I appreciated reading this paper, which tells a compelling and timely story about an action research project engaging disadvantaged young people in a coastal UK community. The authors have clearly undertaken a thoughtful, locally rooted project that addresses the urgent need for more inclusive forms of climate communication and education. The narrative is engaging, and the topic is relevant to diverse readerships. However, I believe that in its current form, the paper does not yet meet the standards of scientific rigour, theoretical grounding, and methodological clarity expected by a peer-reviewed journal. Major revisions are required for it to constitute a publishable scientific contribution.

Below, I detail both key concerns and recommendations, structured to reflect the journal’s evaluation framework.

1. Scientific Significance

The manuscript presents a meaningful case study and offers a potentially valuable contribution in the form of the “new climate praxis model.” However, the theoretical and conceptual development of this model is not adequately established; the paper lacks clarity on how it advances the existing state of knowledge on the topic, particularly within the domains of climate literacy, participatory education, or community-based climate action, and how the model builds upon such literature.

While the project is potentially original in its practice, the paper currently reads more as a descriptive – and engaging - account of an experience than a critical analysis of a topic, offering new conceptual tools, methods, or generalisable insights for future research and practice on the topic. Also, terms like “intergenerational dialogues,” “creative methodologies,” and “transformative potential” are used loosely and need clearer definitions, theoretical anchoring, and evidentiary support.

1. Scientific Quality

Several areas of the paper would benefit from improved methodological transparency and conceptual clarity:

• Literature/theory integration: The current literature is concentrated in the introduction and lacks a dedicated section clarifying key debates in climate education, youth engagement, or critical pedagogies. This weakens the paper’s ability to make a clear and evidenced claim about its knowledge contribution. A focused literature review and stronger conceptual grounding – linking contemporary climate education debates with Freire’s critical pedagogies theory - are urgently needed.
• Conceptual clarity: Terms such as “intergenerational dialogue” are not clearly justified or demonstrated in the empirical material. Since the project centres on year-eight students, it is not apparent in what way intergenerational exchange was achieved. Was the creative material from the community integrated in the sessions? Did the youth engage directly with elders at some point? These elements need to be clarified.
• Methodological rigour: The methods section does offer helpful detail on the sessions and activities undertaken with students, but it lacks critical information on:
• Sampling: Why this age group? How were students selected? Were there any limitations emerging from this sample?
• Data sources: What exactly is being analysed in the paper? Is this an analysis of the methods, the participants’ outputs, or the overall process/methodology?
• Analytical strategy: Are statements (e.g., “students did not perceive climate change as a risk to their community”) based solely on outputs such as word clouds and maps? Were transcripts, field notes, or recordings used to support interpretation? Clarification is needed on how claims were derived and what data supported them.
• Use of references: Some citations are used imprecisely or overly broadly (e.g., at some point Freire is cited as if he created the “new climate praxis model,” rather than the authors building upon his ideas). Greater care is needed in situating this work within—not merely citing—the theoretical literature.

1. Presentation Quality

The manuscript is engaging but needs clearer structure and focus to guide the reader through the research story:

• Introduction: Overly long and lacks a clear funnel from problem → gap → contribution → research aim → structure of the paper.
• Findings: Results are described chronologically and narratively, which is compelling, but they need to be more analytically unpacked. For instance, the claim that students developed a deeper understanding of climate risks should be substantiated with clear evidence (e.g., comparison between baseline and post-questionnaires, direct quotes, etc.).
• Language and terminology: The paper uses accessible language, but at times imprecise or vague terms (e.g., “creative,” “transformative”) are left undefined.

Recommendations for Revision

To strengthen the manuscript, I suggest the following:

1. Rework the introduction to provide a clear and structured argument: define the problem, establish the knowledge gap, state the contribution, describe the methods briefly, and outline the structure of the paper.
2. Add a dedicated literature/conceptual section:

• Map key debates in climate education, especially with disadvantaged youth.
• Understand the key concepts that the paper builds upon and clarify what they mean: “intergenerational dialogue,” “creative climate engagement,” and “transformative education,” using scholarly sources. I personally do not think this paper is about “intergenerational dialogues”, but I could be wrong. A clearer explanation would help.
• Discuss the foundations of the “climate literacy-based approach” and how your model builds upon (or diverges from) this.