The Semantics of Remorse for the Climate Crisis: Moral Self-Awareness and Its Educational Role

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have tried to evaluate the effective forms of education and change of attitude and its implementation in knowledge area for the construction of semantic image remorse acting as the guidelines for the changed educational attitude. The manuscript is good, however it lacks linkage of phrases for easy understanding of the readers. Authors need to look in to this. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The authors have tried to evaluate the effective forms of education and change of attitude and its implementation in knowledge area for the construction of semantic image remorse acting as the guidelines for the changed educational attitude. The manuscript is good, however it lacks linkage of phrases for easy understanding of the readers. I recommend for critically liking of the results with other authors work so that a valid inferences can be drawn.

For comments please see the PDF version. 

Author Response

We thank you for recognizing the importance of interdisciplinary research along with the application value. We adapted the text to the editorial requirements of the journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

I am writing to provide a peer review of the manuscript titled The Semantics of Remorse for the Climate Crisis: Moral Self-Awareness and Its Educational. While the topic of the article might be interesting for a readership with expertise and special interest in the overall theme, I believe significant revisions are necessary to improve its scientific rigor and readability.

The abstract does not comply with standards on writing scientific standards.

The article lacks a clear structure and logical flow. It would greatly benefit from a well-defined introduction that establishes the context and relevance of the research topic. The introduction lacks references and a clear rationale behind the study and the reference to the report is not very useful in the current form.

Additionally, it seems that the study employed a cross-sectional study design, but lacks sufficient detail regarding the methodology employed in the research. Key aspects, such as sample size calculation, data collection methods, and statistical analysis, should be clearly described to ensure the reproducibility of the study. Additionally, references to established research protocols or standards should be included to enhance the credibility of the methodology employed.

I recommend a thorough revision to ensure a more concise and formal scientific writing style. The author should strive for clarity, avoiding ambiguity.

The article would greatly benefit from improved data presentation and analysis, as the tables are not useful to understand e.g. what items have been used. The data should be clearly presented in tables or graphs, accompanied by appropriate captions and interpretations.

Overall, the article resembles in parts a book chapter with little scientific content. Also, I miss the clear connection of the research work to sustainability and also perceived a limited merit to a broader international readership. So, it might be a good idea to submit the manuscript to a more local journal addressing a readership that understands Polish.  

Dear editors,

 

Overall, the article resembles in parts a book chapter with little scientific content. Also, I miss the clear connection of the research work to sustainability and also perceived a limited merit to a broader international readership.

So, this manuscript is not ready for peer-review and should be rejected.

Author Response

We have taken note of the content of the review. It is difficult to argue with the comments made and to propose sensible changes.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript "The Semantics of Remorse for the Climate Crisis: Moral Self-Awareness and Its Educational Role" is very interesting and clearly explores a relevant topic in today's climate crisis.

I find the introduction a bit confusing and difficult to follow, although the authors' train-of-thought is perceptible and coherent with the objectives of the study. It is also too grounded in one report, lacking, imho, other important and easily available studies on topics as eco-anxiety that can further support the arguments in the introduction section.

In the Data and Methods section, I find it lacking the questions posed in each of the six subscales used in the study. It is fundamental to have these as a way to understand and replicate the study without having to understand Polish. It also gets confusing with so many acronyms in text.
I also would like to know how much time did the questionnaires took to respond on average. 
It also mentions table A1 in the attachments section which I cannot find.

In the Results and Discussion section, the authors refer to up-bringing effects but I can't find anywhere in the text a reference to how this was measured. Maybe it is somewhere within the sub-scales but since I cannot access these, it lacks information.
The authors also refer to emotions and feelings expressed within the sub-scales. It would be beneficial to have them clearly outlined either in the Introduction or Data and Methods. This would clearly improve the understanding of the results.

The afterthoughts section works really nice. It would be beneficial if the authors could develop it further as it is the practical punch-line of the study.

There are some issues throughout the text, mostly typos, although some minor phrasing and grammatical issues.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive and constructive comments, which allow us to develop the results obtained in further research.  The comments indicated in the review influenced the final form of the article.

Reviewer 4 Report

Summary - please expand, it is too short. 

 

Keywords-very please do not repeat keywords as in the title of the paper. Other keywords should be added, this will ensure the authors reach a larger audience

 

The first part of the introduction lacks literature references.

 

In the second part of the introduction: " Badanie postaw i opinii Polek i Polaków. Raport 2020 (2020) [Ecological attitudes. A study on on Poles’ attitudes and opinions. 2020 Report that the ecological crisis is first and foremost a crisis of imagination" Just the English equivalent of the report. 

Please correct citations throughout the text according to the journal's editorial requirements. 

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive comments, which allowed us to modify the final version of the article, especially in terms of bibliographic records and citations.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have submitted the revised version. Well manuscript is okay. There are bold data in Table. Please check it and keep font uniform.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The bold data in the Table were of a working nature, they were marked by the statistics to facilitate the interpretation of the results. This status has been removed. Thank you for paying attention.

Reviewer 2 Report

Unfortunately, the manuscript has not be improved according to my suggestions. Still, significant revisions are necessary to improve its scientific rigor and readability.

The abstract does not comply with standards on writing scientific standards.

The article would greatly benefit from a well-defined introduction that establishes the context and relevance of the research topic.

The introduction lacks references to support the statements and issues raised.

Additionally, it seems that the study employed a cross-sectional study design, but lacks sufficient detail regarding the methodology employed in the research. Key aspects, such as sample size calculation, data collection methods, and statistical analysis, should be clearly described to ensure the reproducibility of the study. Additionally, references to established research protocols or standards should be included to enhance the credibility of the methodology employed.

I recommend a thorough revision to ensure a more concise and formal scientific writing style. The author should strive for clarity, avoiding ambiguity.

A distinct results and discussion section and also a conclusion section without bullet points would help to structure the text and enhance readability.

Overall, I miss the clear connection of the research work to sustainability and also perceived a limited merit to a broader international readership.

 

Moderate editing of English language required, but extensive editing of writing style.

Author Response

Responses to the reviewer's suggestions (in order of comments): 1. The reviewer did not specify what he meant by "scientific abstract standards". The authors, in good faith, formulated the main thematic issues of the article and its research characteristics for the reader. 2. The allegation that there is a lack of well-defined introduction, which establishes the context and meaning of the research topic is difficult to remove in this case.This introduction of the interdisciplinary work sufficiently exhausts, in the opinion of the authors, the scope of the presented issues. It contains references to matters so general and obvious and important that they do not require literature support.
3. We do not understand the content of the reviewer's allegations regarding the methodological and statistical side of the research. The method of obtaining data for research, the research techniques used, the basics of statistical calculations - all this is in the text of the article, with the required literature references. In addition, the reliability of the psychological tool has been re-verified.
4. The suggestion of a thorough revision of the article in order to introduce a concise style of scientific writing and avoid ambiguity has the character of a guideline created as a result of subjective reading of a humanistic text (linguistics and psychology). We do not share the reviewer on this issue. We are afraid that the reviewer did not notice this part of the work, and it is crucial in justifying an interdisciplinary approach to changing people's attitudes towards climate crises and is anchored in the area of sustainable development problems..
5. The reviewer proposes to separate the "results and discussion" section and separately "conclusions". The conclusions are included in section 6: "From final reflections: educational use". This is the pragmatic essence of the conclusions, according to the idea of this article.
Referring generally to the comments given by the reviewer, we would like to thank you for the effort put into the proposal to give our article a shape that is close to the reviewer's scientific writing. However, we would like to note that scientific writing, including the way of defining the research problem and the presentation of research techniques, are closely related to the scientific discipline, while interdisciplinary works, while maintaining generally accepted rules, have the right to differ in the style of narration and take into account the author's right of view of the presented issues.