Exploring the Nexus between Transparency and Citizens’ Intention to Participate in Climate Change Policy-Making

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have conducted a fascinating research. Below are some comments for your consideration:

·         First, it is crucial to note that the fundamental assumption of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) hinges on the normality of the data. However, this aspect is not addressed in the manuscript. We kindly request the authors to provide evidence supporting the normality of the data.

·         In Section 2, it is essential for the author to introduce and present the characteristics of the survey respondents.

·         Section 5 requires significant revisions. The authors should explicitly illustrate how the research findings can be applied within the context of Korea (Practical contributions). Consider discussing the distinctions between these findings and those from other countries or different time periods. Additionally, explain how policymakers can utilize the insights from this study to enhance their performance.

·         It would be beneficial to include an appendix containing the questionnaire used in the survey.

·         To facilitate the reviewer's assessment of the data analysis accuracy, it is recommended that the data be presented in an Excel file with clear coding.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No

Author Response

I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the reviewer's encouragement and thoughtful review. I have incorporated most of the reviewer's comments into the revised manuscript. While I have integrated a substantial portion of the reviewer's input into the revised manuscript, there remain some comments that I couldn't accommodate. I kindly seek your understanding regarding these unaddressed points.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is generally well written, thorough and deals with an important topic. One of the strengths of this study is 500 participants. The discussion section is good and can be improved. However, the following needs to be addressed before publication.

1.      The authors have done a good job of presenting SEM results. Is there a reason for not presenting raw data in some form (like averages for select questions/categories?). For example, it would be very valuable to see what’s the average participant’s response to transparency questions. This would help gauge the existing level of transparency. Same for other category questions. If possible, please summarize participants response (Likert scale) to each category questions in a table or using a figure.

2.      Section 3.2 measure instrument --- some of the instrument questions are mentioned in this section.  Please include instrument  in appendix or provide reference to the original questionnaire.

3.       Figure 1 quality needs to be improved.

4.      Some of the limitations are mentioned in section 6 – conclusions and Suggestion. Please move limitations from the conclusions section into a separate section under discussion (or stand alone section). This way it would be easier to access for readers. Add additional limitations.

 

5.      Section 5 – Discussion and Implication – the authors discuss insights for public engagement.

The discussion focuses on the importance of dissemination of clear and understandable information about climate policies. For example,

L412- 413: “This can be achieved through targeted awareness campaigns, civic education, and  initiatives that empower citizens to actively participate in climate policy discussions.”

One of the limiting factors for effective community engagement is a gap between community members’ perception and published data. This gap needs to be addressed for effective community engagement and informed citizens participation. Please review the following publication (and similar literature) and address how to overcome this challenging topic in your public engagement recommendation. Its important to assess the effectiveness of material shared and make changes as per the feedback (which is part of engagement where periodic feedback will be received). Please add community feedback mechanism to your "Transparency-Engagement Nexus Model". 

Nagisetty, R.M., Macgregor, W. B., Hutchins, D., Autenrieth, D. A., Plant, M. A. Effects of Residential Environmental Screening and Perception Surveys on Superfund Environmental Health Risk Perceptions.  International Journal of Environmental research and Public Health. 2022 Jul 2;19(13):8146.

 

Author Response

The reviewer's comments have been very helpful in improving the quality of my paper. I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the reviewer's comments. I have incorporated a significant portion of the reviewer's feedback into the revised manuscript, but there are some comments that I was unable to address. I would like to request your understanding regarding these unaddressed items.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We appreciate your submission of the article titled "Exploring the Nexus between Transparency and Citizens’ Intention to Participate in Climate Change Policy-Making." The research focus of this study is intriguing. Nevertheless, there are several aspects to address in order to enhance the quality of the manuscript.

[1]. Please include more details about the adopted method in the abstract section.

[2]. The introduction section has chunks of text without any single reference. Notably, there are instances in lines 43-47 and lines 54-57 where references are conspicuously absent. It is imperative to address this issue and provide appropriate support for these statements.

[3]. In lines 32-34, the authors referred to seven different authors to justify their stated idea [3-9]. It is recommended that only the relevant references be cited.

[4]. The literature review could be enhanced by incorporating more current and pertinent references.

[5].  From line 139 to line 142, the authors indicated, "Expectancy refers to an individual's belief about the likelihood of achieving a desired outcome. In the context of climate change policy-making, citizens' expectations can be related to their beliefs about the effectiveness of their participation in influencing policy decisions". Please include supporting in-text citations.

[6]. The results section requires further refinement.

[7]. The discussion should ideally integrate the findings within the context of existing research. Strikingly, this study's discussion section omits any contribution from the authors. As a result, the study presents results without meaningful analysis or interpretation.

[8].  To improve the discussion section, it is advised to incorporate recent and relevant research insights. Emphasize the theoretical implications of your findings in a broader context, establishing connections with other scientific contributions

Minor issues:

[9].  Kindly ensure that Table 1 is properly formatted and included

[10]. I kindly request authors to refrain from utilizing captures for figures. To enhance clarity and maintain the integrity of the presentation, we encourage authors to include reproductions of both Figure 1 and Figure 2 in their manuscript.

[11]. In the references section, I invite the authors to use the correct reference to the in-text citation [1-2].

All the best,

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript contains numerous grammatical errors, indicating the need for English editing.

Author Response

I am grateful for the reviewer's comments, as they have made a tremendous contribution to improving the quality and readability of my paper. I have revised the manuscript to incorporate all of the comments. Thank you once again for the thoughtful review and meaningful suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

author addressed my comments. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have incorporated my feedback and recommendations, resulting in a comprehensive response that greatly improves the paper. I am now content with accepting the article in its current state.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.