Inherited Patience and the Taste for Environmental Quality
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Nice interesting topic, short yet useful research.
1) More references to relevant literature/studies will be good to add in the introduction.
2) Paper completely lacks any kind of graphs/visual interpretation that adds value and readers' interest.
Author Response
Thanks for your constructive suggestions. Please see our response in the file attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic/title of the article seems exciting and the author(s) have provided arguments regarding hereditary patience and environmental attitudes. From the point of view of the reader of a scientific paper, the article needs to be fundamentally rewritten, perhaps adding a few tables that present the types of controls, including socio-economic variables, measures of religion, trust and political ideology, urbanization and sub-regional effects in a more specific way, to It can reduce some of the ambiguity in some of the research cases. The presented analytical methods need a complete description and the author/authors should demonstrate the basis of their theoretical arguments, so despite the commendable efforts of the authors, in terms of the structural framework of presenting a scientific paper as well as the analytical part of the research, there is a need to major revision.
Author Response
Thanks for your constructive suggestions. Please see our response in the file attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for allowing me to review this paper. I believe the paper was submitted prematurely and should have undergone several rounds of careful editing. While this work might have merit, evaluating the findings' reliability, validity, and generalizability is very difficult. This is partially due to the writing and structure of the paper but also because critical pieces of information are missing. I outline my main concerns below
I suggest the abstract must be improved. The abstract should include (1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; (2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied; (3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and (4) Conclusions: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. Revise accordingly.
Paper research gap. Please improve this part in the introduction section. There is insufficient support and weak arguments in support of the proposed objective. In the final part of the introduction, the proposed goals, originality, and gaps that would be covered should be better justified. What exactly is the research question(s) the authors hope to address? I understand the paper aims to fill a gap "by estimating the relationship between patience (an individual-level measure of inherited patience) and environmental attitudes"? I am unsure how you arrived at this "gap" and why the reader should care. Please clarify the hypothesis of the investigation.
It would be better to extend the literature review a little bit more. It will allow justifying the methods of the interactions between patience and environmental attitudes.
Methodology and Results. The methodology part is poor. I strongly suggest adding more explanation about chosen methods for analyzing the chosen model. Why are these techniques appropriate for this regression analysis? How did the authors check the fit of the models (Please add Posthoc statistics to decide the model's fit)? I recommend the authors add a diagram/framework with the step-by-step used to obtain the results, which would contribute to understanding the method.
It would be better if the author (s) explained each significant output result of table 2 in more detail.
Please provides the discussion in a separate section of the paper.
The authors should improve the Conclusion section by highlighting the originality of the proposed approach and discussing the implications for theory, policy, and practice that were not explored. The impact on society was not explored. Furthermore, you should explain the study's limitations and add suggestions for future studies.
Please check all journal requirements (especially citations) and prepare your paper before submission.
Author Response
Thanks for your constructive suggestions. Please see our response in the file attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Most of the desired comments have been provided.
Author Response
Thank you for your reading again our manuscript. Since no any additional suggestions are included in the reviewer's report, we understand we have satisfied all your comments with our first revised manuscript.
Best, the authors.
Reviewer 3 Report
I have revised the paper and was surprised to see the article without significant upgrades. For example, References: References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including table captions and figure legends) and listed individually at the end of the manuscript. I mentioned: "Methodology and Results. The methodology part is poor. I strongly suggest adding more explanation about chosen methods for analyzing the chosen model. Why are these techniques appropriate for this regression analysis? How did the authors check the fit of the models (Please add Posthoc statistics to decide the model's fit)? I recommend the authors add a diagram/framework with the step-by-step used to obtain the results, which would contribute to understanding the method". Unfortunately, I did not find any answers to all these questions. For example: Why are the proposal techniques appropriate for this regression analysis? How did the authors check the fit of the models (I recommended adding Posthoc statistics to decide the model's fit)? I recommended the authors add a diagram/framework with the step-by-step used to obtain the results, which would contribute to understanding the method.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
I have revised the paper and the authors did not answer all my previous queries. Why are these techniques appropriate for this regression analysis? How did the authors check the fit of the models (Please add Posthoc statistics to decide the model's fit)?
Author Response
See attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
