

The manuscript has a logical structure, and the authors explained the methods used and presenting results.

Thank you for the opportunity to read this manuscript and I please allow me to share a few suggestions for the authors :

1. The references list seems rather brief, and in order to enhance the academic depth of the study I believe it could be expanded to include more relevant literature in the researched fields. For example the authors could also consider additional works related to soft power or comparative studies of national image etc.

2. I suggest that the authors give more details on how “national image” is defined and measured by using the GDELT database. Could they detail why the metrics used like AvgTone and Goldstein scale are suitable metrics for this purpose? Perhaps they could add a comparison with alternative frameworks or approaches to make the discussion more robust.

3. The statistical models are detailed, but it seems to me that some results (for example the insignificance of variables like sister city relationships ) could be more explained. Could the authors give some more interpretation for these findings? For example why might sister city ties not influence perceptions as expected?

4. I suggest that the authors could add more descriptive captions and explanations for figures 1-3, especially for readers who are not familiar with the GDELT database or the variables they used in their study.

5. The authors generalize the perception of Southeast Asian countries as a whole, but I believe they could highlight a little bit more the differences between individual countries. For example Vietnam and Cambodia may perceive China differently because of their unique geopolitical and historical contexts. Could the authors add a little bit more details about these variations?

6. I believe it would be helpful if the authors could include a clear “Discussion” section where the findings are critically analyzed in relation to existing literature, to explain the broader implications of their results, the limitations of the data, the methodology they used.

7. The final section called “Countermeasures and recommendations” section is very insightful but it mixes conclusions with policy suggestions. Perhaps the authors could insert a standalone conclusion with focuses to summarize the key findings and contributions of the study.

8. The authors seem to use GDELT data effectively and they could improve transparency by sharing their processed data and scripts (in case they are not confidential). It could help other researchers to replicate and cite this study.

**********

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.

South China Sea Issue and Southeast Asian Countries’ Perception of China’s Image: An Empirical Study Based on GDELT Big Data

PONE-D-24-56411R1

Dear Dr. XUAN CHEN,

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,

Vincenzo Basile, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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 authors have successfully addressed the concerns raised in my original review. While there are some remaining questions/issues to be further explored, the author discusses it as a limitation and a possible avenue for future research.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to evaluate this revised manuscript. Based on a comparison between the original manuscript and the revised version as well as the authors’ responses to my comments , I’ve conducted the following assessment on each comment previously made:

Comment 1. “The references list seems rather brief…”

Implemented -> suggestion was satisfactorily addressed. The revised version includes additional citations and broader theoretical discussion, it expanded a few sections with richer literature on national image and regional differences.

Comment 2. “I suggest that the authors give more details on how “national image” is defined and measured by using the GDELT database…”

Implemented -> clear and well-argued improvements on section Section 2 and 3 now contain integrated explanations of GDELT metrics and their rationale which makes the methodology more transparent.

Comment 3. “The statistical models are detailed, but it seems to me that some results (for example the insignificance of variables like sister city relationships ) could be more explained…”

Implemented -> the explanation was added. Section 3.1.2 of the revised version includes a discussion on the limited public/media visibility and localized nature of sister city initiatives.

Comment 4. “I suggest that the authors could add more descriptive captions and explanations for figures 1-3…”

Implemented -> yes. Figure 1, for example, includes enhanced commentary and context. The use of AvgTone is described in section 3.1.1 and earlier.

Comment 5. “The authors generalize the perception of Southeast Asian countries as a whole, but I believe they could highlight a little bit more the differences between individual countries…”

Implemented -> with a nuanced and more grounded analysis. Paragraphs in section 2.1 now differentiate countries like Vietnam and Cambodia, citing geopolitical and historical factors.

Comment 6. “I believe it would be helpful if the authors could include a clear “Discussion” section…”

Implemented -> a new "5. Discussion" section has been inserted in the revised version.

Comment 7. “The final section called “Countermeasures and recommendations” section is very insightful but it mixes conclusions with policy suggestions. Perhaps the authors could insert a standalone conclusion…”

Implemented -> the new “6.Conclusion” section has been inserted and summarizes contributions, key results, implications.

Comment 8. “The authors seem to use GDELT data effectively and they could improve transparency by sharing their processed data and scripts (in case they are not confidential)…”

The authors stated willingness to share upon request post-publication.

Only partially implemented -> in revised manuscript the authors provide detailed descriptions of the data sources (GDELT, Comtrade, SIPRI), the methodology used to process them. But, they do not include a direct link, repository, DOI for the processed dataset or the Python scripts used for cleaning, aggregation, analysis. Readers are invited to contact the corresponding author after publication.

Recommendation -> I still suggest that sharing data and scripts via a public platform (like for example GitHub, Zenodo OSF or others) could improve the study's reproducibility and its value.

**********

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 #2: No

**********