Climate change belief systems across political groups in the United States

Sanguk Lee; Matthew H. Goldberg; Seth A. Rosenthal; Edward W. Maibach; John E. Kotcher; Anthony Leiserowitz

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0300048

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 9, 2023
8 Oct 2023 Decision Letter - Enkeleint A. Mechili, Editor PONE-D-23-28322Climate Change Belief Systems across Political Groups in the United StatesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lee, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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 Nov 22 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 plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic 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'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Enkeleint A. Mechili Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. ""Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 5. We notice that your supplementary figures are uploaded with the file type 'Figure'. Please amend the file type to 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list. 6. 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. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 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? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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 ONE 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: Title: Climate Change Belief Systems across Political Groups in the United States Abstract: Key study aim, methods and result of the study well presented. Introduction: Detailed information on statement of problem, rational for the study clearly presented and study objective well presented. Methods: Well described. • Please clarify the difference between the 207 respondents who did not indicate political affiliation and the 1,843 categorized as having no party affiliation. Result: Well written in details with relevant figures Discussion: The study findings are well discussed, with study limitations provided. Conclusion: Clearly written with appropriate recommendation. Reviewer #2: 1. The manuscript lacks technicalities, but the data reflects the Conclusion. 2. Information on the statistical analysis, including the statistical tool used is sketchy; and needs to be elaborated. For instance, there should be a subheading for Data Analysis. There is need to mention the version of the statistical tool used, including manufacturer, city and country manufactured. 3. Nil concerns. 4. The study rationale is not properly captured in the 'Introduction'. The identified knowledge gap(s) should be adequately rationalised to maintain a logical flow in the ‘Introduction’. ****** 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. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Tanimola Makanjuola Akande 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-28322_reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300048.r001
Revision 1
4 Jan 2024 Author Response Authors’ Response to Reviewer #1 We appreciate the reviewer's positive feedback throughout the manuscript. One concern the reviewer highlighted pertains to the distinction between the 207 respondents who did not indicate a political affiliation and the 1,843 categorized as having no party affiliation. We are grateful to the reviewer for pointing out this ambiguity. These groups differ in that the former chose not to disclose their political affiliation by not answering the question, while the latter explicitly stated they were not affiliated with any political party. We have clarified this distinction in the "Survey Design and Samples" section of the manuscript (see revised lines 301 and 304 on page 7). We believe these changes will help readers understand the distinction between the two groups more clearly. Authors’ Response to Reviewer #2 We appreciate the reviewer's constructive feedback throughout the paper. Please find our itemized responses below. Our responses are italicized. 1. The manuscript lacks technicalities, but the data reflects the Conclusion. [Authors’ Response] We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback. To bolster the technical depth of the paper, we have taken into account the suggestions provided in the reviewer’s second comment. Our actions to enhance the manuscript's technicalities are detailed in our response to the second comment provided by the reviewer. 2. Information on the statistical analysis, including the statistical tool used is sketchy; and needs to be elaborated. For instance, there should be a subheading for Data Analysis. There is need to mention the version of the statistical tool used, including manufacturer, city and country manufactured. [Authors’ Response] We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive comments that enhance the quality of the paper. We concur with the reviewer's observation that the original manuscript lacked detail in explaining the analysis and the statistical tool used. As the reviewer suggested, we have added a new section titled “Data Analysis” to provide details about the version of our statistical tool (R 4.3.1) and our data analysis approach (see revised lines 451 to 464 on page 14). Furthermore, we have now included a reference for our statistical tool (R Core Team, 2022), ensuring readers are informed about the manufacturer, city, and country of manufacture. Reference R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2022. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/ 3. The study rationale is not properly captured in the 'Introduction'. The identified knowledge gap(s) should be adequately rationalised to maintain a logical flow in the ‘Introduction’. [Authors’ Response] We are grateful for the reviewer's feedback, which has helped us to refine the rationale of our study. In response to the suggestion that the identified knowledge gaps require clearer justification, we have increased the detail of our literature review (see revised lines 39 to 42 on page 3). This includes the addition of a study (Verschoor et al., 2020) that applies the belief system framework to the context of climate change, which we have now referenced to bolster the rationale for our research. Moreover, we have added the third paragraph of introduction to better articulate the focus of our study and the significance of our investigation (see revised lines 43 to 66 on page 3 and 4). Reference Verschoor M, Albers C, Poortinga W, Böhm G, Steg L. Exploring relationships between climate change beliefs and energy preferences: A network analysis of the European Social Survey. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2020 Aug;70:101435. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer 2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300048.r002
22 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Enkeleint A. Mechili, Editor Climate Change Belief Systems across Political Groups in the United States PONE-D-23-28322R1 Dear Dr. Lee, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. 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 onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Enkeleint A. Mechili Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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 #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE 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 #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 6. 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 #3: The manuscript is good but you have to focus on the interpretation of the data also mention the data collection methods in brief i.e, why you selected the specific numbers respondent? Reviewer #4: Dear Authors, Your manuscript comprehensively analyzes climate change belief systems, effectively utilizing bootstrap methods, regression analysis, and the novel application of Graph Diffusion Distance (GDD) to measure belief system homogeneity. The findings on the centrality of worry in these systems and its potential role in climate communication are particularly insightful. However, I recommend further elaboration on your methodological choices, such as the rationale behind the number of bootstrap samples and a more detailed explanation of GDD for clarity. Additionally, balancing the emphasis on worry with considerations of potential maladaptive behaviors due to excessive concern would strengthen your discussion. Your exploration of belief system dynamics across political affiliations offers valuable insights, but future research could benefit from a longitudinal or experimental approach to better establish causal relationships. Overall, your study contributes significantly to understanding the interplay between psychological factors and climate change beliefs, and its implications for climate change communication are particularly noteworthy. I appreciate your work, and I recommend your work to be accepted to published and inform our global readers and scholars. Thank you, A Reviewer ****** 7. 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. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr. Najaf Ali Shigri Reviewer #4: Yes: Muhammad Hassan Bin Afzal ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300048.r003
Formally Accepted
27 Feb 2024 Acceptance Letter - Enkeleint A. Mechili, Editor PONE-D-23-28322R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lee, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Prof. Assoc. Dr. Enkeleint A. Mechili Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300048.r004

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 .