Sustainable Development under Belt and Road Initiative: A Case Study of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor’s Socio-Economic Impact on Pakistan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Brief summary

The manuscript aims to analyze, in general, the importance of the Belt and Road Initiative and, in particular, that of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CEPC) in the sustainable development of Pakistan. In doing so, a questionnaire was applied to 500 respondents. Unsurprisingly, the survey results seem to point to a positive effect of CEPC on the development of that country.

Broad comments areas of strength

This study confirms the importance of infrastructure for the sustainable development of countries, which is undoubtedly a relevant and appropriate subject for the Journal.

areas of weakness

In my opinion, there are 3 areas where the manuscript has some weaknesses:

It is not always clear, which is due to a use of the English language not always entirely correct; The concluding section is incomplete; In methodological terms, there seems to be some confusion in the application and interpretation of the results of the binary logistic regression model. Specific comments

Taking into account those 3 areas of weakness:

A proof-reading of the manuscript is recommended to clarify some unclear sentences such as: “The restoration of the ancient Silk Road will be reconnected China with Africa,…” (line 18, page 1); “A railway system and road networks enhance the ways of shipping which further not only…” (line 47, page 2); “According to the report of [33] the ranking of Pakistan was 147 among 189 188 on Human Development Index (HDI) which shows the lowest human development in Pakistan.” (lines 188-189, page 6); As usual, the concluding section should contain not only the conclusions but also the limitations of the study which may serve to conduct further studies; A clarification of the results of the binary logistic regression model is crucial. In fact, according to the model (lines 520-523, page 15), Poverty Alleviation (X1), Economic development (X2), Cultural influence (X3) and Socioeconomic impact (X4) are explanatory, i.e. causal, factors of ln (p / (1-p)), where p is the probability of the dependent variable (CPEC). However, in interpreting the results (lines 525-548, page 16) the authors claim that CEPC contributes to each of these factors, which obviously means a reversal of the sense of causality expressed in the model.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for your valuable time and comments. Please find the following amendments as per your desires and suggestions: -

The authors have amended the manuscript with English editing. The conclusion section has been extended as per desire. Association of CPEC and its predictors using Logistics Regression has been added in table 10.

For further clarification, please follow the manuscript.

Thanking you

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This study addresses the impact of the economic changes brought by the development of the China-Pakistan economic corridor. Such impact was evaluated through the statistical treatment of the answers to a questionnaire to which 500 individuals in two cities of Pakistan answered.

Although the paper is informative and prepared with detail, I'm not too enthusiastic about the final outcome: first and most important - I do not believe that it offers a convincingly strong scientific contribution; second, the english of the paper is very poor, with many grammatical errors; third, many parts of the paper are confusing and uninformative, starting in the title and the abstract, which are too long and too repetitive (the title is unnecessarily long and repeats the same word three times; the abstract does not go straight to the point).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for your valuable time and comments. Please find the following amendments as per your desires and suggestions: -

The authors have amended the manuscript with English editing. The discussion and conclusion sections have been extended as per the desire to clear the outcome of the manuscript. The title has modified after deleting unnecessarily long and repeats the same word three times.

For further clarification, please follow the manuscript.

Thanking you

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The answers from the authors are satisfactory to the minimum. I understand this to mean that my recommendations were too demanding.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your feedback. We have improved the overall quality of the research paper and revised it carefully as per your valuable comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made an effort to improve the paper following the guidelines offered by the reviewer report. There are still some issues with the English language; a last revision from a third party could help.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your feedback. The authors have modified the manuscript by improving the English language. We have also addressed minor issues in language and made it errors free.