You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Eileen G. Merritt1,*,
  • Jennifer J. Brousseau1 and
  • Marc J. Stern1
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Khadim Hussain Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

 

Please consider my comments below, which are formulated constructively to improve the quality of this manuscript.

 

The manuscript ‘Walking the walk toward increasing access and reducing emissions: the promise and challenges of virtual climate adaptation convenings’ fits the aims and scope of the journal Sustainability and would interest the scientific community and beyond. The manuscript comprises many references to sustain the range of arguments. However, a few minor corrections are required.

 

Please refer to the line numbers in the pdf of the manuscript when reading my comments below:

 

Lines 17-20: Where is the place of the study? Please indicate it in the abstract.

 

Line 21: ‘Overall’ – please indicate the percentage of attendees.

 

Line 22: ‘Many respondents’ – please indicate the percentage.

 

Lines 24 – 25: ‘some attendees’ – please indicate the percentage.

 

Line 33: Add coronavirus or covid-19 for clarity.

 

Line 70: Define CoPs between brackets.

 

Line 145: ‘speed dating’ is out of context here, although I know what you mean. Perhaps ‘speed meetup’?

 

Line 187: There should be an indication for an appendix with copies of the survey questions.

 

Lines 228 – 229: What software did you use? Please indicate it along with references to the statistical data analysis.

 

Line 242. T-tests and Chohen’s d values – please indicate the software used and add references to the statistical data analysis.

 

Line 325: 6%

 

Line 347: Figure 1 is cropped.

 

Lines 401 – 406: Keep the sentence in the previous paragraph for consistency.

 

Line 401: Define BIPOC.

 

Lines 866 - 897: Why are the questions different for all four conferences?

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Reviewer 1

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thanks for your helpful suggestions, which have helped improve this article. We have made all of the small edits that you recommended. A few clarifications are listed below:

You suggested:

Line 22: ‘Many respondents’ – please indicate the percentage, and Lines 24 – 25: ‘some attendees’ – please indicate the percentage.

These two statements summarized a set of qualitative comments from across convenings. Since each conference had slightly different questions, percentages were not calculated for qualitative comments.

Also, Lines 866 - 897: Why are the questions different for all four conferences?

In the methods section, we explained why the questions were slightly different:

While we would have preferred to keep these open-ended questions consistent across all convenings, conference organizers sometimes requested context-specific questions related to their goals. These questions, however, mostly solicited similar data (see Appendix A).

We appreciate your time spent helping improve our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Eileen Merritt

Reviewer 2 Report

Please revise the paper by addressing the following issues:

1.      Abstract: The abstract should give the whole picture of your research in terms of the introduction (This is the first part of the abstract, and should be brief and attractive to the reader at the same time), significance (This usually answers the question: Why did you do this research?), methodology (This usually answers the questions: What did you do? How did you do it?), results (This answers the question: What did you find out after doing the research? Or what are the advantages of your method based on the results?) and conclusion (This usually answers the question: What do your findings mean? What have you contributed?).

2.      Introduction: The contributions of the study should be precisely highlighted. Highlight the problem statement in the introduction section and clearly relate to the research questions.

3.      The research gap should be more precisely described at the end of the introduction/literature review section.

4.      Is there any theoretical underpinning of the methodology used?

5.      The conclusion is pretty generic and fails to provide any improvement in the existing knowledge base. The conclusion is intended to help the reader understand why your research should matter to them after they have finished reading the paper. A conclusion is not merely a summary of your points or a re-statement of your research problem but a synthesis of key points. It offers new insight and creative approaches for framing/contextualizing the research problem based on the results of your study.

6.      Please include practical implications of your study findings in the conclusion.

7.      References require some revisions for uniformity in pattern according to the style recommended by the Journal.

8.      Please proof read the manuscript before submitting the revision. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thanks for your helpful suggestions. Below, we address each revision that you requested:

  1. Abstract: The abstract should give the whole picture of your research in terms of the introduction (This is the first part of the abstract, and should be brief and attractive to the reader at the same time), significance (This usually answers the question: Why did you do this research?), methodology (This usually answers the questions: What did you do? How did you do it?), results (This answers the question: What did you find out after doing the research? Or what are the advantages of your method based on the results?) and conclusion (This usually answers the question: What do your findings mean? What have you contributed?).

We made some revisions to the abstract to make it clearer.

  1. Introduction: The contributions of the study should be precisely highlighted. Highlight the problem statement in the introduction section and clearly relate to the research questions.
  2. The research gap should be more precisely described at the end of the introduction/literature review section.

In response to questions 2 and 3, we added a few sentences that address the research gap and contributions of the study on page 4:

 

This mixed-methods study extends prior work by reporting participant demographics across 4 virtual convenings, (who attended) and evaluating a broader set of outcomes than those typically reported in conference evaluations. By having attendees reflect back to compare with prior experiences, as well as think ahead to future experiences, we can provide useful suggestions to improve future convenings.

 

and also tried to further clarify lessons learned in the conclusion.

 

  1. Is there any theoretical underpinning of the methodology used?

Our theoretical framework is described on page 2. In response to your question, we have elaborated this section a bit more. We also return to the theory in the discussion, on pages 18 and 19.

  1. The conclusion is pretty generic and fails to provide any improvement in the existing knowledge base. The conclusion is intended to help the reader understand why your research should matter to them after they have finished reading the paper. A conclusion is not merely a summary of your points or a re-statement of your research problem but a synthesis of key points. It offers new insight and creative approaches for framing/contextualizing the research problem based on the results of your study.

We have revised the conclusion to address this concern.

  1. Please include practical implications of your study findings in the conclusion.

We have added to the conclusion to include more practical implications. More details about these implications can be found in other sections of the discussion as well.

  1. References require some revisions for uniformity in pattern according to the style recommended by the Journal.

We have edited references to match the Chicago style guidelines.

  1. Please proof read the manuscript before submitting the revision. 

We have proof read the manuscript. We hope to have one more chance to proofread again before publication, after all of the tables and figures have been formatted.

Sincerely,

Eileen Merritt

Reviewer 3 Report

Line 70: Authors should use the full form the first time afterward they can use the short form.

Line 177-178: explain briefly the context-specific questions.

Line 187-188: Why authors asked only these four question 

How authors confirmed that the respondents are not participated in more than one convening considered. Why not the age of respondents was asked as it is also a very important variable to make decisions because some of them have less than 2 years of working in the field. And these respondents' age could describe them more clearly. 

Line 242-244: are these values defined by the authors themselves or are they justified form literature, if from literature then give the reference. 

Table 2 what does mean of “Range between conferences”  

Table 3: many statements were asked that were presented in the table under different constructs. The author should explain how many statements were asked in total. Either these statements were defined already in respective dimensions such as social networking etc. or these resulted in principal component analysis. If these statements are grouped by PCA, then how much time the PCA was run to take out the exact statement that presents the specific dimension such as social networking, etc? \

Line 300-301: why most of the questions were not included in one convening. 

Lien 302: what does mean of distinct outcomes (satisfaction and enjoyment)

In Tables 4 and 5: is there any difference between the terms used in both tables for example social networking and social networking, and learning and action-oriented?

Table 5: the total sample for both “network opportunity” and learning is different; why? In many places, the author mentioned that the question was not asked from all respondents; why? For clearance, the author should formulate a table in the method section regarding the sample and respondents for different variables. and also they should describe why they do that.

Line 323: why now 430?

Line 333: verb may be changed because it explains the future outcomes, not the past. 

Although the current study explored many aspects of virtual and in-person convenings, the author should explain the research gap clearly what they have done that was not previously explored, the benefits and challenges, etc. are commonly known factors for everyone. Based on the participants’ answers they look very similar available in the literature. 

As the authors explained they had a meeting with the conference organizers, therefore, they should explain what the organizers admired. And what they noticed the flaws explained in the study, and how they are going the future events.  

The author considered the convenings on climate adaption in the study, but I have not found extensively about the impacts of the convenings on the knowledge of participants of virtual and in-person climate change adaptation, if they could focus on it, then it will assist the organizers to decide on conducting the convenings virtual or in-person. Because, the study explained both groups of participants are available around the globe, then which one is better for the future?

Based on the title of the study, what about reducing emissions, did the authors assess it in the study as the whole document of the article explained the in-person and virtual convenings?     

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thanks for your helpful suggestions, which have helped improve this paper. We have incorporated all of the small edits that you suggested. Below, we provide information about a few of the broader recommendations:

  1. Line 187-188: Why authors asked only these four questions 
  2. How authors confirmed that the respondents are not participated in more than one convening considered. Why not the age of respondents was asked as it is also a very important variable to make decisions because some of them have less than 2 years of working in the field. And these respondents' age could describe them more clearly. 

Thanks for pointing out these limitations, which are now mentioned in our limitation section.

  1. Table 2 what does mean of “Range between conferences”  

We have now indicated what this means in the footnote underneath the table.

  1. Table 3: many statements were asked that were presented in the table under different constructs. The author should explain how many statements were asked in total. Either these statements were defined already in respective dimensions such as social networking etc. or these resulted in principal component analysis. If these statements are grouped by PCA, then how much time the PCA was run to take out the exact statement that presents the specific dimension such as social networking, etc?

We added this statement to the procedures section:

Likert scale survey items included 4 questions about attendees’ backgrounds, 13 questions that assessed outcomes, 3 questions comparing virtual and in-person formats for those who had attended both, and 1 question about format preferences for future convenings.

and this sentence  to the results section on outcomes, to further clarify:

Thirteen questions about outcomes were selected. Of those, ten were included in a principal component analysis (PCA) to explore factor structure.

  1. Line 300-301: why most of the questions were not included in one convening. 

I have added a line to clarify this underneath Table 3. It now reads:

1A pooled mean was not computed for one of the convenings where the post-conference survey did not include most of the social networking questions as their convening did not include many opportunities for social interactions.

  1. Line 302: what does mean of distinct outcomes (satisfaction and enjoyment)

By distinct outcomes, we mean that these questions are comprised of a single question by design. This decision was supported by computing Cronbach’s alpha, which is low if these 3 questions are combined together.

  1. In Tables 4 and 5: is there any difference between the terms used in both tables for example social networking and social networking, and learning and action-oriented?

The terms in Table 5 are broader, and were used to help participants compare both formats.

  1. Table 5: the total sample for both “network opportunity” and learning is different; why? In many places, the author mentioned that the question was not asked from all respondents; why? For clearance, the author should formulate a table in the method section regarding the sample and respondents for different variables. and also they should describe why they do that.

I have modified the note underneath Table 5 to clarify this. I have also added a new table as you suggested (Table 2).  

  1. Line 323: why now 430?

We have added a sentence at the beginning of that sentence which clarifies that only 3 of the convenings asked that question.

  1. Line 333: verb may be changed because it explains the future outcomes, not the past. 

Can you please further clarify which verb you are referring to?

  1. Although the current study explored many aspects of virtual and in-person convenings, the author should explain the research gap clearly what they have done that was not previously explored, the benefits and challenges, etc. are commonly known factors for everyone. Based on the participants’ answers they look very similar available in the literature. 

We have added a section about the unique contributions of this study on page 2, and also revised the conclusion to clarify this further.

  1. As the authors explained they had a meeting with the conference organizers, therefore, they should explain what the organizers admired. And what they noticed the flaws explained in the study, and how they are going the future events.  

Our member check served to give participants a chance to learn about our results and point out any errors in our interpretations. We did not fully analyze their responses for new themes or ideas. They had already received individual data reports for their convening, which they used to begin planning for the next convening. In general, they were interested in what we learned and did not note any discrepancies in our results.

  1. The author considered the convenings on climate adaption in the study, but I have not found extensively about the impacts of the convenings on the knowledge of participants of virtual and in-person climate change adaptation, if they could focus on it, then it will assist the organizers to decide on conducting the convenings virtual or in-person. Because, the study explained both groups of participants are available around the globe, then which one is better for the future?

We have revised the conclusion to be clearer in our suggestions for the future.

  1. Based on the title of the study, what about reducing emissions, did the authors assess it in the study as the whole document of the article explained the in-person and virtual convenings?     

We did not ask about the geographic locations of participants, which would have enabled us to do these calculations. However, we do provide a report of emissions reductions for one conference in Appendix A.

Sincerely,

Dr. Eileen Merritt