PCLM-D-25-00297

Scientists as Activists: An Ethnography of the 'Critical Moments' in Scientists' Transition to Activism

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Finnerty,

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 Jan 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 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,

Diogo Guedes Vidal, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. In the ethics statement in the Methods, you have specified that verbal consent was obtained. Please provide additional details regarding how this consent was documented and witnessed, and state whether this was approved by the IRB.

1. We would like to request for copy editing.

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 (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?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The manuscript analysis scientists’ participation in climate activism. Via extensive ethnography it traces a trajectory that starts with identity-aligned entry, proceeds with negotiation and performance of the scientist identity in public action, and the non-linear work of sustaining commitment and escalating action. The piece is well-grounded, well-argued and provides a rich account of concrete experience of members of Scientists for Extinction Rebellion UK. It is fully worthy of publication. I have only a few suggestions for minor revisions:

- The “note on narrative perspective” in the box that appears just after the heading for “Results” seems odd or misplaced. I suggest that the text is kept but the box is removed.

- On line 317, the author writes that findings are structured around a process-oriented framework with three stages: “1. Pathways into Activism; 2. Managing the Scientist Identity: Negotiation and Performance; 3. Sustaining Action: Motivation and High-Cost Actions.” The manuscript is then structured in sections that use these titles except for the latter, which becomes “Sustaining Commitment and Escalating Risk in Scientist-Activism” (section 3.4). For the sake of consistency, I would recommend sticking to the title presented earlier.

- Section “3.5 The Wider Political Context” seems an add-on at the end of the analysis. It would probably be a better fit for the Discussion section with small adjustments.

- Finally, Table 2 is quite extensive and at times difficult to follow. I wonder if it would work better if divided.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript “Scientists as Activists: An Ethnography of the 'Critical Moments' in Scientists' Transition to Activism”. We conducted this review as a co-review. We have jointly prepared a recent manuscript on scientists’ activism and thus have an overview of the current debate. However, we should note that we are both no experts on qualitative analyses as our work is almost exclusively quantitative. Accordingly, we cannot evaluate this aspect of the paper.

The reviewed manuscript presents autoethnographic findings on scientists’ transition to activism in the United Kingdom. The author suggests three stages: (1) Pathways into Activism, (2) Managing the Scientist Identity: Negotiation and Performance, and (3) Sustaining Action: Motivation and High-Cost Actions. In sum, the manuscript describes critical moments in scientists’ transition to activism in a specialized and relevant context, yielding a process-oriented framework.

Given the urgency of the climate crisis and scientists’ recent engagement in activism, the paper is very timely. We are also not aware of any papers investigating the transition into scientists’ activism in such a detailed and in-depth way. This work thus provides novel insights into the current discussions on climate change, scientist-activism, and the debate on whether scientists should engage in activism (including potential positive and negative personal consequences). Given the overall small number of studies on the issue, the applied qualitative approach provides important information that is likely to promote future investigations. Moreover, it can provide scientists with much needed evidence to guide their decision on whether they should engage in activism themselves. Accordingly, this paper provides an excellent fit to PLOS Climate and will make an important contribution to the literature as well as the broader debate on how we scientists can promote much-needed climate action.

This said, we believe that major revisions are required to reach the paper’s full potential. The most important point, in our view, is providing a more balanced view of the key question of whether scientists should engage in activism. In this regard, some of the reviewed literature could be presented in a more balanced manner. Reflecting on the results from alternative angles would also be interesting. Specifically, we encourage the author to consider alternative action paths. For instance, rather than engaging in activism, scientists could “just” do science, adjust their personal behavior and communicate about that, or those who want to engage in activism could separate their science and activism roles. Given the substantial personal costs of activism the author describes (and potential reputational costs), these alternatives should be taken into consideration.

Regarding the literature, we found the discussion of Dablander et al. (2025) somewhat misleading. The author states that they “found no reduction in perceived credibility when environmental scientists endorsed or engaged in protest” (l. 817-819). However, the cited study did not assess the evaluation of scientists who were not associated with activism or advocacy (i.e., who were “just” scientists). Accordingly, this study is not informative regarding the reputational costs of scientists’ engagement but can only speak to the differences between different types of engagement. This study also did not observe predicted benefits of scientists’ engagement, which is an important piece of information for those deciding whether to engage (see also our recent preprint below).

Likewise, alternative interpretations of the current findings (i.e., beyond an identity framework) would be interesting. For instance, one might ask what the personal benefits of activism are (such as friendship, feeling that one is “doing the right thing”) and if these could lead to “rational” (selfish) decisions to engage in activism. We would like to emphasize that we do not mean to imply that the paper should give up on its pro-activism stance; we only ask for a critical reflection on the alternative view as this will be helpful for fellow scientists’ decision on whether to engage in activism.

Thürmer, J., Braid, J., McCrea, S., & Hornsey, M. (2025, October 20). Navigating the Credibility Risks of Environmental Scientists’ Activism. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/xfeqt_v1

Finally, the reader would benefit from a graphic depicting the proposed process in a simplified form. The table is very helpful because it is very detailed, but this also makes it less accessible. A graph would make it easier for readers to get a quick overview.

In all, the paper provides an interesting glimpse into scientists’ engagement in activism. More broadly, we appreciate the open scientific discourse of the important question of whether and how scientists should engage in activism.

Minor point: Please proof-read the references (e.g., in l. 957. Volume, issue, and page numbers are not correct and in l. 1044, the spaces are before rather than after the commas).

Reviewer #3: A- Overview:

The main goal of the study is to trace “the lived processes through which scientists enter activism, manage identity tensions, and decide how far to go”. The target audience of this study is the United Kingdom–based movement Scientists for Extinction Rebellion (S4XR). The article seeks to examine the critical moments in the trajectory of the scientist-activist, which are essential for understanding the motivations and strategies that enable sustained engagement. This inquiry is conducted through an ethnographic approach that integrates field notes, participant observation, and interviews.

The article engages extensively with the literature on social movements and activism, with particular attention to their socio-psychological dimensions. It supplements this foundation with media sources and critical scholarship to investigate societal representations of science and the ways in which these representations shape, or are shaped by, the public legitimacy attributed to scientists.

This study is particularly valuable for analyses of contemporary forms of activism. It illuminates the internal negotiations within the group (e.g., questions of self-representation) as well as external strategic considerations (e.g., communication with diverse publics). Moreover, it demonstrates how the group consolidates its identity and practices through processes of experimentation. The analysis shows how scientists – often perceived as ‘sacralized’ figures – enter the arena of political contestation, a move that can both undermine the legitimacy traditionally granted to them and foster a necessary politicization of climate change debates. The author further demonstrates critical depth by diversifying the field sites, thereby capturing distinct modes of activist practice.

The work contributes also to the literature on media representations of activism, particularly in contexts where activist interventions are disruptive or challenge the status quo. It highlights parallels with youth-led movements (despite differing power dynamics) especially regarding persistent issues of legitimization and the tendency to oversimplify activist roles. Additionally, the study enriches existing scholarship on the emotional and affective dimensions of climate engagement.

The author reiterates longstanding concerns in the literature, including (1) the challenges of science communication and institutional engagement, and (2) the importance of social sciences in climate change discourse. Beyond this, the article advances the field by addressing (3) the pressing need for longitudinal studies of activist engagement.

The manuscript is well written, clear, and analytically incisive. The narrative style is highly effective, and the autoethnographic component is articulated with clarity. The self-citations suggest that this is a developing yet already mature line of inquiry.

The author has produced an insightful contribution. The manuscript should be accepted for publication, although I'd like to draw attention to a few points:

B- Clarifications needed:

� Although the author refers to conducting two years of ethnographic research, the data collection appears to have been concentrated within a single year (March 2022 -April 2023). It would be important to distinguish more clearly between these periods – (maybe) one dedicated to exploratory engagement/integration into the field/ the development of social ties, and another devoted to data collection guided by a defined theoretical-methodological framework.

� The author mentions employing multiple data collection methods (e.g., field notes, interviews). Greater clarity is needed regarding the process (when interviews happened?) and the provenance of the statements cited throughout the manuscript.

� While the use of journalistic sources to contextualize and complement the ethnographic process is understandable, it would be helpful for the author to add some details. Providing details about which newspapers or media outlets were consulted, the rationale for selecting them, and the time frame of the journalistic material analyzed would enhance methodological transparency.

� The author engages with the epistemic authority of science and identifies a familiar risk associated with it, namely “scientism”. It may also be worth considering whether other dimensions of science’s role in society could be explored, including risks connected to what might be termed “deadle-ism” (Asayama, 2021; Asayama et al., 2019; Hulme, 2016).

C- Other notes:

� In the title, 'Critical Moments' in Scientists' – correct the quotation marks.

� “1 Introduction” should appear centered, just like the other titles.

� “3.3 Managing the Scientist Identity: Negotiation and Performance.”, “3.5 The Wider Political Context.”– remove the period from these titles.

� I suggest replacing “political climate” (line 724, p 38) to “political environment” or “political atmosphere”.

� “Cox, L. (2010). How do we keep going? Activist burnout and personal sustainability in social movements.” – incomplete reference.

� The referencing system used by the journal is Vancouver style. This requirement must be met by the author (https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/submission-guidelines).

� Supplementary material should be referenced as such (“Authors may use almost any description as the item name for a supporting information file as long as it contains an “S” and number. For example, “S1 Appendix” and “S2 Appendix,” “S1 Table” and “S2 Table,” and so forth.” - https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/submission-guidelines).

**********

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: Anabela Carvalho

Reviewer #2: Yes: Lukas Thürmer & Jeremias Braid

Reviewer #3: 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.]

PCLM-D-25-00297R1

Scientists as Activists: An Ethnography of the 'Critical Moments' in Scientists' Transition to Activism

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Finnerty,

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 Jan 22 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 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 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,

Diogo Guedes Vidal, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. In the ethics statement in the Methods, you have specified that verbal consent was obtained. Please provide additional details regarding how this consent was documented and witnessed, and state whether this was approved by the IRB.

2. We would like to request copy editing.

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.

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->?>

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

4. 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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The author has addressed the comments that I had made previously as well as the comments of the other reviewers, so I consider that the paper is in good shape for publication.

There is good reason for not releasing all the data, as stated in the data availability section.

Reviewer #2: Dear Sam,

Thank you for your careful attention to our and the other reviewers‘ comments. We agree that your paper will make an important contribution to this ongoing discussion and is now ready for publication.

If possible, we have one minor request: The new Figure 1 will likely be a one-shop-stop to understand the main message of the paper. This is why we would appreciate pointing out (in the figure or caption) that engagement in activism is optional for scientists. For instance, the last two sentences could be amended as follows:

“For some, the outlined processes lead to sustained engagement or even to higher-cost forms of action, but these are optional pathways rather than an expected progression. It does not imply that engagement and/or escalation are normative, rather it highlights the psychological and relational conditions that make such actions feel possible for some.”

We appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this topic and wish you all the best for this interesting line of work.

All the best

Lukas & Jeremias

Reviewer #3: I appreciate the author’s efforts in responding to the reviewers’ comments. From my perspective, the issues have been addressed in the best possible way.

I have identified a few points that still require correction:

�Line 227: please format the citation according to the Vancouver style (numbered references).

�Regarding the new Figure 1: the text is not very legible. It might be helpful to fragment the figure and allow it to occupy more vertical space (rather than compressing it horizontally). In addition, “civil disobedient” appears as a fourth “stage,” which did not occur in the table in the previous version. It may be more appropriate to place the table referring to these “stages” in an appendix rather than in the main text. If the information is the same and the visual configuration becomes clearer, I do not see a need for a table that repeats information.

�The identification of the source of quotations (interview, field note, etc.) sometimes appears capitalized and sometimes in lowercase—this should be standardized.

�Please update the figure numbering in the body of the text; it has been updated in the captions, but not in the main text.

�Regarding the addition of the paragraph (lines 895–899):

I have read the other reviewers’ comments, and I do not agree that this paper aims to guide scientists toward activism. Rather, it seems to be an invitation by the author to explore and present who, in fact, chooses to engage with the climate crisis through activism and through civil disobedience. For this reason, I do not think that the study —which offers a very important critical perspective on how we collectively deal with climate change—should conclude by “attenuating” possible actions through conventional pathways.

I do not understand the need for us—as academic peers—to vocalize a “more balanced manner” in the face of climate urgency. At the same time, I do not believe that individual actions or “merely” communicating science (““just” do science”) are devalued at any point in the paper. Rather, I believe that critical research from this perspective is necessary and even represents a more epistemically just position, particularly when dissenting voices are included, demonstrating that institutions should not be sacralized. I nevertheless agree that empirical studies identifying the (sometimes negative) representations of scientists who choose disruption should be included and discussed, as this highlights the need to politicize the climate debate and to reconfigure how activism is socially constructed.

I believe that the note accompanying Figure 1 is sufficient to address the concern about adopting a “more balanced” perspective.

It remains for the author to reflect on their position in how the paper is concluded. This is just a comment on my part. I have never been involved in scientific activism (if my comment seems biased) and I do not intend to discredit the first reviewer.

**********

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: Anabela Carvalho

Reviewer #2: Yes: J. Lukas Thürmer & Jeremias Braid

Reviewer #3: 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.]

PCLM-D-25-00297R2

Scientists as Activists: An Ethnography of the 'Critical Moments' in Scientists' Transition to Climate Activism

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Finnerty,

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript to PLOS Climate.

Before we can accept your submission for publication, we will need to ask you to provide a letter from the University of Lancaster Faculty of Science and Technology Ethics Board confirming that continuation of data collection beyond the original anticipated end date of the study did not require further approval. Please upload this letter as a supporting file.

We will also need to ask you to remove or replace the images in Figs 2 and 3, which appear to come from third-party sources and likely cannot be published under PLOS's CC BY licence (unless you can provide evidence of appropriate licensing arrangements). We would recommend removing these figures outright, as they are not essential to the comprehension of the manuscript.

We are sorry these issues were not raised sooner during the review process, but hope you can understand the importance of resolving them prior to acceptance.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 06 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 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 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,

Jamie Males

Executive Editor

on behalf of

Diogo Guedes Vidal, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

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.

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:

[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.]

Scientists as Activists: An Ethnography of the 'Critical Moments' in Scientists' Transition to Climate Activism

PCLM-D-25-00297R3

Dear Dr. Finnerty,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Scientists as Activists: An Ethnography of the 'Critical Moments' in Scientists' Transition to Climate Activism' 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,

Diogo Guedes Vidal, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

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

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):