The Role of Innovation Development in Advancing Green Finance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. It is necessary to revise the abstract and include the aim of the study.
2. The introduction mentions the "hypothesis of investigation," but they are not formulated in the following text.
3. The literature review needs to be reworked as it does not justify selecting research methods, variables, and indicators. 
4. Argumentation is needed as to why the dependent variable is chosen, “greenfield investment,” if the aim is defined as “to evaluate the role of green finance in fostering innovation development.” 
5. It is impossible to evaluate the results of the study since the hypotheses of the study have not been defined, and the selection of independent and dependent variables is not justified.
6. Excessive self-citation of authors should be avoided.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Acceptable.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you very much for your time and valuable comments. 

We are sending you our point-by-point response to your comments in the attachment.

All changes were highlighted in green.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction provides a broad overview of green finance and innovation but lacks a clear research question and explicit hypotheses, making it difficult to understand the specific focus of the study. While the paper incorporates many recent references, it does not sufficiently engage with foundational theoretical frameworks in green finance and innovation economics, which would help position the research within the broader academic discourse. Strengthening the theoretical foundation and explicitly stating the research question would significantly improve the introduction.

The research design must be improved, as the use of a Vector Autoregression (VAR) model is not adequately justified. The paper does not explain why this approach was chosen over alternative econometric techniques, such as cointegration analysis, panel data models, or structural modeling, which might be more suitable for examining causal relationships. Additionally, while the paper mentions stationarity tests, it lacks details on whether all variables met stationarity conditions, and robustness checks are missing, raising concerns about the reliability of the model.

The methods section provides a clear mathematical representation of the VAR model but lacks a thorough discussion of diagnostic tests such as autocorrelation, heteroskedasticity, and structural breaks, which are essential to ensure the validity of the results. Furthermore, the choice of countries (Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic) needs better justification—why were these four nations selected, and why were other EU countries with strong green finance policies, such as Germany or the Netherlands, excluded? Clarifying these methodological aspects would enhance the paper’s rigor.

The results are presented with detailed tables and figures, but many findings are not sufficiently explained. For instance, the variance decomposition and impulse response function (IRF) results lack contextual interpretation, making it unclear how these numbers translate into practical implications. Some tables are too large and difficult to interpret, and summarizing key trends in the text instead of relying heavily on numerical data would improve clarity.

The conclusions align with the empirical findings but raise concerns about overfitting, as the reported variance explained by R&D expenditures and patent applications (up to 98%) seems excessively high. This suggests a potential issue with model specification or data overfitting. Additionally, the policy implications need to be expanded, particularly regarding trade policies and innovation funding—how can policymakers use these findings to make better financial and regulatory decisions? More emphasis on practical takeaways would strengthen the conclusion section.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English language is acceptable but could be improved to enhance clarity and conciseness. The abstract is too dense, making it difficult to grasp key takeaways quickly. The literature review contains repetitive and overly descriptive sections, which could be streamlined for better readability. Improving sentence structure, eliminating redundant explanations, and enhancing the logical flow of arguments would make the paper more engaging and accessible to a broader audience.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you very much for your time and valuable comments. 

We are sending you our point-by-point response to your comments in the attachment.

All changes were highlighted in green.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is based on the vector autoregressive model and uses data from 2007 to 2022 to empirically analyze the impact of key innovation indicators such as R&D expenditure, high-tech trade, and patent applications on greenfield investment. It employs predictive techniques, impulse response functions, and variance decomposition analysis to evaluate the dynamic changes of green finance and innovation indicators, which has clear policy reference value. The paper has a complete structure, rigorous methods, and detailed data. Here are some suggestions that may help optimize the manuscript:

1. Abstract: The abstract can be further improved. A complete but concise description of the work is crucial for attracting potential readers to read the full text. The abstract of this literature can be appropriately simplified.
2. Literature review: The author has conducted a detailed literature review from perspectives such as green investment, knowledge sharing, management myopia, and financial tools. However, the author merely listed the relevant literature without pointing out the limitations and deficiencies of existing research. It is suggested that the author further summarize the research in the relevant field, point out the deficiencies of existing research, and thereby highlight the necessity and academic contribution of this study.
3. Data section: The author has presented the data used in this study in Table 1. However, the source of the data has not been detailed. It is suggested that the author appropriately supplement the explanation of the data source, including but not limited to the authority of the source and the legitimacy of acquisition, to ensure the reliability of the data. In addition, the author has not explained the data processing process. It is suggested to detail the data cleaning process, such as whether samples were deleted or extreme values were processed.
4. Methodology section: The author briefly introduced the empirical analysis method used in this study and listed the corresponding model - VAR model. However, why this method was used, what advantages or adaptability it has in studying the issues in this paper, and whether it has limitations and how they were handled were not explained. It is suggested that the author supplement the relevant content.
5. Finally, this article fails to reveal exciting research prospects, which to some extent weakens its influence. Therefore, it is suggested to conduct a more thorough analysis of the research conclusions, extract more insightful viewpoints, and propose truly forward-looking thoughts on the future research direction of this field, in order to stimulate readers' interest and expectations for the potential development of this field.

After carefully reviewing and comprehensively considering all the contents, I sincerely hope that the above review opinions can be helpful to your research work. In any case, I wish you continued success and all the best!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you very much for your time and valuable comments. 

We are sending you our point-by-point response to your comments in the attachment.

All changes were highlighted in green.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In conclusion, references to research by other authors should be avoided.

2. While somewhat reduced authors' self-citation, it's still too much.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your time and valuable recommendations, which have contributed to improving our manuscript. Below, we provide our point-by-point response to your comments.

1. "In conclusion, references to research by other authors should be avoided." - Thank you for your insightful remark. We have made some revisions to the conclusions, which we have highlighted in turquoise for clarity. Regarding the references, the policy recommendations presented in the conclusions aim to assist policymakers in optimizing financial and regulatory decisions. These recommendations are based on empirical findings and existing research. The editorial guidelines do not prohibit citations in the conclusions, and the references included serve to continue the academic discussion and contextualize our findings within the broader discourse on policy implementation. Nonetheless, we appreciate your attention to this aspect of our paper and have carefully reviewed our approach.
2. "While somewhat reduced, authors' self-citation is still too high." - Thank you for your comment. Upon review, we noticed that the version of the manuscript uploaded to the system was not the most recent one. Regarding the acceptable percentage of self-citations, we have addressed this issue in accordance with the journal’s editorial requirements, the methodology for calculating the threshold, as well as the guidelines of Scopus and COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). In the latest version of our manuscript, the level of self-citation fully complies with the journal's editorial standards.

Once again, we appreciate your constructive feedback and the opportunity to improve our work.

Best regards,

Aleksy Kwiliński

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree with the current version of the article

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time, insightful comments, and the high level of scientific discussion throughout the review process. Your valuable feedback has greatly contributed to improving the quality of our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful recommendations and your agreement with the current version of the article.

Best regards,
Aleksy Kwiliński