The Climate Change Crisis: A Review of Its Causes and Possible Responses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The title is suggestive and appealing, but academically, it is too journalistic and general, and does not contain a summary of what the reader will find in the text. It is too open-ended, too vague. It would be good to expand it or introduce more details for better indexing and visibility in databases and academic networks.
The summary is attractive, but it does not contain in detail the sections that are desirable in a summary (introduction-objectives-methodology-results-conclusions). It lacks substantial expansion of the methodology and results, to improve its indexing.
The keywords are well chosen but you cannot present an article with only 3 words. They should be increased as much as possible, as they will help the text to be read and found in searches by academic experts in the field.
In the Introduction and Conclusions, the objectives of this review should be more clearly and directly stated, as well as why it is offering a useful methodology for the scientific community, why it is innovative or how it has updated a methodology that already existed, and how this methodology can be replicated by other researchers. This does not appear and with what has already been written on similar issues, you need to differentiate yourself and delve into why this text offers something new.
Some of the references are a bit old for this topic and there is a lack of recent work, from 2022 and 2023. For the topic at hand, commenting on some texts that are more than 5 years old may be a bit outdated. Although the texts cited are solid and prestigious, and certainly useful for a review, some are a bit old for the area and there are few recent and international citations for a publisher of this prestige and for this topic. I recommend adding 8-10 super up-to-date references from top international journals.  
When dealing with authors who worked on the same idea or concept, it is very contradictory that the authors are not listed in chronological order and the dates of their works are skipped. It is assumed that an author began a concept and those cited later continued to develop or refine it; and perhaps it would be advisable to review this in cases where there are jumps in dates, forwards and backwards.
The section on Results is interesting, as the exposition and argumentation are well presented and well threaded. It is the best part of the text and I congratulate you for the exposition. However, the conclusions are too short and too quick.
It would be good to include, at the end, an expansion of the limitations encountered and the proposed prospects for the research community. This is the most valuable part of a research on this subject.

A harmonious distribution of paragraphs should be sought, so that they all have a similar length, 6-7 lines, with no paragraphs that are too long. This will make the text more readable and understandable even if it is already well written.

All acronyms should have their first letter capitalised, at least the first time they appear.

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for their considered comments

The title is suggestive and appealing, but academically, it is too journalistic and general, and does not contain a summary of what the reader will find in the text. It is too open-ended, too vague. It would be good to expand it or introduce more details for better indexing and visibility in databases and academic networks.

The title has now been revised

The summary is attractive, but it does not contain in detail the sections that are desirable in a summary (introduction-objectives-methodology-results-conclusions). It lacks substantial expansion of the methodology and results, to improve its indexing.

The abstract/summary has been revised as much as possible within the word limit of the journal
The keywords are well chosen but you cannot present an article with only 3 words. They should be increased as much as possible, as they will help the text to be read and found in searches by academic experts in the field.

The keywords have been expanded

In the Introduction and Conclusions, the objectives of this review should be more clearly and directly stated, as well as why it is offering a useful methodology for the scientific community, why it is innovative or how it has updated a methodology that already existed, and how this methodology can be replicated by other researchers. This does not appear and with what has already been written on similar issues, you need to differentiate yourself and delve into why this text offers something new.

The Intro has been amended emphasizing the scope of the ms which is an up to date review of the recent developments in the field, especially since COP21.

Some of the references are a bit old for this topic and there is a lack of recent work, from 2022 and 2023. For the topic at hand, commenting on some texts that are more than 5 years old may be a bit outdated. Although the texts cited are solid and prestigious, and certainly useful for a review, some are a bit old for the area and there are few recent and international citations for a publisher of this prestige and for this topic. I recommend adding 8-10 super up-to-date references from top international journals.  

In keeping with an up to date review over 40(out of 104) of the current cited references were published since 2020. For context, it is also of course necessary to include earlier highly cited works that have shaped the field. A few references have been added.

When dealing with authors who worked on the same idea or concept, it is very contradictory that the authors are not listed in chronological order and the dates of their works are skipped. It is assumed that an author began a concept and those cited later continued to develop or refine it; and perhaps it would be advisable to review this in cases where there are jumps in dates, forwards and backwards.
The section on Results is interesting, as the exposition and argumentation are well presented and well threaded. It is the best part of the text and I congratulate you for the exposition. However, the conclusions are too short and too quick.

The Conclusions have been revised and expanded.

It would be good to include, at the end, an expansion of the limitations encountered and the proposed prospects for the research community. This is the most valuable part of a research on this subject.

This has been mentioned in the Conclusions

We have also attempted to harmonize the paragraph lengths throughout.

Reviewer 2 Report

This article summarizes the reality and challenges of the climate change crisis, and provides a comprehensive summary of scientific research directions. The content classification system, concise language, and comprehensive references of the paper. It will attract widespread attention.

 I am also a very interested reader myself.

 Please note that commemorating Mr. Des Cornell is the ninth point.

Author Response

We thanks the reviewer for their comments.

There are no specific items that require response.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper deals with The climate change crisis and is written a review on this crisis. 

1. May include a detailed comparison in tabular format.

2. Can give some suggestions for reducing the the climate change crisis.

Author Response

This paper deals with The climate change crisis and is written a review on this crisis. 

1. May include a detailed comparison in tabular format.
2. Not sure what the reviewer intends here ?

2. Can give some suggestions for reducing the the climate change crisis.

Suggestions for addressing the climate crisis are included in the Sections 5-6 and Conclusions

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for taking my suggestions into consideration. I believe that they have all been included and that the text has been improved and should be published.