All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you for incorporating the feedback from the reviewer(s) in this version of the manuscript. I have reviewed the new materials and reviews and find the manuscript to be ready for publication. Congratulations!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jörg Oehlmann, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
-
-
-
The article has improved significantly and is suitable for publication.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
Clear and relevant hypothesis for assessment. Suggest also adding an item on the implementation of offsets, ie, 5. Feasibility of implementing carbon offset programs to balance total emissions
- Methodology assumes 'Direct flights in economy class were assumed for all participants travelling by airplane'- however, some travellers (assume 5-10%) would be business class, and the GHG contributions are much higher.
- methodology- would some participants have offset flights, e.,g Qantas carbon offset
- The portfolio of remediation projects is discussed in conclusion, but should be included in results with some details on the amount of GG for each of the five projects and the monetary cost
Robust and comprehensive data
As travel (and plane) was the most impactful for GG emissions, could future calculations for conferences just focus on plane travel and offsets?
Suggest some discussion on mandatory compared to voluntary measurement of carbon footprint for events. This was voluntary, and I would be interested in how many hours (and estimated cost) to design and measure the impacts and implement the offset, ie, is it simple or complicated?
Some discussion on mandatory versus voluntary payment of offsets. See this paper for challenges with who pays for offsets https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/24/11019
Recommendations - should all future conferences include a carbon offset equivalent of 1-2 tonnes of GG as part of the conference fee.
Recommendations - please discuss how to leverage carbon-neutral conferences, which are 5 days a year, to the scientists' activities for the other 360 days a year. Should we aim for carbon-neutral journals (PeerJ?), universities, expeditions, and research institutes?. Should scientists report on their individual carbon footprint (mine is 1.8 planets) as well as their H-index
Line 342- How were the 5 carbon offset programs selected? Was this selected by the participants from the conference (vote) or the authors?
Was there an accreditation or independent review of the calculations and offset?
no comment
no comment
-The authors should offer clear recommendations regarding the reduction of the carbon footprint associated with conferences and symposia
- The authors should recommend nature-based solutions for carbon offsetting at the symposium.
The authors may consider future research aimed at transforming the ICRS into a net-zero emission conference.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.