Social Impacts of Shale Oil Extraction: A Multidisciplinary Review of Community and Institutional Change

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article "The Social Dimensions of Fracking: A Review of Key Findings and Approaches" seeks to identify the main elements that characterise the process of oil extraction by fracking. 

In this sense, it could be classified as a literature review article, not a scientific analysis article.
Therefore, this issue should be clearly stated, allowing for an understanding of what such a paper can contribute. There is always a study methodology to follow, even in an article of this nature, and with such important content for today's society.
The introduction is complete, but in my opinion, in line 87, the contribution of this research to the scientific field should be added, in addition to detailing all the limitations of this research. Nor would it be surprising to include a section describing the sections that make up the document.

Section 3 aims to identify the impacts attributed to this extraction system, and since the article is a literature review, it should be extremely detailed and comprehensive. Undoubtedly, this document is very rich in bibliographical references, and of high quality, but it lacks to complete certain sections, and also to show a summary of them, for example, as a table with references and contributions. I find it very worrying that in section 2.1.3, which analyses the distribution of resources, only one paragraph of barely 10 lines has been used to deal with all its importance, and with seven bibliographical references.The whole issue of resource scarcity, geopolitical tensions and the dematerialisation of the economy are important for analysing this problem.

 

Author Response

We thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript to Social Sciences. The reviewers provided us with thoughtful and thorough evaluations of our paper along with helpful comments. We believe that the revisions we have made based on this input have allowed us to develop an improved manuscript. While we feel that we have attended to each of the concerns raised during the review process, please note that if we have missed something, we are more than willing to make the necessary changes going forward. As requested, we have provided responses to the specific points raised by each reviewer.

Response to Reviewer 1:

Reviewer’s Comment: The article "The Social Dimensions of Fracking: A Review of Key Findings and Approaches" seeks to identify the main elements that characterise the process of oil extraction by fracking. In this sense, it could be classified as a literature review article, not a scientific analysis article. Therefore, this issue should be clearly stated, allowing for an understanding of what such a paper can contribute. There is always a study methodology to follow, even in an article of this nature, and with such important content for today's society.

Author’s Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this important clarification. To clarify that we are writing a review article, we have added and edited the content in the introduction to emphasize that this is a review.

Reviewer’s Comment: The introduction is complete, but in my opinion, in line 87, the contribution of this research to the scientific field should be added, in addition to detailing all the limitations of this research. Nor would it be surprising to include a section describing the sections that make up the document.

Author’s Response: We appreciate the careful consideration of the presentation of our methodology and the clarity of the structure of our paper. To address this, we have added a roadmap paragraph that outlines the structure of the paper (e.g., “The remainder of this paper is organized with the following sections…”).

Reviewer’s Comment: Section 3 aims to identify the impacts attributed to this extraction system, and since the article is a literature review, it should be extremely detailed and comprehensive. Undoubtedly, this document is very rich in bibliographical references, and of high quality, but it lacks to complete certain sections, and also to show a summary of them, for example, as a table with references and contributions.

Author’s Response: We agree with the reviewer that further clarification of the various sections would be very useful as a resource for scholars and others who approach this paper in an attempt to understand more about the social implications of fracking. To further clarify the information we have included in this literature review, we have edited the conclusion section and added a detailed table that includes information about the key takeaways of each section.

Reviewer’s Comment: I find it very worrying that in section 2.1.3, which analyses the distribution of resources, only one paragraph of barely 10 lines has been used to deal with all its importance, and with seven bibliographical references. The whole issue of resource scarcity, geopolitical tensions and the dematerialisation of the economy are important for analysing this problem.

Author’s Response: We are thankful for the important and relevant direction provided by the reviewer for additional information that should be included in section 2.1.3. According to this recommendation, we have expanded the discussion in that section to address resource scarcity, geopolitical tensions, and dematerialization of the economy as related to the social impacts of fracking.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The paper discusses the significance of understanding the effects of fracking within the social sciences; however, the reasons provided are too general. It should include more references to similar reviews conducted in the field of social science and clearly explain the novelty of this review.
2. The contribution of the research requires a more thorough explanation. The paper should clarify how it adds value to the related academic field, how it enhances understanding of the effects of fracking, and how it can assist practitioners in applying this knowledge.
3. “Other research has investigated the effects of fracking…” The paper should cite the actual research that the author is referring to.
4. Ln82-83 “In this review, we utilize citation-tracking instead of comprehensive systematic reviews to identify the relevant literature …” The paper needs to provide a clear justification for why the citation-tracking method may be more appropriate or effective than the systematic review method. If the citation-tracking method was used, the paper should include a figure showing which reviewed papers had the highest number of citations or highlighting those with particularly high citation counts.
5. The method of review is not explained in the paper. The steps of picking the topics reviewed in the paper (social, environmental, and economic impacts) need to be justified by adding references. conducting the citation-tracking. The rationale for selecting the subsections within the topics should be justified in a more scientific and rigorous manner. Furthermore, a detailed explanation regarding the method for conducting the citation-tracking method needs to be added. Providing a figure showing the overview of the review method would be ideal.
6. Section 2. The findings derived from this review are not clearly presented. An additional section should be added to summarize the key findings and provide a more in-depth discussion that highlights the significance of the review based on these results. It would be ideal to add a table summarizing the findings from the review.
7. The conclusion section: comment 1. It is unclear which parts of the conclusion are directly supported by the findings of the review. The evidence underpinning the conclusions should be presented more explicitly.
8. The conclusion section: comment 2. Policy implications are also weak and not logically connected with the findings of the review.
9. The conclusion section: comment 3. The limitation of the review needs to be discussed.

Author Response

We thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript to Social Sciences. The reviewers provided us with thoughtful and thorough evaluations of our paper along with helpful comments. We believe that the revisions we have made based on this input have allowed us to develop an improved manuscript. While we feel that we have attended to each of the concerns raised during the review process, please note that if we have missed something, we are more than willing to make the necessary changes going forward. As requested, we have provided responses to the specific points raised by each reviewer.

Response to Reviewer 2:

1. Reviewer’s Comment: The paper discusses the significance of understanding the effects of fracking within the social sciences; however, the reasons provided are too general. It should include more references to similar reviews conducted in the field of social science and clearly explain the novelty of this review.

Author’s Response: We appreciate the reviewers careful consideration of this review and the reasonings provided for why this topic matters. With this comment in consideration, we have revised sections of the introduction and conclusion to emphasize the novelty of this review and the significance of understanding the effects of fracking.

2. Reviewer’s Comment: The contribution of the research requires a more thorough explanation. The paper should clarify how it adds value to the related academic field, how it enhances understanding of the effects of fracking, and how it can assist practitioners in applying this knowledge.

Author’s Response: We also thank the reviewer for pointing out how we can improve the introduction and clarify the contribution that this literature review provides to the literature and how it enhances understanding of the effects of fracking. To address this concern, we have added sentences into the introduction and conclusion that emphasize the contribution this literature review makes to research and how the understanding of the social effects of fracking are important.

3. Reviewer’s Comment: “Other research has investigated the effects of fracking…” The paper should cite the actual research that the author is referring to.

Author’s Response: We appreciate this suggestion! In our attempt to make the introduction to this literature review more cohesive in response to other comments, we have now removed this sentence from the paragraph.

4. Reviewer’s Comment: Ln82-83 “In this review, we utilize citation-tracking instead of comprehensive systematic reviews to identify the relevant literature …” The paper needs to provide a clear justification for why the citation-tracking method may be more appropriate or effective than the systematic review method. If the citation-tracking method was used, the paper should include a figure showing which reviewed papers had the highest number of citations or highlighting those with particularly high citation counts.
5. Reviewer’s Comment: The method of review is not explained in the paper. The steps of picking the topics reviewed in the paper (social, environmental, and economic impacts) need to be justified by adding references. conducting the citation-tracking. The rationale for selecting the subsections within the topics should be justified in a more scientific and rigorous manner. Furthermore, a detailed explanation regarding the method for conducting the citation-tracking method needs to be added. Providing a figure showing the overview of the review method would be ideal.

Author’s Response: We appreciate the careful consideration of the presentation of our methodology and the clarity of the structure of our paper. To address this, we have expanded upon the discussion of the method for our literature review in the introduction section, and have further described our methods and the limitations of this style of literature review.

6. Reviewer’s Comment: Section 2. The findings derived from this review are not clearly presented. An additional section should be added to summarize the key findings and provide a more in-depth discussion that highlights the significance of the review based on these results. It would be ideal to add a table summarizing the findings from the review.

Author’s Response: To clarify the various findings of this literature review, we have added and revised discussion in the conclusion section that highlights the significance of the findings presented here, and have added to the conclusion a detailed table that includes information about the key takeaways of each section with the relevant citations listed.

7. Reviewer’s Comment: The conclusion section: comment 1. It is unclear which parts of the conclusion are directly supported by the findings of the review. The evidence underpinning the conclusions should be presented more explicitly.

Author’s Response: We agree with the reviewer that further clarification of the evidence presented in the conclusion would be very useful as a resource for scholars and others who approach this paper in an attempt to understand more about the social implications of fracking. To further clarify the information we have included in this literature review, we have edited the conclusion section and (as noted in response to a previous comment) have added a detailed table that includes information about the key takeaways of each section with the relevant citations listed.

8. Reviewer’s Comment: The conclusion section: comment 2. Policy implications are also weak and not logically connected with the findings of the review.

Author’s Response: We appreciate the thoughtful consideration of the content of the conclusion section of our paper. We have edited the conclusion to refer to policy implications more generally, as we are not able to make recommendations for specific policy implications due to the nature of the review. However, we still feel it is important to acknowledge that understanding the social impacts of fracking on local communities is important for policy creation and modification surrounding fracking.

9. Reviewer’s Comment: The conclusion section: comment 3. The limitation of the review needs to be discussed.

Author’s Response: We completely agree that the limitations of the review need to be discussed. For the sake of clarity and cohesion, we have included the limitations in the methods paragraph of the introduction.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have notably incorporated the above recommendations and corrected the most important shortcomings of the initial version. In my opinion, it meets the minimum quality required for publication.

Author Response

We thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript to Social Sciences. Throughout the review process, we have been provided with thoughtful and thorough evaluations of our paper along with helpful comments. We believe that the revisions we have made based on this input have allowed us to develop an improved manuscript. While we feel that we have attended to each of the concerns raised during the review process, please note that if we have missed something, we are more than willing to make the necessary changes going forward. As requested, we have provided responses to the specific points raised by the reviewers:

REVIEWER 1

• REVIEWER’S COMMENT: The authors have notably incorporated the above recommendations and corrected the most important shortcomings of the initial version. In my opinion, it meets the minimum quality required for publication.

Authors’ reply: We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for their positive assessment and are pleased that the revised manuscript addresses the major concerns raised in the initial round. We appreciate your support and constructive feedback throughout the review process.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for revising the paper.

1. The detailed methods of the citation tracking is not well explained. It should provide information on how the literature used in the study was selected. The steps for the citation tracking along with the database used (search engine) should be explained in a scientific manner.
2. It is still difficult to understand the contribution and innovative part of the review. The term social needs to be explained in an objective manner.
3. The logic behind selecting the headings in section 2 is not explained.
4. Conclusion is too general and difficult to see new output found through the review.

Author Response

We thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript to Social Sciences. Throughout the review process, we have been provided with thoughtful and thorough evaluations of our paper along with helpful comments. We believe that the revisions we have made based on this input have allowed us to develop an improved manuscript. While we feel that we have attended to each of the concerns raised during the review process, please note that if we have missed something, we are more than willing to make the necessary changes going forward. As requested, we have provided responses to the specific points raised by the reviewers:

REVIEWER 2

1. REVIEWER’S COMMENT: The detailed methods of the citation tracking is not well explained. It should provide information on how the literature used in the study was selected. The steps for the citation tracking along with the database used (search engine) should be explained in a scientific manner.

Authors’ reply: We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. In response, we have clarified our citation tracking methods in Introduction. This now includes details on:

• Our use of Google Scholar to identify foundational and high-impact articles,
• Our use of both backward and forward citation tracking to identify relevant literature across disciplines,
• Inclusion criteria based on relevance to social impacts, peer-reviewed status, and publication years,
• Our rationale for choosing citation tracking over keyword-driven systematic reviews, especially given the interdisciplinary nature of the topic.

1. REVIEWER’S COMMENT: It is still difficult to understand the contribution and innovative part of the review. The term social needs to be explained in an objective manner.

Authors’ reply: We appreciate this important suggestion. To address it, we have added a short clarifying paragraph at the start of Section 2.1. This paragraph now explicitly defines the term “social” as it is used in the paper (e.g., referring to population change, resource access, health disparities, and institutional trust), and explains how our contribution is distinct from existing literature. Specifically, we emphasize that our review provides an integrated synthesis of social impacts across disciplines, which is often missing in reviews that focus exclusively on environmental or economic factors.

1. REVIEWER’S COMMENT: The logic behind selecting the headings in section 2 is not explained.

Authors’ reply: Thank you for this observation. We have inserted a short paragraph at the start of Section 2  to clarify the thematic structure of the review. This paragraph explains that Section 2 is organized by key categories that repeatedly appeared across the reviewed literature. These include demographic and social structural shifts (2.1), environmental outcomes (2.2), and economic impacts (2.3), allowing for a holistic representation of how fracking affects communities at multiple levels.

1. REVIEWER’S COMMENT: Conclusion is too general and difficult to see new output found through the review.

Authors’ reply: Thank you for this important suggestion. In response, we substantially revised the conclusion to better reflect the novel contributions of the review and to provide a more focused synthesis of key findings. Specifically, we added a text following the summary table that identifies five overarching insights that emerged from our cross-disciplinary analysis:

1. Fracking contributes to social fragmentation and institutional distrust, especially in rural communities where exclusion from decision-making is felt most acutely.
2. The distribution of harm and benefit is unequal, with environmental and health burdens disproportionately falling on marginalized populations.
3. Fracking places cumulative stress on infrastructure and public health systems, compounding vulnerabilities in areas with limited access to care.
4. Environmental justice concerns are amplified in communities already facing social and geographic marginalization.
5. The expansion of fracking raises broader questions of energy equity, highlighting the need for more inclusive and just transition planning.

These themes reflect recurring patterns across the literature and offer a framework for interpreting fracking’s social impacts as complex, layered, and unevenly distributed. We also added a brief discussion of the implications of these findings for both research and policymaking, calling for more equity-focused, interdisciplinary approaches to understanding and managing energy transitions. While we recognize the value of more granular outputs—such as specific policy recommendations or actionable strategies—we view such contributions as beyond the scope of a review paper. Instead, our aim is to provide a conceptual foundation that can guide future empirical research and inform policy development across diverse contexts. We believe these revisions clarify the paper’s original contributions and provide the more specific and analytical conclusion the reviewer requested.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As suggested in the previous comments the methods of the review is not well explained.

You should see what I mean when you compare your paper with the following research:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s13012-023-01286-z.pdf

The objective of the paper is not well presented. The word “social” is too abstractive.

Overall the paper still lacks to show which part adds value and contribute to related research fields.

 

 

Author Response

We thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript to Social Sciences. Throughout the review process, we have been provided with thoughtful and thorough evaluations of our paper along with helpful comments. We believe that the revisions we have made based on this input have allowed us to develop an improved manuscript. While we feel that we have attended to each of the concerns raised during the review process, please note that if we have missed something, we are more than willing to make the necessary changes going forward. As requested, we have provided responses to the specific points raised by the reviewers:

 

REVIEWER 2

REVIEWER’S COMMENT: “As suggested in the previous comments the methods of the review is not well explained.”

Response: We have thoroughly revised the methods section (now Section 2) to provide a clear, structured description of the review process. The updated section includes:

• Specification of the review type (narrative literature review using backward and forward citation tracking);
• Description of seed article selection and citation chaining procedures;
• Inclusion/exclusion criteria;
• Screening protocol; and
• Definition of saturation as the stopping rule.

We also added a detailed Appendix A and Supplementary Table 2 to expand on database coverage, journal inclusion, and the rationale for the citation-based method. While we reviewed the article suggested by the reviewer (Grol et al., 2023), our approach more closely follows citation-based scoping reviews such as Hirt et al. (2023) and Cooper et al. (2017). Therefore, we adapted the level of detail and structure to match the expectations for reviews using that approach.

 

REVIEWER’S COMMENT: “The objective of the paper is not well presented.”

Response: We revised the abstract and introduction to clearly articulate the review’s objective:

To synthesize existing literature on how fracking affects social systems—including population composition, housing markets, public services, institutional trust, political polarization, and community identity.

This revised objective is now also repeated in the conclusion, reinforcing the central purpose and scope of the review.

 

REVIEWER’S COMMENT: “The word ‘social’ is too abstractive.”

Response: To improve clarity, we now define the term “social” early in the introduction as:

“referring to changes in population dynamics, public health, social cohesion, and access to critical services, especially in communities experiencing energy development transitions.”

This concrete definition is consistent with how the term is used throughout the paper and is reflected in the thematic structure of Section 3.

 

REVIEWER’S COMMENT: “Overall, the paper still lacks to show which part adds value and contribute to related research fields.”

Response: We substantially revised the conclusion to articulate the paper’s contribution to interdisciplinary research on fracking and energy transitions. Specifically, we clarify that this review:

• Synthesizes a dispersed social science literature base often overlooked in environmental and economic reviews;
• Identifies recurring themes such as institutional distrust, social fragmentation, and uneven resource distribution;
• Connects environmental, health, and economic findings through a social lens; and
• Serves as a resource for scholars, policymakers, and community organizations seeking to understand and respond to fracking’s effects on human systems.

These changes highlight the original contribution of the paper and its value to multiple research and applied domains.