Collaborative Allocation of Energy Consumption, Air Pollutants and CO₂ Emissions in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have the following recommendations

1. The first sentences on abstract are not clear. Atmospheric pollution and emissions are derived from energy consumption, but also from other sources, for example some chemical process. In the introduction you also use some sentences that must be revised. For example you say: There is a high correlation between energy and environment. Be more precise. Addtionally, in the method section this type of sentences appear. For example: The principle of equity based on allocation is the most widely used
2. method section. I think you should include some more explanation in the method section for not expert on this method. I mean that some more non technical but intuitive explanation should be included
3. In the materials section, there are very imprecise explanation about how the 2025 data are calculated.  These are the data you are going to use, so more information is needed. for example you say Regression analysis of the capital stock data of various provinces in 2011-2017 shows that they all show a good linear relationship, which predicts the capital stock of each province in 2025. but which is this regression? How have you calculated??? In case of GDP, energy consumption , pollutants just the same. We can not be sure that these data are quite good
4. The results. You give many data, but you need to include some paragraphs at the bottom of each subsection explainig what means the results you obtain
5. In conclusion, you are again imprecise. For example What mean The equity between the collaborative allocation result and the national planning scheme are compared and it shows that the result of this study is superior to the national planning.?? please explain the conclusion better, so if you have not read the paper yet you can have a better idea

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

This paper has a good overall goal and an interesting methodological approach. However, this paper has a lot of potentials but needs a bit more additional work and several clarifications, that will highly improve the quality of the paper.

Please look at the review in the attachment.

All the best,

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

• First of all, the title should be less than 20 words. It is too lengthy to get the clear idea. Make it simple, and clear. Delete the methodology, which is popular, and thus not unique.
• The abstract should not be the summary of the introduction and/or conclusion. It should show the research contribution in its methodology, new findings, and some unique, field-oriented practical implications and suggestions. Unfortunately, all these issues are not in the abstract. First, the abstract should have the clear description of the research purpose, and its “logical” background (i.e Paper ! say “Yes”. Paper B says “No”, and thus this paper shall analyzed the reason for this disparity). Moreover, to solve this research questions, the author should clarify the methodological contribution under the comparison of other researches. And then, the abstract should show the empirical numeric results(“numbers”) more clearly with its unique interpretation. Unfortunately, the abstract concludes with a sentence, “The collaborative allocation result is superior to the initial planning, and various provinces in China have undertaken different levels of energy saving and emission reduction pressure.--- it is found that the regional integration can alleviate the energy saving and emission reduction pressure of the provinces”-> It is too general and nonconcrete. Everybody can say this without any serious empirical results. It just confirms our common sense. There is no unique phenomena in Chengdu or in China from this empirical research. Moreover, there is no unique contribution in methodology, even their unique findings in “numbers”. It is really terrible. Therefore, due to the lack of all the logical structure as well as very weak contribution in its interpretations of numerical research results, I have to reject the paper without making any further comments.
• English is need to have Professional Proofreading service. Most of sentences are too long to catch the meaning of it. It should be short, clear, and appropriate in grammar. Many sentences have more than three lines, resulting in the confusion of the subject and verbs. There are many Chinese English as well, and thus global reader cannot understand it at all! For example, in Line 15, “Synergistic” -> synergic.
• 1 should be separated with Ch.1 Introduction (background of Research and research questions, expected contributions etc.) and Ch.2 Literature review (Do not explain papers in parallel ways. Instead, make comparison and get the authors model as the result of comparison).
• The CO2 emission and air pollutions cannot be treated simultaneously. For example, diesel car and trucks are free of carbon emission but with much air pollution. I do not understand why the authors did put together. Explain all in details with much citations.
• In Figure 2, almost all figures are the same! What is the difference? If so, and if not why? Explain more in details.
• There is no unique implications and suggestions in conclusion. Make new chapter for “Discussion (of the empirical results)”. Show the contributions of the empirical results with Chinese real practice in the field.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept

Author Response

Dear editor and review:

    We appreciate for your work earnestly and your suggestions for our paper. In order to make our paper more suitable for readers around the world, we have used special institutions to polish the English grammar.And thank you very much for your approval of this paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

• The paper is much enhanced, but the basic problems are not solved at all!
• First, title is still too lengthy. Make it simple, short and clear!
• Even if English is much better now, but it is not appropriate in global perspective. Please provide "the Certificate of Professional English Proof Reading Service" by MDPI (or similar one).
• Second, there is "no unique findings, implications and suggestions in abstract. Abstract should not be simply the summary of introduction/conclusion. It should have some "number" from the simulation, which will give clearly the challenges and the suggestions on it. The abstract should not end with common sense type, "The implementation of major regional development strategies ---can improve the realization of optimal allocation scheme." -> Every Chinese people can say so. It's not unique at all. Why is this common sense related with empirical results directly? Show the number to support for this common sense, and explain how to improve the realization of optimal allocation scheme more specifically, precisely and field-oriented ways.
• In line 211, the eqn, should show not only F value for reliability of the model, but the t-value for the estimated coefficient of "x" variable.
• I asked the new chapter of "Discussion and Suggestion", just before the conclusion chapter. Otherwise, the unique contributions are not clear in the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper reflects relatively well on the comments, and thus possible to be accepted. But I recommend a few things for better strcture.

6.2. Suggestions -> 6.2 Implications and suggestions (It does have interpretation of the results)

- Some implications are too common sense and thus no meaningful "unique" contribution. For example, in line 512-513, "Third, China should strengthen the construction of transportation and other infrastructure, build a complete logistics network and promote the flow of production factors" -> Everybody can say this. Thus, the authors should make more "specific" direction for transportation. Read and make a citation with "Choi, Y.;Wang, H.; Yang, F.;Lee, H. Sustainable Governance of the Korean Freight Transportation Industry from an Environmental Perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6429. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116429"

7. Conclusion -> It should be separated in lines.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf