Review Reports - Development and Validation of Carbon Footprint Awareness Scale for Boosting Sustainable Circular Economy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your paper presents a highly intriguing study, particularly in terms of its research subject and methodology. The work shows great potential, but several significant aspects require attention to enhance the manuscript’s coherence, presentation, and overall impact. Below are eight key suggestions for revision:

Overall Article Structure

Issue: The overall structure of the paper feels somewhat disjointed, making it difficult for readers to follow the argument.

Recommendation: Reorganize sections or paragraphs to ensure clear logical connections and smooth transitions between ideas, thereby improving the manuscript’s readability and flow.

Image Quality and Captions

Issue: The current images lack sufficient resolution, and some are missing detailed captions, reducing their effectiveness in conveying information.

Recommendation: Convert all images to a vector format to ensure they maintain high resolution at any size. Additionally, add or improve captions to each image, clearly explaining what the image represents and its relevance to the study.

Table Formatting and Notes

Issue: Tables are inconsistently formatted, with variations in alignment, font size, and border styles. Some table notes are not detailed enough to fully explain the data or methods used.

Recommendation: Standardize the formatting of all tables, ensuring consistency in alignment, font, and borders. Enhance the table notes to provide clear explanations of the data and methods, particularly where complex statistical techniques are involved.

Statistical Analysis Appropriateness

Issue: The choice of statistical methods may not fully align with the data types or research objectives, and some methods are not adequately explained.

Recommendation: Review the statistical methods used to ensure they are appropriate for the data and research questions. Provide clear, detailed explanations of these methods in the text, and consider adding supplementary materials if necessary.

Citation Accuracy

Issue: There are inconsistencies and potential errors in citation formatting, which could undermine the paper’s academic rigor.

Recommendation: Carefully review all citations to ensure they are accurately formatted according to the journal’s guidelines and that all sources are correctly listed in the reference section.

Keywords Optimization

Issue: The keywords are too numerous, and some are too broad, which may dilute the paper’s focus and reduce its visibility in searches.

Recommendation: Reduce the number of keywords to 5-7, focusing on terms that specifically reflect the core themes of the research. This will improve the paper’s searchability and ensure it reaches the right audience.

Abstract Conciseness

Issue: The abstract is overly detailed and could be more concise, which might make it harder for readers to quickly grasp the main contributions of the paper.

Recommendation: Simplify the abstract by focusing on the most significant findings and their implications, making it more accessible and easier to understand at a glance.

Consistency of Writing Style

Issue: The writing style in some sections is inconsistent, affecting the overall coherence and professionalism of the manuscript.

Recommendation: Review the writing style throughout the paper to ensure consistency in tone and word choice, maintaining a uniform academic style.

While this paper is interesting in its research focus, it currently lacks the coherence and professionalism expected of a mature manuscript. Given the importance of the research, major revisions are recommended. Without these improvements, it would be advisable to reject the manuscript and suggest resubmission after substantial revisions.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

We would like to kindly thank you for your evaluation and for the constructive and copious suggestions which have helped us to improve the draft significantly. All your comments and suggestions have been taken into account in the revised paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aims to develop and validate the Carbon Footprint Awareness Scale, which assesses individuals' awareness of their environmental impact through greenhouse gas emissions. The following comments should be addressed to improve the manuscript:

Abstract: Include a brief background sentence.
Keywords: Limit the number of keywords to fewer than six.
Literature Review: Add a section to summarize existing studies related to the Individual Carbon Footprint Scale.
Lines 116-117: Provide source references and detailed names for the 25 items mentioned.
Method Section: Include a flowchart to clearly outline the research procedure.
Table 3: Add a standard header row.
Tables: Correct the duplicate naming of “Table 5” and present figures in a formal style rather than using “,000”.
Figs. 2-3: Provide necessary descriptions in the figure captions. For instance, what did the terms “e19” and “QN4” mean?
Methods and Results: The authors provided a mixed section for introducing the methods and results. It is required to break down them into two distinct sections.
Discussion and Conclusion: Move the discussion to a separate section and rewrite the conclusion to summarize the main findings, highlight limitations, and suggest future directions.
Formatting: The manuscript was poorly formatted, please revise it according to the journal guidelines.
References: The number of references is insufficient, and some of them were also outdated. They need to be updated.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Methodology issues:

"The researchers used previous research frameworks as a basis for the scale's development. A list of 25 items was developed to measure the five dimensions of carbon footprint awareness using a 5-point Likert scale (1: strongly disagree, 5: strongly agree)." (lines 92+)

The process for developing the scale is discussed (lines 114+), but the scales under consideration are not. Which scales were reviewed, and what did you glean from each one? I found various published papers on this topic with scales of their own, but none of them is in your reference list. Why was none of the previous scales suitable for your project?

"The study sample comprised of Gen Z individuals born after 1997 and over the age of 18. Two randomly selected samples of volunteer participants were analyzed. Additionally, it received approval from the Research Ethics Committee of Manisa Celal Bayar University (approval E--050.01.04-674506)." (lines 97+)

In all, three samplings were conducted, but there is no discussion of how the respondents were accessed (other than volunteering) nor how they were contacted or how their responses were judged to be valid for the study. Why were Gen-Z respondents targeted? There is no discussion of this group or its importance until line 97. Why were other groups not part of the samples? Were these just students at a local university (acceptable), or were they randomly contacted via social media or other outlets or ...? How many were in the first stage (?) vs. second stage (553) and third stage (612)? Were any of the respondents in one stage also respondents in another stage?

So much effort has gone into the discussion of the importance of this study and its scale, but insufficient effort went into justifying why and how the scale was conceived and why and how the respondent pools were chosen, accessed, etc. The foundation for the study lies in a fuller discussion of the literature surrounding the work of others in developing scales. About 50 lines are devoted in the introduction to the need for a scale, but no groundwork was laid in examining the previous work of other scientists in looking at individual awareness of their own footprint. This is not the first paper to examine the subject, and this paper would be greatly improved by a fuller discussion of past work laying the foundation for this study.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your revised submission and for addressing some of the previous comments. However, upon review, there are still a few critical areas that need further attention:

Figures: Despite your indication that the resolution of the images has been enhanced, Figures 1, 3, and 4 are still unclear and pixelated. These need to be converted to vector format to ensure clarity at all sizes.
Tables: The tables do not follow the standard three-line table format, which is expected in academic publications. Please reformat them and ensure consistency in alignment, font, and borders. Additionally, explain any abbreviations or statistical terms in footnotes.
Citations: Some citation issues remain:
- Reference 3 appears incorrectly formatted.
- Reference 25 includes a DOI that may not be necessary. Please review all references to ensure they follow the journal’s guidelines.
Keywords: While reduced in number, the keywords remain too broad. Consider further refinement to better reflect the core themes of your research.
Writing Style: The style has improved, but further edits are needed to ensure consistency in tone and clarity throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the authors have imprvoved the manuscript according to the comments. however, there are still some further comments need to be considered.

1. The format of tables and figures were still poor.

2. section 4.2 needs to be renumbered as "5. Conclusions".

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I continue to disagree with the authors that there are no other studies or scales regarding the concept of an "individual carbon footprint". The authors responded to my concerns about their lack of acknowledgment of this prior research and current measurement by stating: " it is seen that there is no specific scale used to calculate individual carbon footprint." In fact, there is one online at: https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-calculator/. It may not be what the authors are looking for, but there have been other instruments developed or under development, and other studies have examined this concept. I appreciate that the authors included in this version the items that were used in the instrument. Several of the items in the scale also appear in the instrument in the above link, noted in:

Rusinko, C. A. (2024). An introduction to climate change in management education: An individual-level approach. Organization Management Journal, 21(1), 5-11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/OMJ-03-2023-1785

In this article, the author states : "What about measuring our individual carbon footprint (or how much carbon we create) in our everyday lives? (Carbon footprint calculators are easy to find online. ..." In a quick Google search, I found calculators at the following URLs:

https://carbon-calculator.climatehero.org/

https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/carbon-footprint-calculator/

https://www.footprintcalculator.org/home/en

https://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/

https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx

Other work includes:

Mawardi, M.I., Winanti, W.S., Sudinda, T.W., Amru, K., Saraswati, A.A., Sachoemar, S. I., Arifin, Z., Alimin, A. (2023), Analysis of net-zero emission index for several areas in Indonesia using individual carbon footprint and land use covered. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1201(1), 12058.

Enlund, J., Andersson, D., & Carlsson, F. (2023). Individual carbon footprint reduction: Evidence from pro-environmental users of a carbon calculator. Environmental and Resource Economics, 86(3), 433-467. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-023-00800-7

And a discussion of two scales developed pre-2016 in:

Urban, J. (2016). Are we measuring concern about global climate change correctly? testing a novel measurement approach with the data from 28 countries. Climatic Change, 139(3-4), 397-411. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1812-0

This is an important point of contention with me. I acknowledge that the authors have crafted an interesting and potentially useful study. However, their failure to acknowledge past research and current common knowledge about this central point is a critical flaw in the paper. I did not stress this as strongly in my last review, because I believed that the authors would be willing to go into more depth about the underlying research which has preceded theirs. Their continued insistence that they are the first is wrong, demonstrably so to the point that such scales and concepts are already adopted widely on the Internet. If they were the first to approach a useable scale, no one could find one. But scales measuring the "individual carbon footprint" show up in academic studies, in pedagogical instruction papers, and in governmental and organizational websites.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf