PONE-D-25-43739Thinking Together: How Group Argumentation Boosts Fake News RecognitionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Carbone,

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 Jan 17 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at 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,

Haixia Wang

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 note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing the repository name and a direct link to access each database. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide these details on a very short timeline. We therefore suggest that you provide this information now, though we will not hold up the peer review process if you are unable.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

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

Additional Editor Comments:

This study has certain theoretical and practical implications, and there are still some methodological details that require modification:

1. The definition of fake news
2. The specific procedures of the experiment
3. Other issues mentioned by the two reviewers

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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 paper appears to adopt a novel approach; however, the author struggles to clearly define the concept of fake news. A precise definition has not yet been provided. Additionally, the author uses the term misinformation inconsistently, without establishing its contextual meaning, and shifts abruptly to disinformation, which carries a distinct implication. Therefore, it is suggested that the author refer to substantial prior works on the subject to develop clear conceptual distinctions among fake news, misinformation, and disinformation, and accordingly revisit and refine the literature review and data analysis, if necessary. They may refer/revisit works of

1. Wardle, C. Fake News (2017) It’s Complicated, First Draft News, https://firstdraftnews.com/fake-news-complicated/

2. European Commission Contribution to the European Council (2018) Action Plan Against

Disinformation. Brussels, 5 December, JOIN (2018) 36 final, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/

sites/beta-political/files/eu-communication-disinformation-euco-05122018_en.pdf/

3. UK, House of Commons, Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport Committee (2019) Disinformation

‘Fake News’: Final Report. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/1791/1791.pdf/

4. Commisso, C. (2017) ‘The post-truth archive: considerations for archiving context in fake news

repositories’, Preservation, Digital Technology and Culture, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp.99–102,

doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/pdtc-2017-0010.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript reports a within-subjects experiment (N = 111) examining whether group discussion enhances the ability to recognize fake news compared to individual written reflection. Participants judged the accuracy of two real and two fake news items in Phase 1, then re-evaluated the same items in Phase 2 after either a group discussion or an individual argumentation exercise. The key finding is that accuracy improved only for fake news discussed in groups, not for items argued individually. The authors also report a transfer effect: discussing one fake news item in a group increased accuracy for subsequently judged (but individually evaluated) fake news items.

The study is well motivated, conceptually interesting, and contributes to the literature on misinformation and the social dimension of reasoning. It addresses a theoretically meaningful question: Do group discussions actually make people better at detecting misinformation? The general pattern of results is clear and has implications for both theory and practice.

However, several issues limit the manuscript’s clarity, robustness, and generalizability. I outline these below.

Major Comments

1. Limited number of stimuli

The study uses only four news items (two real, two fake). This severely restricts claim generalizability and inflates the influence of item idiosyncrasies (e.g., the “Nutella” real-news anomaly). Although the authors acknowledge this limitation, the problem is more serious than stated.

Recommendations:

• Treat results as preliminary; tone down conclusions accordingly.

• Include item-level analyses (e.g., mixed-effects models with random intercepts for items) if possible, even with small item numbers, to demonstrate the robustness of effects.

• Consider adding these data to a future preregistered replication with a substantially larger item pool.

2. Interpretation of “analytical thinking” is not directly supported

The manuscript repeatedly claims that group argumentation “stimulates analytical thinking” and that improvements occur because reasoning processes are activated. However, no measures of analytical thinking (CRT, need for cognition, verbal reasoning markers, etc.) are included.

Thus, this explanation is speculative.

Recommendations:

• Reframe claims to avoid strong causal statements about analytical thinking.

• Alternatively, incorporate linguistic analysis of written arguments (e.g., argument quality, evidence use) to support the interpretation.

• At minimum, clearly distinguish results from interpretation: the data show group-improved accuracy; the theoretical lens is Argumentative Theory.

3. Methodological clarity in the group-discussion procedure

The instructions suggest that:

• Participants presented arguments one at a time, in experimenter-determined order,

• Followed by free discussion.

But several details are unclear:

• Did all groups actually use the full 6 minutes?

• Were experimenters present and visible?

• Were discussions recorded and coded? If not, why not?

• How were interruptions, dominance, or social loafing controlled for?

Because group dynamics are central to the claim, more detail is needed.

Recommendations:

• Provide more complete procedural information.

• Consider reporting descriptive features of groups (average talking time, whether all participants contributed, etc.), even qualitatively.

4. Statistical approach could be improved

a. ANOVA may be suboptimal

Given the within-subjects structure and non-independent items, a mixed-effects model (participants × items) would be more appropriate.

b. Accuracy scores are ordinal

A 1–6 scale is treated as continuous. This is common but should be acknowledged as a limitation.

c. Multiple comparisons

Several post-hoc tests are conducted. Corrections (Tukey is used in places, but inconsistently reported) should be applied consistently and transparently.

5. Order effects deserve deeper exploration

The “transfer effect” is one of the most interesting findings, but the interpretation is limited.

Questions needing clarification:

• Did the transfer effect occur for both fake items or only one?

• Could this be an artifact of stimulus difficulty order rather than group discussion?

• Did participants in the group-first condition also show more engagement or longer response times, suggesting increased task motivation rather than reasoning transfer?

Suggestions:

• Provide item-specific plots for each order condition.

• Analyze whether Phase 2 response times differ by order and argumentation type.

• Discuss alternative explanations more fully.

6. Potential confounds in Phase 2

Participants saw the same news items again. This raises at least two concerns:

a. Memory effects

Accuracy improvements could reflect remembering earlier judgments.

b. Familiarity effects

Prior exposure may reduce belief in real news (a known finding) and can increase belief in fake news (illusory truth effect). The study acknowledges neither.

While the authors argue that individual reflection does not cause improvement, the design still conflates repeated exposure with deliberation.

Recommendation:

• Include a discussion of familiarity and exposure effects as alternative mechanisms.

7. Social factors may be under-examined

The authors report that social variables (fear of judgment, familiarity with group members, enjoyment of discussion) did not predict gains. But:

• The items used to measure these constructs are single-item measures with unknown reliability.

• The study does not examine whether certain group compositions (e.g., mixed-accuracy triads) produce more benefit.

Given the strong role of group quality in predicting improvement, more attention to social processes seems warranted.

Minor Comments

1. Pre-registration

There is no mention of preregistration. Because the analytic choices (e.g., averaging across items) are somewhat flexible, preregistration would strengthen the contribution.

2. Figures could be clearer

o CI bars overlap in many places, making visual interpretation difficult.

o Consider adding raw distribution plots or violin/boxplots.

3. Terminology:

The term “phase” is accurate but could be more explicitly defined earlier in the manuscript.

4. Stimuli selection:

The rationale for choosing specific real/fake items could be more thoroughly justified beyond simple pretesting.

5. Generalisability:

The sample (mostly young Italian students, 79% female) limits applicability to other populations; this should be highlighted.

Overall Evaluation

This is an interesting paper with a clear result: group argumentation improves fake news detection more than individual reflection does. The study aligns with findings from Argumentative Theory and meaningfully extends the literature by applying group-reasoning paradigms to misinformation.

However, the manuscript requires:

• clearer methodological detail,

• more cautious interpretation,

• a more thorough exploration of alternative explanations,

• improved statistical framing, and

• stronger discussion of limitations.

With revisions, the manuscript has potential to contribute meaningfully to the field.

**********

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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PONE-D-25-43739R1Thinking Together: How Group Argumentation Boosts Fake News RecognitionPLOS One

Dear Dr. Carbone,

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 paper closely engages with the theoretically and practically significant question of whether group argumentation aids in the identification of fake news, addressing a gap in current misinformation research concerning the social dimension of cognition. However, the following issues still require consideration:

(1) Sample representativeness remains limited.

The sample consists primarily of Italian university students, with a disproportionately high percentage of female participants (79%), which may affect the generalizability of the findings. It is recommended that this limitation be more explicitly acknowledged in the discussion, and that future research validate the findings across more diverse populations.

(2) The number of stimulus items is still limited (four news items).

Although the authors used mixed-effects models to control for content heterogeneity, it remains difficult to fully rule out the influence of item-specific characteristics. It is recommended that the conclusions continue to emphasize the preliminary nature of the findings, and that future studies expand the stimulus set.

(3) The mechanism underlying the "transfer effect" requires further investigation.

The study found that individuals became more accurate in judging another fake news item after engaging in group discussion—a highly interesting transfer effect. However, its underlying mechanism remains unclear (e.g., transfer of cognitive strategies vs. increased motivation). It is recommended that this effect be interpreted more cautiously in the discussion, and that future research incorporate mediating variables (such as argument quality or changes in cognitive strategies) to further examine the mechanisms at play.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 12 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at 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 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,

Haixia Wang

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

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

2. 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. 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: (No Response)

**********

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: I Don't Know

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: 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: 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: Following the discussion section, a conclusion may be included highlighting the key contributions and major findings of the study, along with suggestions and directions for future research.

Reviewer #2: The authors have responded thoroughly and in good faith to the previous round of major revisions. The manuscript is substantially improved, and the additional analyses, procedural clarifications, and expanded discussion largely address my earlier concerns. I thank the authors for the care and seriousness with which they engaged with the review.

Before final acceptance, I recommend a small number of minor, editorial revisions, focused on interpretive clarity rather than additional analyses:

Generalisability and robustness.

Although the manuscript now appropriately acknowledges the limited number of stimuli and adopts a more cautious tone overall, there are still a few places where the language implies a level of generality or robustness that exceeds what can reasonably be inferred from a four-item design. I recommend ensuring that claims, particularly in the Abstract, Conclusions, and discussion of mixed-effects results, are consistently framed as preliminary and specific to the present paradigm.

Framing of the transfer effect.

The additional analyses and item-level plots strengthen the case that the observed order-related improvement is not driven by a single stimulus. However, the transfer effect remains interpretive rather than definitive. I suggest maintaining consistent caution in how this effect is described (e.g., “consistent with” or “suggestive of” transfer) across the Results and Discussion.

Scope clarification.

A brief, explicit sentence clarifying the scope of the findings, for example, that they demonstrate the potential benefits of structured group discussion within a tightly controlled, small-stimulus experimental context, would further help align conclusions with the evidential base.

These are minor wording and framing adjustments only and do not require new data or analyses. Subject to these revisions, I support acceptance of the manuscript.

**********

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: Yes: Piers Howe

**********

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Thinking Together: How Group Argumentation Boosts Fake News Recognition

PONE-D-25-43739R2

Dear Dr. Carbone,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

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,

Haixia Wang

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: