Escrever um comentário

Summary

In this study, people’s perceptions of insects which influence their attitudes towards them were examined. The authors focused on the paradox between the ecological importance of insects (such as pollination, nutrient cycling, pest control, and nutritional value) and the discomfort or fear that they bring to people. Using a 17-question Google Form survey which was distributed across different age groups, gender, residential areas, and educational levels, they explored how these demographic factors shape people's attitudes towards these creatures. 

Survey participant responses were analyzed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and it showed three key dimensions (environmental awareness, demographic influences, and emotional responses) which explained the 38% of variance in their attitudes and perceptions towards insects. Findings from this study showed that people's perceptions of the harmfulness of all insects varied significantly by age and that the gender of a person (especially males) influenced their willingness to handle dangerous insects. Interestingly, it was also found out that people with higher education showed greater ecological awareness and tolerance towards insects.

Despite the general acknowledgement that insects play critical roles in ecology, fear and aversion still persisted, especially among females, some of whom considered the killing of insects appropriate. The authors suggested that targeted education could bridge the knowledge gaps, reduce hostility, and promote coexistence between humans and insects. Nevertheless, the study does not explicitly address issues related to the safe and appropriate handling of dangerous insects, which limits its applicability in practical contexts.

List of major concerns and feedback

Concerns with techniques and analyses

• The study did not report performing standard tests such as Bartlett's test of sphericity before conducting Principal Component Analysis (PCA). This test is essential to ensure that the data is suitable for PCA and to strengthen the reliability of the results.

• Using only Google Forms to conduct the survey may have excluded participants especially from rural areas where internet access is limited. This is a major issue because people in rural areas like farmers often have more interactions with a variety of insects. The exclusion of this group of people could skew the findings and reduce the study’s ability to reflect on the broader population. If practicable for the authors, this could be addressed by complementing online surveys with offline or field-based data collection. Otherwise, this issue should be recommended for future studies.

• The three PCA components show only 38% of variance in people's attitudes toward insects. This relatively low value suggests that some important factors (like cultural beliefs, personal experiences with insects) that influence their perspectives have not yet been measured. These aspects can be considered and captured in future work using additional surveys or qualitative interviews.

• While this study has done well to highlight some of the importance of insects in biodiversity and ecosystem and why they must be conserved, however, it does not really address critical issues on how people should handle those harmful insects like mosquitoes, scorpions, ticks, termites, etc. This limits the practical applicability of the findings from this study. The authors could enhance the research by including strategies or guidelines that are best for dealing with these harmful species in a safe and balanced way.

• This preprint did not clearly state the total number of survey participants or provide detailed demographic breakdowns of the age, gender, and location of participants. Although the first paragraph of page 6 does acknowledge low sample sizes for certain subgroups, these details are not comprehensive or transparent enough in the results. Reporting the full details of participants characteristics would improve the reproducibility and credibility of the study.

List of minor concerns and feedback

• The low variance of 38% suggests that caution needs to be taken before making strong generalizations, because a large part of the variability is not accounted for. Although this is not uncommon in research, the authors should explicitly acknowledge this in the discussion section and advise caution when making generalizations from the results.

• The main research aims or objectives are not clearly stated in the abstract. This may confuse readers about the focus of the study. Rather than stating the objectives in the Material and Methods section, it is recommended that the authors do so in the abstract and introduction for the sake of clarity.

• The first paragraph of the results section contains statements on interpretation and discussion of results. This is more suited to the discussion section.

• There is no information whether teenagers belonging to age group 10-17 were able to participate in the Google form survey. This age group is a relevant demographic, as teenagers may have unique experiences and perceptions of insects that could enrich the findings. Of course including this age category would require parental or guardian consent, but it would be good to know if they were considered in this study.

• The study did not explain whether illiterate participants were included, or how they might have been engaged in completing the survey. The authors should clarify if such participants were excluded entirely and discuss how this may have influenced their findings.

• While PCA and chi-squared tests are mentioned in this study, equally important parameter settings, preprocessing steps (e.g., data cleaning, handling of missing data), and versions of statistical software are missing. Please include this information to improve the reproducibility of the study.

Figures and Tables

• In Tables 2-5, there are no superscripts to indicate which groups differ significantly, aside from reporting the mean and standard deviation values. Although exact p-values are stated, it would improve clarity to apply a post-hoc statistical analysis (e.g., Duncan's Multiple Range Test or Tukey's HSD) and indicate significant differences directly in the tables.

• The results presented in Tables 2-6 are not explicitly cited in the text of the Results section which makes it harder for reviewers to follow the interpretation. It would be best if tables are cited at least once in the corresponding text (rather than including them as subheadings), with clear reference to specific findings. This will improve the flow and readability of this study.

• The titles of Tables 2-6 are written in their captions leading to unnecessary repetition, since the same information is already included as subheadings of each table. Kindly, remove the titles from the caption of each table to streamline the results and reduce repetition. 

• In page 9 under the subheading "Insect Perception Responses by Gender”, the statement "The analysis of insect perception responses by gender shows that overall attitudes between females and males are largely similar, with only one statistically significant difference observed” is unclear. Kindly clarify this statement by citing the specific data and P-value from the table for transparency and readers’ accessibility.

• It is not clear what "Other" means in the context of the study. Also, some parameters or values are missing in Table 5, especially for questions 7 and 11-17. This should be addressed especially if it was due to non-responses, data exclusion, or another reason.

Limitation discussed 

• The preprint did not explicitly discuss the study's limitations. In particular, there is no acknowledgement of potential sampling bias such as cultural and occupational profiles of respondents. Without this information, it will be difficult to assess how well the sample reflects the broader population.

• Because the survey relies on self-reported responses, there is a risk of self-reported bias, which is not addressed in the discussion. It would be appropriate if this is acknowledged with suggestions on ways it could be mitigated in future research.

Ethics

The author explained that because the data were collected online and anonymously using Google Forms, the study did not require a formal ethical review and approval. It is still appropriate to categorically state this in the Methods section.

Additional comments

• This study relates well to existing literature by providing feedback on the perspectives of different genders toward insects, as well as their attitudes. The findings can contribute to future research by highlighting the need to educate the public on the ecological importance of insects and encouraging the reduction in the use of chemicals for insect control.

• The research is engaging because it looks at a topic that is deeply related to daily human experiences. Insects are always present in our environment. Even if we do not actively encounter them, they often find their way into our surroundings. This makes the study relevant and relatable to the general public.

• The paradox outlined in this study is very interesting. While many people acknowledge the beneficial roles insects play (e.g., pollination, nutrient cycling, and pest control), they still experience fear or discomfort upon encountering them. This emphasizes the complex influence of cultural and psychological factors on human attitudes toward insects, factors that education alone may not fully address unless these deeper issues are also confronted.

• The preprint as it is would benefit from copy-editing to correct minor typographical and grammatical errors, which would improve clarity and readability.

Concluding remarks

Overall, Live Review participants found this to be a well-constructed study. We thank the authors of the preprint for posting their work openly for feedback. Many thanks also to all participants of the Live Review call for their time and for engaging in the lively discussion that generated this review.

Conflict of Interest

Toba Isaac Olatoye was a facilitator of this call and one of PREreview's 2025 champions. No other competing interests were declared by the reviewers.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.