Sharing Information and Threshold Ambiguity in Public Bads Prevention
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article submitted for review, “Sharing Information and Threshold Ambiguity in Public Bads Prevention,” addresses an interesting and current topic because preventing public bads is an important action for sustainable development. Based on experimental research on a sample of 400 people, the authors tried to verify how and what information is shared between people in the era of digital democracy, and how it should be carefully considered to solve all problems related to the spread of public bads. The experimental research, thanks to which the presented conclusions gain an application character, deserves recognition. The research was reinforced with a proper theoretical foundation, the literature review includes over 50 bibliographic notes, of which about 30% are publications from the last 5 years. This proves the authors’ excellent understanding of the issues studied. From the editorial side, the article was developed correctly, it contains the following points: 1. Introduction, 2. Experimental design and procedures, 3. Results and 4. Conclusion. It is worth considering supplementing the study's introduction with a list of research problems that would strengthen the argumentation in the scope of the research area. The aim of the study and the research hypothesis: "how people’s cooperative choices are influenced by ambiguity and sharing information about the conjectures in public bads prevention, hypothesizing that sharing the information does not necessarily contribute to cooperation" - were formulated correctly. The research methodology, the conditions of experimenting and the presented results do not raise any serious objections, although it is worth justifying the selection of the research sample and its representativeness in point 2. I also suggest considering changing the name of point 3 to "Results and Discussion". In addition to presenting the research results, the authors strengthen the presented results with research by other authors. To sum up, the article was developed correctly, and contains very interesting and innovative research, after minor changes I recommend its publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall, the paper has been written quite well. I just have the following suggestions.
1. Introduction
In the introduction, the second paragraph starts with the following sentence.
“Literature investigates how threshold ambiguity and uncertainty impact individual cooperation and collective consequences (Dannenberg et al. 2015; Kishishita and Ozaki 2020; Kotani et al. 2014; McBride 2006, 2010).”
I suggest the authors should move it at the end of the first paragraph after the following sentence.
“Given this state of affairs, this research experimentally studies people’s co- 33 operative behaviors in public bads prevention as they share some information of individual 34 conjectures towards ambiguous thresholds.”
I also suggest adding a research framework or conceptual diagram to explain the framework of the study through a figure.
2. Discussion
The authors should consider adding the discussion session after the section of experimental results and discuss the results and findings.
3. Implications
The authors should also consider adding implications section and elaborate on the practical implications of the study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPage 1 line 15: possibly ‘her’ should be ‘their’. (See also page 4 line 170).
The introduction could make clear the different schools of thought and their interpretation. This would help the reader to place the information in context.
More information should be provided about game theory and the logic of it as well as the limitations.
How will the research referred to in this paper improve or contribute to our understanding of the topic? Are there policy related issues to consider?
Is there an aim, set of research objectives as well as a mean research question? This would help the reader focus on the research undertaken and its overall contribution.
Are constructs such as ambiguity and cooperation and social value explained in the Introduction or how they were deemed important and/or selected?
Page 4 line 156: “The right shall be sold…” seems to be missing something. Please check.
Page 11: What is the logic of the content of the paragraph before the conclusion?
Are there any factors that could influence the results that are not discussed?
How can the findings be utilized by policy makers?
One question that emerges is the quality of the information shared. How is the quality of the information determined?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript addresses an important and timely topic: how ambiguity and information-sharing impact cooperative behavior in public bads prevention. The experimental approach is robust, and the results provide valuable insights that challenge existing literature. However, improvements in the clarity of language, presentation of findings, and structure could enhance the manuscript’s impact. The paper needs major revision. My main comments are listed below:
1-Figures comparing treatments (e.g., Figure 1 and 2) could include:
- Error bars or statistical annotations for clarity on variability and significance.
- Labels or legends explaining key points directly on the graph.
2-The manuscript cites relevant studies, but connections to the broader theoretical framework could be strengthened. For example, how do findings build on or contradict existing theories of ambiguity in decision-making or digital democracy?
3-Highlight key differences between your results and prior studies in the conclusion.
4-While the nonmonotonic response of cooperation to ambiguity is noted, the underlying mechanisms are not fully explored. Consider discussing psychological or behavioral theories that could explain this finding.
5-While the experimental design is thorough, the explanation of the threshold-generating algorithms is somewhat opaque. Consider including a visual flowchart or diagram to aid comprehension.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor grammatical issues (e.g., subject-verb agreement in complex sentences) should be reviewed throughout.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe approach of the study is interesting and valuable. Fighting against public bads is a relevant issue. The experiment planned is an acceptable method, and the research design was thorough and careful. The results can raise the interest of the readers and may generate further research ideas. Of course, each experiment has many limitations, and one experiment cannot cover the complete reality. We can put it into question, but I think it is unnecessary. The study is a valuable contribution to the body of knowledge; I have no further requests for its content and results.
The readability of the text is good, and the style of the author(s) is reader-friendly. Almost all details are shared, which is necessary to have a comprehensive overview of the background and the usability of the results.
The references used are in line with the content of the study, but recent sources are missing.
There are two issues to be fixed before publishing it:
- add some more information about the experiments,
- check for some recent sources and extend the literature review.
Based on the text, I consider these issues and minor refinements, the author(s) certainly can modify these parts.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsJust need to make sure the research question cited on page 11 is stated in the way of a question and a question mark is added if indeed this is the case.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for the revision. You have updated the article based on the comments.
