https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7569-8648
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionDecember 18, 2022 |
|---|
|
PCLM-D-22-00210 Identifying Key-Psychological Factors Influencing the Acceptance of yet Emerging Technologies – A Multi-Method-Approach to Inform Climate Policy PLOS Climate Dear Dr. Julius Fenn, 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 March 20, 2023. 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:
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, Muhammad Irfan Ashraf, 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 amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published. a. State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant. b. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. 3. We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex. 4. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format. 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 5. We have noticed that you have uploaded Supporting Information files, but you have not included a list of legends. Please add a full list of legends for your Supporting Information files after the references list. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): I have gone through the manuscript and comments of both reviewers. The title is catchy and focus on a current issue related to climate policy. The study provides an interesting methodological approach by combining CAM and survey data analysis to understand perception of people towards emerging climate technologies. The introduction seems a general discussion more about issues related to consequences of climate technologies, however the objective seems about acceptance of these technologies. I see a kind of disconnect between the introduction and study objectives. The introduction section is too long. It could be made concise, and some sections seems more fit for methods section. So, it might be a good idea to put Measure section in a tabulated form. In addition, I feel the introduction lacks a strong foundation for laying out the objectives of the study. The detailed theory, concepts and background knowledge are described in introduction and methods which is not appropriate and not required. Results and discussion are fragmented under multiple headings. The manuscript is comprised of 86 pages and too lengthy to be considered for publication in its current form. It is written like a book/thesis or book chapter. The references are not according to PLOS Climate format (no numbering). The manuscript needs to be rewritten and results needs to be integrated and summarized. All excessive details must be removed from introduction and method sections to make it concise but comprehensive. References must be numbered according to journal format. The manuscript may be considered for publication after major revisions as suggested by both reviewers. [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: Yes 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: 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: No 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: *Manuscript is highly elaborative it looks like a thesis instead of research paper. Introduction is covering almost 22 pages and lack integration, it should be reduced to maximum 5 pages and flow of thoughts should be proper to build the strong story. *Multiple study objectives are separately described in terms of methods, results and discussion they should be combined to single unit. * There is another part entitles general discussion that should be combined with other sections of discussion. * References are comprising of 29 pages that is more than other sections of the study. Furthermore, references of 5th assessment report of IPCC are mentioned they should be replaced with references of 6th assessment report. * Length of manuscript should be reduced to maximum 25 pages. Reviewer #2: The study provides an interesting methodological approach by combining CAM and survey data analysis to understand perception of people towards climate technologies especially SRI. I found study very relevant to present scenario of climate change and believe that this manuscript will add a valued addition to the present resource of this kind of literature pool. However, I still think some work is needed to make this manuscript at a acceptable level for publication in this journal. General comments; I am skeptical about the study rational and methodology as the concept of climate engineering technologies may be a difficult concept to comprehend by the common people. I understand that beforehand information to participants was provided to familiarize with the concept of Climate engineering technologies (SAI). However, I am wondering is that information enough for the participants to get acquainted with the concept. How much the outcome of this study can be generalized and forwarded to policy makers knowing that people are not that aware about the Climate engineering technologies (SAI). The introduction seems more general discussing more about issues related to consequences of climate technologies, however the objective seems more about acceptance of these technologies. I see a kind of disconnect between the introduction and aim of study or objectives. In addition, I feel the introduction lacks a strong foundation for laying out the objectives of the study. The introduction section misses the clearly formulated objectives. The introduction section seems too long. It could be made concise, and some sections seems more fit for methods section. So, it might be a good idea to put Measure section (Page no. 15-23) in a tabulated form. I think the structure of the paper seems confusing and bit complicated. I think authors should re-structure results and discussion section, for example combining the results of CAM and survey together and same with the discussion part. Some parts of the results section can be incorporated in the methods or earlier sections. Similarly, I suggest combining the discussion section too. Are CAM really needed? Could not be the study objectives achieved with only survey study? Why are the participants of CAM also included in the survey study, it might have led to any kind of bias? The specific comments and suggestions for this study can be found below; Page no. 1: Line no. 1-2: Can this reference be updated? Page 7: Climate engineering technologies i are dual high-stake technologies, • Needs to be corrected, may be typo Page 7: Climate policy is facing a hard decision in answering the question if a technology like SAI should be researched, limitedly deployed or even deployed at global scale. • I think this statement should be supported with reference. Page 10: With our study design and statistical analyse ….. cientists should engage more deeply in climate change. • This para to me seems very general. I would suggest to formulate objectives or hypothesis clearly. Page 11: Note. Based on the results of the “Cognitive-Affective Map” pre-study we included measures for Climate Change Concern, Moral Hazard, and Tampering with Nature and (highlighted in gray). • Needs to be corrected, may be typo Page 11: These additional factors, as well as the ethical and personality factors, are depicted without specifying the effect of the single factors to the central constructs included in the core model (within dotted line). • Why was not the effect of single factors included in the core model. Are there any specific reasons for that? If so, it should be discussed. Page 11 (last para): In the following, at first central empirical research on SAI is summarized, followed by (a summary of) reviews supporting and reflecting the proposed structure of the integrative model in Figure 1., whereas the single constructs are in more detail theoretically justified in the next section. • Can be rewritten to simplify. Page 17: HEXACO? Is it elaborated earlier in the text? Page 17: Openness to Experience was also found to play a consistent role across three countries, • Which three countries? Page 26: The section on CAM also seems too long so it needs to be shortened. Page 27: Material, Procedure, Participants: I think that the methodology for both CAM and survey should be explained as Step I and Step II procedure. Page 29: Here I also felt that Cognitive-Affective Maps is more fitted to methods section. Or this section can be incorporated in other sections of CAM in the manuscript. Page 30-34: I think results could be shortened to just present the main findings. Presenting too much in the results can lead reader to lose the main outcome. Page 35-36: Here I also think that discussion for both CAM and survey should be combined. Although a general discussion is provided by the authors, but I still think it is very confusing and complicated to have too many section for results and discussion in one manuscript. Page 36: What does this ‘main study’ signify? I am bit confused, is it methodology? Page 29-32: The analysis part of CAM seems to fit more in CAM theory section. The other sub results in result section could be shorten and some part of it can be incorporated in earlier section with same headings. Page 31: Which states that an abrupt termination of SAI can lead to accelerated hearting, due to large concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (e.g. Ott & Neuber, 2020). Page 36: Does main study here imply Survey study? Maybe mention that in the heading? ********** 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: Yes: Sabeeqa Usman Malik Reviewer #2: Yes: Altamash Bashir ********** [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.
|
| Revision 1 |
|
Identifying Key-Psychological Factors Influencing the Acceptance of yet Emerging Technologies – A Multi-Method-Approach to Inform Climate Policy PCLM-D-22-00210R1 Dear Julius Fenn, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Identifying Key-Psychological Factors Influencing the Acceptance of yet Emerging Technologies – A Multi-Method-Approach to Inform Climate Policy' 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, Muhammad Irfan Ashraf, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS Climate *********************************************************** The manuscript has been improved a lot and concerns of the reviewers has been addressed. I see some formatting and layout issues, kindly advice supporting staff to take care of this. Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference): |
Open letter on the publication of peer review reports
PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.
We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.
Learn more at ASAPbio .