Review Reports - Climate Skepticism in a University Context: Influences of Gender, Religion, and Political Spectrum

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Assessment

The manuscript addresses a relevant and timely issue — climate change skepticism in university contexts — linking it to gender, religion, and political orientation. The research question is clear, the structure aligns with journal standards, and the findings are coherent with the literature. The topic fits well within Ecologies’ scope.

However, the article would benefit from improvements in writing clarity, methodological rigor, and interpretation depth, particularly to meet the standards of an indexed open-access journal.

Major Comments

Originality and Contribution

The topic has been widely studied, but the application to a Portuguese university context adds regional novelty.
To strengthen the contribution, the authors should explicitly state what gap in existing literature this study fills (e.g., lack of data from Southern Europe, linguistic/cultural influences, or university-based skepticism).

Methodology

The description is generally adequate but overly informal in some parts (e.g., “We used it, and experts checked the survey to make sure it was good”).
Suggest rewriting in formal academic tone: “The instrument was validated through expert review to ensure content and construct validity.”
The authors acknowledge the small, convenience-based sample (N=89). However, they should quantify response rates (if possible) and elaborate on limitations related to self-selection and generalizability.
The analytical section should specify software used (e.g., SPSS, R) and alpha level adopted for statistical significance.

Results and Interpretation

The results are well-organized by variable (gender, religion, political spectrum), but there is some redundancy in explanations (e.g., gender section repeats similar sentences twice).
Figures and tables appear correctly referenced, but the discussion could better integrate these results with previous studies (e.g., explain why Portuguese patterns may differ from other European samples).
The interpretation of statistical findings could be more analytically cautious; for instance, replace categorical assertions like “Men are more inclined to agree with this” with “Male respondents tended to agree more, though further research is needed to confirm causality.”

Discussion and Conclusions

The conclusions are balanced and recognize limitations, but they would gain from a stronger theoretical framing: e.g., linking results to motivated reasoning, identity-protective cognition, or cultural cognition theory.
Add policy or educational implications: how universities could design interventions based on these findings (curricular changes, communication strategies, etc.).
Consider including a short paragraph on comparative perspectives (e.g., similarities with studies in Spain, Italy, or Latin America).

Language and Style

The English is generally clear but requires professional editing for tone and consistency:

Replace informal expressions (“You can see these differences in Table 2”) with formal alternatives (“As shown in Table 2…”).
Ensure consistent tense (past for methods and results; present for general statements).
Use academic connectors (e.g., “Furthermore,” “Conversely,” “In contrast”) for coherence.

Structure and Formatting

The manuscript follows the MDPI Ecologies template, but some placeholders remain (e.g., “Firstname Lastname,” “Table A1 shows…”). These should be finalized before submission.
Verify table numbering consistency (Tables A1–A4 might belong in the main text as Tables 1–4).
Ensure all figures are included as separate files in submission format, with legends and clear source attribution.

References

The reference list is rich and current, citing works up to 2024, which is excellent.
However, check for duplicate entries (e.g., ref. 24 and 25 appear identical) and maintain MDPI style (authors’ initials, DOI formatting).
Some references (e.g., online sources) should specify access dates consistently.

Minora Comments

Section	Issue	Recommendation
Abstract	Well-written but overly long	Condense to 200 words; emphasize main findings and implications
Methods	Ethics paragraph phrasing informal	Replace with standard phrasing (“Ethical approval was obtained from the University Ethics Committee, in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki”)
Results	Duplication of explanation in gender subsection	Merge repetitive paragraphs (lines 130–148)
Discussion	Needs clearer linkage to existing theories	Add 2–3 citations connecting findings to cultural cognition or political psychology literature
Figures	Captions use lowercase “i” in “i don’t think”	Revise for formal English capitalization
Limitations	Well-articulated	Consider adding possible regional bias as limitation

Recommendation

Decision: Minor to moderate revision required before acceptance.

The article has solid empirical grounding and fits the journal’s thematic focus. With language polishing, improved methodological detail, and stronger theoretical framing, it can be suitable for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable advice and recommendations, which have been carefully considered. Below is a list of all the changes we have made:
1- We improved the overall language, making it more scientific, as an article like this requires.
2- We included a short sentence in the conclusion, mentioning that this study may be of interest, as it is a pioneering study in a country such as Portugal;
3- We quantified the response rate, in this case at 100%, as you suggested.
4- We also include the software that was used for statistical analysis, in this case, JAMOVI open statistical software;
5- Results and interpretation, it was improved, more analytically cautious "men tend to..."
6- The references have been corrected; for example, 24 and 25 were identical.

Please note that at this stage of the article review, some information has been concealed in accordance with blind review procedures.

Please let us know if you think we should make any further changes.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a study involving 89 university students, aiming to investigate how gender, religion, and political spectrum influence climate change denial. The research is based on a questionnaire and subsequent statistical analysis.

The topic is relevant and timely, especially considering the growing prevalence of climate change denial — including within higher education institutions. The manuscript includes an appropriate literature review, which is well-aligned with the theoretical framework adopted by the authors.

The article is mostly well-structured; however, it would benefit from a more thorough review, particularly regarding the expansion and justification of certain methodological choices. I therefore recommend the following revisions.

Contextualization of the study setting:

To enhance the completeness and scientific rigor of the study, it is important to provide more detailed information about the institution where the research was conducted. Specifically, the authors should clarify whether the university is publicly or privatly financed, its geographical context (e.g., urban or rural), the population density of the surrounding area, and the total number of students enrolled. Although the sampling was conducted by convenience, this contextual information is essential for better understanding the background of the participants and the specific conditions in which the study was developed.

Materials and methods:

The two statistical tests are only introduced in the Results section, with no prior mention or justification in the Materials and Methods section. For transparency and methodological accuracy, identify and describe each statistical test in Materials and Methods, specifying the conditions for their use, the decision criteria, and why each test is appropriate for the data. Include details on any assumptions checked, the software and functions used, the significance threshold, and how missing data or multiple comparisons were handled.

Results/Discussion: Please review the tables on the following issues

Table A1 does not allow a clear understanding of the joint distribution of the three study variables. Since the aim of the study is to explore whether these three factors influence workers’ attitudes, the data should be organized to show the interactions among these variables. I recommend reformatting the table to present cross-tabulated data so the relationships between variables are clearer and a more robust analysis consistent with the study objectives can be performed.
Table A2: Correct the name of the test (the letter “U” is missing). If this nonparametric test is intended to highlight differences in responses between genders, present a column with the median for each gender, a column with the U value, and retain the column with significance values; remove the column labeled “gl” because it is not meaningful in this table. Clarify whether the “statistic” column reports the U value or the standardized Z statistic; if it reports Z, state this explicitly in the table legend to avoid terminological confusion.
As for tables A3 and A4: review the table titles. If the nonparametric test used is intended to show differences in responses, add a column with the median by religion or political spectrum. The current presentation is insufficient for a complete interpretation of the results.

Figures 1 to 6:

The figures are visually attractive but are not appropriate for showing the distribution of responses by group in a scientific context. I recommend replacing these plots with more informative, standardized graphics, for example bar charts with standard error bars, to better represent group distributions and comparisons.

As for the conclusions, they need to be revised; arguing that the data confirm that culture, religion and political spectrums influence climate skepticism, in the face of the incomplete presentation of data associated with its low representativeness may indicate a biased study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I suggest a general review of the English writing. I highlight the following points:

Please revise for more rigorous language (e.g., the expressions in lines 98 and 99: “We used it” and “gave us the okay”).
I suggest looking for repetitions; e.g. the sentences in lines 134–139 and lines 145–148.
In the tables, gl should be df.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your corrections and suggestions for improvement. Below, we have attempted to respond to all the points you mentioned:

We improved the text overall to make it more scientific.

We have included a more detailed description of the university where the study was conducted (public university, etc.).

We used descriptive statistics, and first the normality test to find the p-value, then we used Mann-Whitney U, as we had a categorical variable vs. a continuous variable. We also used Kruskal-Wallis to compare more than two independent groups.

Tables A3 and A4, we improve the title, but unfortunately, for these tables, it was not possible to calculate the median values by religion due to the unavailability of the original dataset; therefore, only the results of the inferential tests are presented. We can add a note below the table if you deem it necessary with this information.

Regarding the information in the figures, unfortunately, we no longer have the original SPSS file (due to a problem with the computer's hard drive). At the moment, we are unable to improve the information in the graphs.

Note: The manuscript we sent has corrections from both reviewers.

We improved the conclusions so that the study would not appear biased, as suggested.
Please let us know if you think we should make any further revisions. We are always available to improve. Thank you.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the new manuscript, it came to my attention that methodological and transparency issues persist — arising from the data loss mentioned by the authors and the figures with misleading scales. These issues require substantial corrections before any consideration for publication. Therefore, I suggest that you add the following to your text:

When you mention that the study is not generalisable, I suggest you explicitly state that it is descriptive/exploratory;
I strongly recommend that, since data were lost, you provide an inventory of the available and missing data, with n per variable;
I maintain that the figures/graphs should be redone with appropriate axes, units, and scales;
Expand the limitations section to address the effects of data incompleteness;
Include sensitivity analyses documenting the robustness of the non-parametric results, e.g.: exact Mann–Whitney U test and comparison with the approximate version; permutation test of rank or median differences, among others;
Confirmation of the ethical considerations, acknowledging that data were lost. Without these elements, it is not possible to verify the robustness of the results.

I again recommend the revision of the characterisation of the study context: to make the study more complete and scientifically sound, additional information about the institution where the study took place should be included — such as some contextual description institution’s surroundings and the total number of students enrolled. Regarding the respondents, please specify which degrees and areas were they enrolled in at the time of participation in the study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although the english writting has been improved, I still highlight the following points:

I recommend correcting the repetition in lines 134–139 and lines 145–148.
In the tables, please replace gl with df.

Author Response

Dear reviewer.
Thank you for your constructive criticism.

Here is the list of changes:
We have included that the study is descriptive exploratory (materials and methods).

The scale of the figures is not misleading; the questionnaire had a Likert scale from 1 to 5, as mentioned in the figure, and we have included a note to avoid misunderstandings. I think it is easy to understand now.

The limitations section has been expanded. Line 335?

We have included more detail about the study context (university context) in materials and methods.

In the tables, gl has been replaced by df.

We have corrected the repetition of sentences you mentioned.
Thank you.