How Can Psychology Contribute to Climate Change Governance? A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a very interesting article, where a very pertinent theme and an appropriate methodological approach are addressed to contribute to the construction of a state of the art of the main investigated constructs. The main recommendations are set out below.

In the abstract:

The abstract must show a better structure, for example, the objective must be presented more explicitly, as well as the methodology, more details must be given regarding the application of the PRISMA (method, identify units of analysis, sources from which the information is obtained, populations and samples related to documentary analysis units, selection criteria, among other aspects to specify).

Likewise, it is important to specify which are the disciplinary domains that converge in the interdisciplinary cognitive spaces related to the main category studied.

It must be specified which are the main gaps identified, not only in terms of the availability of documentary sources, but also related to the problem itself, this must be identified at the level of results, discussion and conclusions from the characteristics of an abstract.

Evidence to a greater degree the contributions of the study to the knowledge of the object, as well as its scientific impact.

Introduction: I suggest organizing an introduction that is not similar to a review of the literature, since the greatest contribution of the article is precisely the systematic review that is made of the categories and constructs studied, therefore, I consider that the various sections that are presented in the introduction can be integrated into a logical, fluid and coherent writing that articulates: The theoretical and empirical gaps of the situation under study should be evidenced to a greater degree, as well as the descriptors associated with the main variables studied; the variables and their dimensions should be described with greater emphasis. It is necessary to strengthen the citations of recent scientific literature that allow contrasting the descriptors of reality and show the state of knowledge related to the situation under study. As it is a systematic review article, I suggest that the sections be included in the introduction section (do not identify it’s as a subsections), in which case the main ideas should be extracted, and the main gaps highlighted, and integrated into the writing.

The situation under study, as well as the associated descriptors, the importance and relevance of the topic must be strengthened in their description.

It is important to propose a deductive route; it is necessary that the implications of the problem situation be described on a macro, meso and micro plane; situation that must be described in greater depth because it must be better argued; the problem must start from a more general scope, before falling into the variables of the investigation; that is, they should begin by presenting descriptors of the macro; then locate yourself in the meso and micro plane.

It is important to strengthen the descriptors that explain the main gaps associated with the interdisciplinary vision in the construction of knowledge about the studied object; This implies defining precisely which domains of psychology and environmental education are integrated from a convergent perspective to build knowledge on the subject under study, for example, specifying contributions from the domains of psychology, expressed in theories, concepts, approaches, methods that lead to configuration of explanations and arguments.

Likewise, it is important to delve into interdisciplinary and intersectoral relations as spaces that promote the encounter between the different disciplines.

The dimensions from which environmental governance is approached should be further specified, likewise it is recommended that the authors strengthen their critical-reflexive position around the conceptual and empirical scope of the construct. Likewise, it is important to reflect on the principles and postulates that guide the dialogue between disciplines, for example, how they assume from the discourse the ontological level of the situation studied, what refers to the conception of isomorphisms and linguistic codes that allow dialogue and dialectics. interdisciplinary.

I suggest integrating the objectives and research questions as part of the writing of the introduction.

Justify levels of representativeness of 52 articles with respect to the scientific literature produced.

It is necessary to identify and justify the typology of the article.  Is important specify the predominant research approach, as well as the type of design; In each component of the methodology, a more detailed description should be organized.

It is important to argue the degree of representativeness of the documentary samples worked in correspondence with the sense of totality and completeness of the investigated object, possibilities that the results can be generalized.

In the methodology, argue why the two identified databases were selected.

“No limitations were set regarding the timeline or the study area” Argue why? Is this decision really irrelevant with respect to the evolution and current state of the subject investigated? Or, on the contrary, would it be interesting to establish temporary limits? make the proper argumentative inferences. Justify from the scientific point of view

“Other information has been extracted, such as country, paradigm used and role of participants, i.e. citizens, policymakers, stakeholders, practitioners and scholars” Describe this information in more detail.

It would be important to highlight in the conceptual and methodological characteristics considered what refers to scientific interdisciplinarity in itself as a criterion of analysis.

“Through repeated comparisons, we extracted three thematic clusters with different specific psychological foci” I think they should be integrating focuses

Review the way to organize the results; there must be a better correspondence with the procedural systematization in the methodology, that is, how each component of the design leads to the different sections that are presented in the results. Review the correspondence between the methodological systematization and the systematization of the results, attend to variables, dimensions and their operationalization.

The discussion section should be strengthened. Organize the results in such a way that they are evident in relation to the objectives evidence of contrast between the objectives - supporting theory - meaning of the data itself - argument of the researchers, the argumentation or counter-argumentation with the supporting scientific literature, This aspect should be shown.

the conclusions show correspondence with the identified objectives; demonstrate possibilities of generalization of the research.

 

Author Response

Please see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

● This systematic review study attempted to map the scientific literature on the governance of climate issues and made efforts to integrate psychological insights with a special focus on the role psychologists play and the positioning in interdisciplinary dialogues concerning climate governance. It is deemed to have academic value.

● The paper is well-structured, and the authors have already articulated the points they want to address for improvement in the limitation section.

● However, I would like to request a few enhancements.

 

Please provide a more detailed discussion in the introduction about why the discussion of the relationship between Psychology and Climate Change is important enough to warrant a review paper. Only one paper explicitly addresses the mental health outcomes of climate change for individuals and local communities, while other papers describe addressing the areas of decision-making processes and individual/group behavior. Why is this? Could it be because it's not considered a particularly important issue? Please elaborate more on the reasons the authors find it important.

Both Table 2 and Table 3, as well as Table 4, are not very readable. These are interesting contents, and it might be beneficial to reorganize them appropriately and present them as figures.

 

 I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper

Author Response

Please see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I appreciate your dedication in conducting this review, which holds great significance for the subject matter. As evident from your findings, the topic remains underexplored in the field of psychology, despite recent efforts.

Overall, the manuscript is well-written and, in my view, doesn't necessitate any specific or pertinent revisions. The only minor aspect,  albeit not pertinent to the overall perspective, pertains to the option of relocating a substantial portion of the rationale, elaborated in sections 4.5.1-3 (Clusters 1 to 3), to the Discussion section as opposed to its current placement within the Results section. I understand the authors' intention in providing elaborate descriptions of certain studies to underpin cluster definitions. However, as I read through the text, I sometimes get the impression that I'm delving into the Discussion, only to realize later that I'm still within the Results section. An alternative approach might involve transferring these particulars into a key topic table, organized according to each study.

Apart from this minor consideration, I am of the opinion that the manuscript is ready for publication.

Author Response

Please see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors.

Thank you for integrating my recommendations into the new version of your article, now it is perceived to be of better quality.