Sustainability Skepticism: Attitudes to, and Beliefs about, Climate Change
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper offers a valuable contribution to the understanding of climate change skepticism and its psychological, ideological, and social drivers. The thorough literature review and the discussion of strategies to address skepticism make this manuscript a strong candidate for publication. However, there are a few areas where the manuscript could be improved for clarity and impact：
1. Consider adding a brief section early in the paper that outlines the key theoretical perspectives being used to analyze climate change skepticism. This would provide a stronger foundation for the review. 2. Include a brief critical analysis of the methodologies used in the studies reviewed. This would help readers understand the strengths and limitations of the current research in this field. 3. Explore connections with other relevant disciplines such as sociology, political science, or communication studies to provide a more holistic understanding of climate change skepticism. 4. Add a more explicit section on future research directions, highlighting key gaps in current understanding and promising new approaches or methodologies. 5. Expand on the practical implications of the findings for policymakers, educators, and climate communicators. Provide more concrete suggestions for applying these insights to real-world efforts. 6. Ensure that the most recent relevant studies (published in the last 1-2 years) are included to keep the review as current as possible. 7. Consider including a brief discussion on potential limitations or critiques of the dominant approaches to studying climate change skepticism. 8. Consider adding a conceptual diagram or model that synthesizes the key factors influencing climate change skepticism and their interrelationships. This could enhance reader understanding of the complex issue. Comments on the Quality of English Language The quality of the English language in this paper is generally good. The writing is clear, coherent, and appropriate for an academic audience. The author demonstrates a strong command of academic writing conventions and technical vocabulary related to climate change skepticism and psychological theories. A few minor suggestions for improvement: 1. There are occasional instances of informal language that could be made more formal, e.g. "For very long periods" could be "For extended periods" or "Historically". 2. Some sentences are quite long and complex. Breaking these into shorter sentences could improve readability in places. 3. Consistency in capitalization of terms like "Climate Change" should be checked throughout. Overall, the language quality is high and appropriate for publication with only minor edits needed for polish and consistency.Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is useful in terms of review and synthesis, presenting limitations in terms of innovation and exploration of new topics, such as emergence of new problems. It is suggested that a multidimensional approach be used. Instead of focusing on a single dimension of climate skepticism, the author should develop a multidimensional approach that considers factors such as trust in science, risk perception, and cultural influences. In relation to exploration of new topics refer to emergence of new problems; investigate attitudes towards new environmental issues that are emerging and that have not yet been widely studied, such as geoengineering or the transition to green economies. I encourage you to introduce these suggestions.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The English in the article needs revision. The document contains several grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and inconsistencies that could be improved to enhance clarity and readability.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
