PCLM-D-25-00494

Comparative Analysis of IPCC reports with Retrieval-Augmented Generation using Layered Analytical Prompts

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. BISSON,

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 Apr 25 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,

Jingyu Wang

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. Please note that PLOS Climate has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

2. Tables should not be uploaded as individual files. Please remove these files and include the Tables in your manuscript file as editable, cell-based objects. For more information about how to format tables, see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/tables

3. We notice that your supplementary [Appendix 1] are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

4. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

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? 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: I don't know

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 manuscript presents a comparative analysis of six IPCC synthesis reports (1990–2023) using a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipeline combined with layered analytical prompts. The study aims to assess convergence and divergence in how successive IPCC assessments respond to identical scenario-based queries. The topic is timely and innovative, particularly given the growing interest in AI-assisted document analysis and meta-assessment of scientific reports. Overall, the manuscript demonstrates methodological ambition, interdisciplinary integration, and clear relevance for climate policy and foresight research. However, several areas require clarification, tightening, and strengthening before the work can be considered for publication.

Reviewer #2:  1. In the introduction, lines 32–33 require a reference.

2. Since the study compares multiple IPCC reports, mentioning The Limits to Growth (1972) and Mankind at the Turning Point (1974) in lines 35–36 is unnecessary because they are not directly related to IPCC reports.

3. The authors should clearly explain in the introduction why comparing IPCC reports is important, why it is challenging, and why a structured RAG-based method is a logical choice.

4. The authors need to justify why the four analytical pillars—mitigation divergence, technology constraint, compound risk, and carbon removal feasibility—are theoretically sufficient to answer the three research questions.

5. The literature review, climate scenario and assessment framework, NLP-based analytical prompting, document and scenario prompt materials, Retrieval-Augmented Generation pipeline, contextual LLM prompting, multi-prompt design, technical enhancement, and comparative analytical approach sections should be clearly described in the methodology section.

6. The authors can use a methodological flowchart to illustrate the research process.

7. The authors should specify the type of literature review conducted, the review protocol, and the number of papers reviewed.

8. The “climate scenarios and assessment framework” can be included in the introduction, especially since the study compares IPCC reports.

9. Alternatively, the “climate scenarios and assessment framework” can be discussed in the discussion section to compare the study results with existing frameworks.

10. The authors should remember that IPCC scenarios are based on structured “what if” conditions and are not predictions but conditional future explorations.

11. The results are presented using four dimensions: P1: Inflection points in mitigation versus adaptation pathways; P2: Emerging technologies and scaling constraints; P3: Compound socio-economic risks and governance stress; P4: Feasibility of carbon dioxide removal and policy lock-in risks. However, the study should focus on the evolution of scenario knowledge representation, not just scenario content.

12. The results should be presented in an attractive and clear way. Tables or figures may be used to help readers understand the findings.

13. The evolution of P1, P2, P3, and P4 across reports should also be presented.

14. The manuscript structure can follow: Introduction (background/framework), Methodology, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, and an optional post-conclusion reflection on methodology and assessment use.

15. The study limitations should be discussed in the discussion section

16. The results should be connected to the discussion.

**********

-->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.]

--> -->-->Figure Resubmissions:

-->-->While revising your submission, we strongly recommend that you use PLOS’s NAAS tool (https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis) to test your figure files. NAAS can convert your figure files to the TIFF file type and meet basic requirements (such as print size, resolution), or provide you with a report on issues that do not meet our requirements and that NAAS cannot fix.-->-->

After uploading your figures to PLOS’s NAAS tool - https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis, NAAS will process the files provided and display the results in the "Uploaded Files" section of the page as the processing is complete. If the uploaded figures meet our requirements (or NAAS is able to fix the files to meet our requirements), the figure will be marked as "fixed" above. If NAAS is unable to fix the files, a red "failed" label will appear above. When NAAS has confirmed that the figure files meet our requirements, please download the file via the download option, and include these NAAS processed figure files when submitting your revised manuscript.-->

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Peer review comments (2).docx

AI-assisted longitudinal comparison of scenario knowledge representation in IPCC synthesis reports

PCLM-D-25-00494R1

Dear Prof BISSON,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'AI-assisted longitudinal comparison of scenario knowledge representation in IPCC synthesis reports' 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,

Jamie Males

Staff Editor

PLOS Climate

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

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):