PONE-D-23-38813Nuclear Energy Acceptance in Poland: From Societal Attitudes to Effective Policy Strategies - Network Modeling ApproachPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Winiarski,

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 May 06 2024 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,

Mohammad Alrwashdeh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

3. Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

4. You indicated that ethical approval was not necessary for your study. We understand that the framework for ethical oversight requirements for studies of this type may differ depending on the setting and we would appreciate some further clarification regarding your research. Could you please provide further details on why your study is exempt from the need for approval and confirmation from your institutional review board or research ethics committee (e.g., in the form of a letter or email correspondence) that ethics review was not necessary for this study? Please include a copy of the correspondence as an ""Other"" file.

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

This research was funded by the University of Gdansk, Faculty of Economics. Internal financing

  

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

7. We are unable to open your Supporting Information file figure1.svg. Please kindly revise as necessary and re-upload.

8. 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. 

[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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: I find the study interesting and would like to recommend few minor changes in the manuscript to make it easier for the community to follow.

1. I would recommend that, for a better understanding, include a simple example of causal attitude networks. That would make it easier for the readers to follow.

2. Page 17, rather than the term "creation" for Nuclear power plant, My suggestion is to use "construction".

Reviewer #2: This paper investigates public attitudes and acceptance of nuclear energy in Poland using a novel network modeling approach. The authors surveyed 338 Polish participants to understand the complex relationships between political ideology, environmental attitudes, risk perceptions, safety concerns, and economic factors in shaping acceptance of nuclear energy compared to renewable energy. The key findings are:

• Political ideology is the most central factor influencing acceptance of nuclear energy. Liberals align more with climate change urgency and support for renewables, while conservatives generally support investment in nuclear energy.

• Environmental attitudes, risk perceptions, safety concerns, and economic variables also play substantial roles in nuclear energy acceptance, but in complex and sometimes contradictory ways.

• Beliefs about renewable energy are more aligned and correlated compared to beliefs about nuclear energy, which are more fragmented.

• Strategies to increase nuclear acceptance, like risk-risk tradeoff and technology-focused approaches, may have limitations. The authors advocate for a framing strategy that tailors messages to distinct societal values.

Overall the paper is appropriate for publication in PLOS ONE. It covers an important, policy-relevant topic for decarbonizing the power sector in a country dominated by emissions-intensive coal-based generation. The overall methodology is clear and appropriate. Evaluation based on PLOS ONE criteria:

• The study presents the results of primary scientific research. It uses original survey data and a novel network analysis methodology.

• To my knowledge, the specific results reported have not been published elsewhere. The authors build upon and reference related prior research.

• The survey methodology and network analysis are robust. Sufficient details are provided on the sample, survey questions, and analytical approach.

• The conclusions are presented appropriately and supported by the data and analysis. The authors discuss the findings in the context of energy policy implications.

• The article is well-written in standard English and presented in an accessible form, with clear structure and explanations of concepts and methods.

• The research appears to meet applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity. The authors provide an ethics statement on the survey methodology. However, I have a comment to be addressed (provided later in the review).

• The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and standards for data availability.

• The authors state the survey data and R code are accessible via a provided link. However, permissions are required to access the data.

In overall consideration of the work, I do find this paper interesting, and potentially worthy of publication. This said, some significant revisions are requested. These revisions are as follows:

• I am a bit concerned to see that institutional ethical review was not conducted for the survey questions and approach. I would like the authors to elaborate the university standard policies on this.

• Figure and Table captions – I cannot find figure and table captions in the review material. These must be provided.

• Table 1 – the information content is confusing. Specifically the information presented on “proportion supporting” need to be elaborated in the text or in explanatory material associated with the table.

• Figures 2 and 3 – I appreciate the author’s effort to show 3 dimensions of information in 2D figures. However, the information took me a while to understand, particularly with figure captions available. The most important issues to address is for the “+” and “-“ symbols. Although size is meant to represent response rate, I need to also see the specific response rate numbers. This should at least be available in supplementary material.

• Statistical analyses – perhaps the most important issue to address, and the cause for requested major revision, is statistical analysis/confirmation of differences between survey response rates. Figures 2 and 3 provide a number of response rates but without any information regarding true statistical differences. Appropriate statistical tests are needed in supplementary material for all cases when comparisons are being made concerning response rates. As an example, the statement on page 22 “most Liberals do see nuclear energy as efficient enough to supply most of a nation’s energy [3.1] and believe that nuclear energy will decrease energy prices if introduced [3.3].” cannot be verified given the information provided currently. Similarly, on page 30 I see the statement “Similarly, most Liberal respondents do not support continued investment into nuclear energy. However, they see nuclear energy as efficient and believe it will decrease energy prices.” However, in Figure 3 I question whether “most Liberal respondents do not support continued investment into nuclear energy” is a valid statement statistically. I need to see the data.

Reviewer #3: The authors used a novel network approach to investigate Polish participants on their social attitudes towards various energy sources. The results suggest that political ideology is a central factor influencing energy attitudes, and that factors such as environmental attitudes, risk perceptions, security concerns, and economic variables are also important and have some promising applications.

(1) Paragraph 30 of the conclusion mentions that ’Conservatives, on the other hand, generally support continued investment into nuclear energy.’ The conclusions are overstated. Please explain the meaning of ‘Conservatives’.

(2) In section 2.4 , ’ found that many anti-nuclear protesters worldwide primarily highlight issues related to waste management and environmental pollution’ and ’the emphasis on risk and safety might not be as influential in determining public acceptance as previously believed.’ Why the emphasis is ‘not’ be influential?

(3) Please explain the meaning of ‘the lens of investment attitude and perceived advantageous trade-off.’

(4) Please consider to add some reference about the design of new generation nuclear reactor. Such as:

[1] Zou, J. , Liu, S. , Jin, C. , Chen, Y. , Cai, Y. , & Wang, L. . (2023). Optimization method of burnable poison based on genetic algorithm and artificial neural network. Annals of nuclear energy(Nov.), 192.

[2] Wu, Y. , Liu, S. , Li, M. , Xiao, P. , & Chen, Y. . (2020). Monte carlo simulation of dispersed coated particles in accident tolerant fuel for innovative nuclear reactors. International Journal of Energy Research.

[3] Wang, J., Liu, S., Li, M., **ao, P., Wang, Z., Wang, L., ... & Chen, Y. (2021). Multiobjective genetic algorithm strategies for burnable poison design of pressurized water reactor. International Journal of Energy Research, 45(8), 11930-11942.

Reviewer #4: Would you find here below my comments:

page 3: "typical lifespan of a nuclear power plant, which could exceed 80 years." is more appropriate since no plant have yet obtained a license to operate more than 80 years (even if this is considered).

page 4: "we consider factors like political ideology, safety concerns" as well as "environmental and economic variables."

page 8:"Recent surveys conducted by CBOS" indicate what CBOS is when first used in the text.

page 19: "with respect to both" and "nuclear and renewable energy" (and to be deleted)

page 19 and Figure 1: Figure caption not provided on the PLOS ONE page. Is it included in the article. Figure caption and brief description of the figure, in the text, is needed.

page 20: "Political ideology was found to be the most central determinant in predicting respondent stances on acceptance of energy sources and many other beliefs." is the main conclusion of paper. However, according to the data provided, 144 respondents defined themselves as conservative, out of 338 respondents. This corresponds to 42.6 % of the respondents. This value should be mentioned in the paper and commented. Is this proportion in agreement with the proportion of conservatives in Poland at the time of the survey? In other terms is the sample representative? Potentially, the perception of being conservative or liberal may not be related to politics (and political leaders) but to a personal definition of the respondents. What would be the impact on the conclusions of the paper?

page 21: Would you find here below my comments:

page 3: "typical lifespan of a nuclear power plant, which could exceed 80 years." is more appropriate since no plant have yet obtained a license to operate more than 80 years (even if this is considered).

page 4: "we consider factors like political ideology, safety concerns" as well as "environmental and economic variables."

page 8:"Recent surveys conducted by CBOS" indicate what CBOS is when first used in the text.

page 19: "with respect to both" and "nuclear and renewable energy" (and to be deleted)

page 19 and Figure 1: Figure caption not provided on the PLOS ONE page. Is it included in the article. Figure caption and brief description of the figure, in the text, is needed.

page 20: "Political ideology was found to be the most central determinant in predicting respondent stances on acceptance of energy sources and many other beliefs." is the main conclusion of paper. However, according to the data provided, 144 respondents defined themselves as conservative, out of 338 respondents. This corresponds to 42.6 % of the respondents. This value should be mentioned in the paper and commented. Is this proportion in agreement with the proportion of conservatives in Poland at the time of the survey? In other terms is the sample representative? Potentially, the perception of being conservative or liberal may not be related to politics (and political leaders) but to a personal definition of the respondents. What would be the impact on the conclusions of the paper?

page 21: The analysis in section 7.2 contains a number of redundancies. Indeed, the paragraphs "conservatives" and "liberals" include comparisons which are also addressed in the paragraph "political comparison". This section should be revised to suppress these redundancies.

page 24: "These two" latter "pathways likely explain why political ideology is such a strong indicator of nuclear acceptance views." (add latter)

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:

Reviewer #4: 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.

Nuclear Energy Acceptance in Poland: From Societal Attitudes to Effective Policy Strategies - Network Modeling Approach

PONE-D-23-38813R1

Dear Dr. Winiarski,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Mohammad Alrwashdeh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Accepted.

Reviewers' comments: