PCLM-D-23-00092

Climate change, concern, and children: A systematic review exploring the intersection of climate change, mental health, and reproductive decision-making

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Dillarstone,

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 ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS Climate’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 07 2023 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 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,

Fanli Jia

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. 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 If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references.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 If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

2. 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

3. We noticed that you used "unpublished" in the manuscript. We do not allow these references, as the PLOS data access policy requires that all data be either published with the manuscript or made available in a publicly accessible database. Please amend the supplementary material to include the referenced data or remove the references.

4. Please insert an Ethics Statement at the beginning of your Methods section, under a subheading 'Ethics Statement'. It must include:

1) The name(s) of the Institutional Review Board(s) or Ethics Committee(s)

2) The approval number(s), or a statement that approval was granted by the named board(s) 

3) (for human participants/donors) - A statement that formal consent was obtained (must state whether verbal/written) OR the reason consent was not obtained (e.g. anonymity). NOTE: If child participants, the statement must declare that formal consent was obtained from the parent/guardian.

[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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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 review examines climate change's impact on reproductive decision-making, synthesizing evidence from thirteen studies primarily in Global North countries. It reveals that climate change concerns are linked to less favorable attitudes toward reproduction and a desire for fewer children.

1. The title is too long. It can be shortened to "Climate Change, Mental Health, and Reproductive Decision-Making: A Systematic Review."

2. The background briefly introduces the concepts of "eco-anxiety," "climate trauma," and related mental health terms associated with climate change. However, it lacks sufficient evidence or references to verify the extent and prevalence of these psychological effects.

3. The background lacks a firm evidence-based foundation and a clear definition of the crucial relationships between climate change, mental health, and reproductive decision-making. To ensure a robust framework for the study, researchers should present more specific and credible evidence.

4. The study's background and objectives can be framed by combining Sections 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 along with their sub-sections.

5. Under Section 2: Methodology, the authors can briefly describe the purpose of the section.

6. The current format of the study makes it challenging to follow. Adopting a more structured layout, such as "introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusion, and recommendations," would improve the clarity and coherence of the paper.

7. The discussion oversimplifies the relationship between climate change concerns and reproductive decisions, neglecting the diverse factors influencing such choices. Reproductive decision-making is complex and influenced by social, cultural, economic, and personal characteristics, which should be acknowledged.

8. The discussion briefly notes conflicting findings in some studies but misses an opportunity to explore the reasons behind these disparities.

9. Future research recommendations are essential in a critical review. Identifying gaps in the current literature and suggesting areas for further investigation would enhance the review's impact and guide future research efforts.

10. “Table 1. Summary of characteristics 367 from included studies” can be presented as an appendix.

Reviewer #2: It is an interesting review of studies related to a very important topic such as the link of climate change concerns and reproductive decisions/intentions. The way the review has been conducted meets the required standards for such work. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were appropriate and well described. The construction of the manuscript is good, however I would suggest the Figure 1 to be placed elsewhere - i.e. after section 2.2 or 2.3 as it is related to the study design and not to its rationale. As the time limit for publication of the included studies was set and screening of databases was conducted in July 2022 relevant studies published later (e.g. the fall of 2022) were not included. The same concerns a review by Saha et al. from "Social Sciences". It is an understandable effect of time limits set for the conducted review and the present manuscript, although it can be addressed in Limitations section.

**********

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.

Climate Change, Mental Health, and Reproductive Decision-Making: A Systematic Review

PCLM-D-23-00092R1

Dear Ms Dillarstone,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Climate Change, Mental Health, and Reproductive Decision-Making: A Systematic Review' 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,

Fanli Jia

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

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

Editor's comments: 

I decided not to send the revision to reviewers since the authors have addressed the comments responsively. I have one comment (more like a discussion) for futuer research (not required for revisions). 

Have the authors considered the directionality - having a child to climate concerns? In one of my studies (Jia et al., 2015, Emerging Adulthood), I found a recurring theme of "the significance of having children as a catalyst for environmentalism." In the accounts of the participants (around the age of 32), they expressed their worry about climate change, with having a child being (thinking about futuer generation) a pivotal moment for their awareness. For instance, one participant narrated, "Now that I have children, I’ve really started to be more conscientious of, especially, climate change and things like that. And I think more not for myself but sort of looking at my kids and wondering how things will be as they grow up and then their children, and sort of more in a long term scale. Like what can I be doing now to ensure that things aren’t incredibly messed up for them as they get older." I don't mean the authors to reference my study at this stage, but I do encourage them to consider the directionality and indirect factors when they conduct a futuer study on this topic.