The authors have done commendable work on presenting the results of the first empirical study of the attitudes of Namibian geoscientists on engaging the public.  The paper is clear and well structured, addressing most of the issues it set out to investigate. 

In addition to the editor's comments on the need for "deeper engagement with international literature and established best practices", the authors are strongly encouraged to consider incorporating literature African and Southern African on geoscience, science communication and related fields. Also, the inclusion of key non-Western references e.g. from Asia and Latin America is recommended to the international literature. This would substantially strengthen their case on the communication gap and the cultural context. 

Other suggestions for the authors to consider:

• Line 81: Include additional reference(s) to support the conclusion on the “low public understanding of geosciences.”
• Line 468: Provide additional reference(s) for the statement on “countries where funding bodies or universities mandate engagement (e.g., the UK, EU, South Africa).”
• Lines 498–499: The claim that “this study offers one of the first empirically grounded analyses of how geoscientists in an LMIC perceive and practise public engagement” may be too wide. Consider reframing the scope of the contribution, especially the novel aspect, to Namibia, Southern Africa, or Africa. 
• Line 534 - Remove the "National Commission on Research, Science and Technology" and the brackets; NCRST is already spelled out in lines 81–82.

The authors are encouraged to conduct future research, as suggested in the "Study Limitations", on a more diverse cohort of geoscientists.

Thank you for inviting me to review this paper, a very welcome survey of geoscientists' perceptions of public outreach in Namibia; it represents a novel exercise. However, I think the presentation of the results needs some refinement to be more accessible to researchers unfamiliar with the Namibian academic system.

There is one aspect of the paper that I feel is very much needed: what this dialogic public engagement would look like in the Namibian context. As someone unfamiliar with the cultural and social context, it is hard to envision what this goal would look like, and thus it is hard to understand how the gap between geoscientists and the public can be bridged.

1. The social, historical, political, and cultural context of Namibia relevant to geoscientists should be outlined in the introduction. My comment comes from my own experience, also from a country in the Global South. Extractivist practices are surrounded by episodes of violence that underscore the relationships between the public and academia. There is a mention of the Stampriet community, but the case is not really explained. Some of the geoscientists' answers also seem to reveal a political vein that is unexplored in the paper. For instance, the quote from [GS02] suggests public communication needs to present "both sides of the story". To me, this reads like extraction past endeavours is also the root cause of eroded trust, so how would this dialogic engagement look in this case? With the honest disclosure of a conflict of interest? In Latin America, for instance, academics tend to come from large cities and go to rural areas, where they are seen as proselytizers, since once extraction is done, it is the community that faces the adverse consequences.
2. What are some recommendations, even if out of reach as ideals, that could serve as milestones to aim for? If the problem involves linguistic barriers, how would this dialogue take place? What sort of events?
3. Depending on the career stage and their workload, it makes sense that geoscientists do not see this engagement with the public as a core responsibility. What would be a strategy to push for this shift? Which other actors in Namibia could help bridge this gap?
4. Are there studies on the Namibian public perception of science in general? How big is the scientists/public gap?
5. What would the end goal of the communication be? Trust in geoscientists so that they can perform their tasks on private land? Push for policy-makers to encourage scientific outreach? Development of citizen science projects?

Also, as R1 mentioned, I think the introduction would benefit greatly from surveying what has been done in contexts outside the US or Europe.