PCLM-D-21-00071

Efforts to Tax Carbon in Washington State

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Karceski,

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.

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,

Anamika Barua

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1.Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format and remove them from the manuscript file.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines: 

https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/figures 

https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/figures#loc-file-requirements 

2. Your manuscript is missing the following sections: Results, Discussion, Methods. Please ensure these are present, and in the correct order, and that any references to subheadings in your main text are correct. An outline of the required sections can be consulted in our submission guidelines here:

https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/submission-guidelines#loc-parts-of-a-submission

3. Please provide an Author Summary. This should appear in your manuscript between the Abstract (if applicable) and the Introduction, and should be 150–200 words long. The aim should be to make your findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. Sample summaries can be found on our website under Submission Guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/submission-guidelines#loc-parts-of-a-submission

4. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing [the repository name and/or the DOI/accession number of each dataset OR 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):

The paper is well written and deals with an important subject. The comments from reviewer 2 are very important to make the paper comprehensive, please go through the comments and try to incorporate them. If incase certain comments are not incorporated, there should be a justification for not incorporating.

I would also suggest that author can refer to the 2022 IPCC report and connect the recommendations based on the suggestions made in the IPCC WG III report on the need to mitigate climate change urgently and the role of carbon tax. 

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: No

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 seems competently executed. However, I am not in a Sociology department, therefore it is hard to gauge the originality of the said manuscript from an academic standpoint. I have read it as I would have read a journalistic report from the Washington Post or the New York Times. I kind of enjoyed reading it, although I cannot ultimately judge whether it passes PLOS ONE academic standards.

Reviewer #2: Although you wrote with standard English and communicated your idea efficiently. However, I have the following issues against your write up.

i. You would need more robust statistics in the introduction/background of the study to argue your case;

ii. I would appreciate more evolving issues prior to 2016 and 2018 carbon tax policies;

iii. There is need for relevant theory or a theoretical framework that would connect the objective and focus of the study with respect to carbon tax policies in Washington State;

iv. Then, why did each initiative attempt failed? I suggest a well structured questionnaire could be of much assistance than analysing only ballot initiatives;

v. Also, more rigorous literature needs to be done to identify gaps in the literature so as to see how this present study can address the deficiencies of the previous studies; and

vi. This study has not substantiated policy recommendations to stakeholders in Washington State.

**********

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: Yes: Dr Oluwasogo Adediran

**********

[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.

Efforts to Tax Carbon in Washington State

PCLM-D-21-00071R1

Dear Mr. Karceski,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Efforts to Tax Carbon in Washington State' 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,

Anamika Barua

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

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

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):