PCLM-D-22-00043

Concerned yet polluters: A survey on French research personnel and climate change

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Bouchet-Valat,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’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.

For the manuscript to be accepted, first, please address Reviewer 1's comments about possible response and acquiescence bias. At a minimum, add some discussion of these issues, and address how they may be affecting your main results. In your response letter, you may also wish to explain why you think such biases are likely to be minor here.

Second, address Reviewer 2's criticism about a lack of statistical tests of differences among groups. Such tests are of course the norm in empirical social science, though their absence here may be justifiable. Can you either add such tests, or explain why you believe they would not strengthen the manuscript? If you wish to make a case for not including them, it might nonetheless be helpful in your response letter to include an example or two of such tests, along with a discussion of why they are not useful.

Although not a condition for publication, please also consider Reviewer 1's constructive smaller points, and make changes as you see fit.

Please submit your revised manuscript by . If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ 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 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'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Malcolm Fairbrother, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. Please send a completed 'Competing Interests' statement, including any COIs declared by your co-authors. If you have no competing interests to declare, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist". Otherwise please declare all competing interests beginning with the statement "I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests:"

2. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing 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.

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:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn 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 (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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 Climate 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 reports some of the findings of a large survey conducted on the French research community. The authors find that a strong majority of respondents believe that climate change is caused by humans and that it puts the world on a path toward both ecological disaster and potentially civilizational collapse. Despite these dramatic levels of concern, the average respondent traveled long distances by air in 2019 (though with senior researchers and researchers of certain disciplines traveling more). The paper then reports support for various policies, including those that would reduce emissions from IT equipment or air travel, finding mixed support depending on the type of researcher and the policy in question.

I think the paper makes a useful contribution. There's a strong argument that researchers should be able to grasp the implications of climate change and need to adjust their practices to align with Paris compatible targets. Therefore it's worth understanding how these researchers currently behave and what roadblocks exist to implementing useful climate solutions. This paper gives insight on those questions. In addition to this larger purpose, the paper is also full of smaller details which other researchers or universities may find interesting (e.g., the percent of researchers using videoconferencing pre and post pandemic etc.)

I have two major concerns, both of which I think can reasonably be addressed by adding some detail to the

discussion section.

1) Response bias. I think the authors have done an admirable job evaluating responses between rounds of survey invitations to check for response bias. Even so, they do seem to detect a slight effect where later respondents are less concerned about climate or less enthusiastic about climate related policies. I wonder if non-respondents, e.g., those who would never respond to the invitation are different still from those who took five nudges to complete the survey, thus making response bias even more severe.

2) I'm also concerned about acquiescence bias. I think especially because the whole survey is so climate oriented, respondents will suspect that there is a "right answer" in the eyes of the researcher. The questions about ecological catastrophe and collapse of our society in particular may suggest that the survey writers have high levels of concern for climate change.

Since both of these biases are likely acting in the same direction it could result in the estimates diverging in meaningful ways from reality.

One of the uses that I can see for this research is understanding which policies could receive buy-in from researchers. To illustrate my point, I would ask the authors if they believe that if a French granting agency added carbon emissions as a main selection criteria for project funding, only 28% of researchers would object to this policy, as the survey suggests. Or, if a typical French university asked for faculty to vote on a measure that would cap the number of flights per person, do the authors think that only 22% would oppose the measure?

Personally, I would see value in adding a little more to the Discussion on the biases that could influence these estimates, especially acquiescence bias which I believe goes unmentioned.

I have some other minor concerns, but overall I want to stress that the work is mostly straightforward reporting of a useful survey with reasonable conclusions drawn from those results. I wish to thank the authors for the opportunity to review an interesting manuscript and wish them luck in further improving the paper!

Minor comments:

First, I apologize for being nit-picky, but I would suggest the following wording changes for legibility:

Title: Concerned yet polluting: A survey on French research personnel and climate change

Abstract: We present a survey *of* the French research...

Page 25 - the frequency table lists "More than one third" twice. I suspect one should say "Less than one third"

Line 341 - which *could* be attributed

Line 343 - Please name the three variables to make it easier on the reader

Line 365 - I very much appreciate the authors taking the time to make this check!

Line 514 - I think this should be *average* distance traveled by plane (in the caption)

Line 520 - "twice as less" please fix wording

Line 622 - I found this line confusing.

Line 636 - I believe this line is missing the word "than"

Line 656 - Consider revising the wording of this sentence for clarity

Line 672 - The survey is finished and so it's too late to really change this, but eating local food is not a reliable way to reduce carbon emissions (e.g., Weber and Matthews 2008, Environmental Science & Technology)

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

Please find my review below.

The report is based on a sample of more than 6,000 respondents representative of the French public sector research community, regardless of their status and discipline. As such it is a new and significant contribution that is generally adequate to justify a publication.

The literature review appears sound and the most relevant literature is covered by the authors. Furthermore, there is a satisfactory number of sources in the literature review but given the length of the article, it could be extended.

The methodology is primarily descriptive – except for the less important part of testing selection bias. Given the very large sample and the statements of differences between groups (e.g. disciplines, seniority level, demographics), I think it is essential to test for group differences. Especially in order to draw conclusions, descriptive percentages by group are not enough. Tests of differences must be included. Therefore, the methodology must be improved.

The results are presented clearly and the conclusions bring together the relevant elements of the study.

Although, the communication is clear and fulfils the quality standards necessary for publication, most of the article reads like a report of a research project rather than a research paper. In particular all the sections on the questionnaire are very exhaustive and should be shortened.

All the best.

**********

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.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

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.

Concerned yet polluting: A survey on French research personnel and climate change

PCLM-D-22-00043R1

Dear Dr Bouchet-Valat,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Concerned yet polluting: A survey on French research personnel and climate change' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Climate.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

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 climate@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Climate.

Best regards,

Malcolm Fairbrother, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):