Decomposition and Decoupling Analysis of Factors Affecting Carbon Emissions in China’s Regional Logistics Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

(1) In the introduction, authors should describe in detail the differences between this study and previous studies. In particular, please clearly state the value of the new knowledge presented by this study. Please justify why this research should be published and clearly state the excellence of this research. Additionally, please clarify the research question of this study.

(2) For research methodologies and research models, please clearly state the similarities, differences, and superiority based on previous studies.

(3) In the conclusion, please clearly state the theoretical and practical contribution of this study. Also, please clarify the implications and insights of this study and the feasibility of the research results. Finally, in the conclusion, please clarify the limitations of this study and the direction of future research.

(4) This journal Sustainability is an international premiere journal. Therefore, authors should add sufficient content throughout the text for this study to attract the attention of international readers. In particular, the introduction, conclusion, and abstract about it should be significantly added. In other words, it is necessary to provide international implications and insights by examining how it can be applied to similar situations in other countries and abundantly prior research.

(5) Please thoroughly review the previous research on LMDI and add a description of the related content to the literature review.

(6) Insufficient discussion of analysis results. Based on previous research, please provide sufficient discussion both theoretically and practically about the research results.

(7) I believe that the length of the title is too long.. 

Author Response

(1) In the introduction, authors should describe in detail the differences between this study and previous studies. In particular, please clearly state the value of the new knowledge presented by this study. Please justify why this research should be published and clearly state the excellence of this research. Additionally, please clarify the research question of this study.

Response:According to the suggestions of experts, this revision has made a major revision to the introduction, added the international background of this research, clearly explained the research value of this paper, and explained the main significance of this research, and also explained the main research issues of this paper, and in the the last part of the introduction adds to the research framework of this paper. Modified parts are marked in red font.

(2) For research methodologies and research models, please clearly state the similarities, differences, and superiority based on previous studies.

Response:According to the expert's suggestion, this revision adds the detailed introduction of the method, and explains the applicability of the method selection and the main advantages of the method on the basis of comparing other methods. Modified parts are marked in red font.

(3) In the conclusion, please clearly state the theoretical and practical contribution of this study. Also, please clarify the implications and insights of this study and the feasibility of the research results. Finally, in the conclusion, please clarify the limitations of this study and the direction of future research.

Response:According to the suggestions of experts, this revision has made significant changes to the conclusion part, adding theoretical and practical contributions, and summarizing the conclusions, and finally adding the shortcomings of this paper and future research directions. Modified parts are marked in red font.

(4) This journal Sustainability is an international premiere journal. Therefore, authors should add sufficient content throughout the text for this study to attract the attention of international readers. In particular, the introduction, conclusion, and abstract about it should be significantly added. In other words, it is necessary to provide international implications and insights by examining how it can be applied to similar situations in other countries and abundantly prior research.

Response:According to the suggestions of experts, the introduction, conclusion and abstract have been revised in this revision, some national backgrounds have been added, and some foreign authors have added literatures in this field, which are used to support the research of this paper and enhance the international vision of the paper. We would like to thank the reviewers for their high-quality advice. Modified parts are marked in red font.

(5) Please thoroughly review the previous research on LMDI and add a description of the related content to the literature review.

Response:According to experts' suggestions, the literature on LMDI research is added in the literature review section, and the research content is explained in detail. Modified parts are marked in red font.

(6) Insufficient discussion of analysis results. Based on previous research, please provide sufficient discussion both theoretically and practically about the research results.

Response:According to the suggestions of experts, this revision adds discussion content to the empirical analysis part, compares the research conclusions with the results of previous scholars' research, draws similarities and differences, and highlights the innovations of this paper. Modified parts are marked in red font.

(7) I believe that the length of the title is too long.. 

Response:According to the suggestions of experts, the title of the paper was revised and the length of the title was compressed. Modified parts are marked in red font.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Abstract has inappropriate structure. I suggest answering the following aspects: - general context - novelty of the work - methodology used (describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied) - main results and related interpretations.
2. Introduction: This section should briefly place the study in a wide context and emphasize why it is relevant carrying out the analysis. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance. In this perspective, this section is too succinct and fails to effectively point out the relevance of your contribution towards the existing literature. Moreover, the authors do not provide at the end of the section the description of the paper structure which is very useful for readers.
3. Literature Review: This chapter is important. The authors present a rather modest system of analysis that can be further improved. It would be useful to analyze more and new sources.
4. The research methodology seems underdeveloped. Methods should be described in detail. I think the research procedure could be much more clearly described by means of a diagram also highlighting its potential and limit.  I lack a more detailed explanation.
5. The isn’t a discussion part. Authors should disclose their essential “discoveries”.

 

Author Response

1.Abstract has inappropriate structure. I suggest answering the following aspects: - general context - novelty of the work - methodology used (describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied) - main results and related interpretations.

Response:Based on expert advice, the Abstract section was revised to reorganize the writing structure of the abstract in the order of general background - novelty of the work - methods used (briefly describe the main method or treatment applied) - main results and related explanations. Modified parts are marked in red font.

2.Introduction: This section should briefly place the study in a wide context and emphasize why it is relevant carrying out the analysis. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance. In this perspective, this section is too succinct and fails to effectively point out the relevance of your contribution towards the existing literature. Moreover, the authors do not provide at the end of the section the description of the paper structure which is very useful for readers.

Response:According to the suggestions of experts, this revision has made a major revision to the introduction, added the international background of this research, clearly explained the research value of this paper, and explained the main significance of this research, and also explained the main research issues of this paper, and in the the last part of the introduction adds to the research framework of this paper. Modified parts are marked in red font.

3.Literature Review: This chapter is important. The authors present a rather modest system of analysis that can be further improved. It would be useful to analyze more and new sources.

Response:According to experts' suggestions, the literature on LMDI research was added in the literature review section, and the research content was explained in detail to make it more suitable for the research theme. Modified parts are marked in red font.

4.The research methodology seems underdeveloped. Methods should be described in detail. I think the research procedure could be much more clearly described by means of a diagram also highlighting its potential and limit.  I lack a more detailed explanation.

Response:According to the expert's suggestion, this revision adds the detailed introduction of the method. On the basis of comparing other methods, the applicability of the method selection and the main advantages of the method are explained in more detail. Modified parts are marked in red font.

5.The isn’t a discussion part. Authors should disclose their essential “discoveries”.

Response:According to the suggestions of experts, this revision adds discussion content to the empirical analysis part, compares the research conclusions with the results of previous scholars' research, draws similarities and differences, and highlights the innovations of this paper. Modified parts are marked in red font.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

(1) The authors would like to clarify the research question of this study in the introduction.

(2) A more kind and detailed explanation is needed for various mathematical expressions and symbols appearing in papers such as Equations (1)-(8).

(3) A more detailed description of the data collection method is required.

(4) In conclusion, please supplement the implications and insights of this study a little more. In particular, please mention and describe similar international cases. International readers may be unaware of the regional divisions and differences in economic, social, and industrial China.

(5) The title and abstract are too long. Please make it short and concise. On the other hand, the number of keywords is too small.

(6) Please edit according to the journal editorial guidelines, such as citation method.

Author Response

(1) The authors would like to clarify the research question of this study in the introduction.

Response:Based on expert review comments, the main research questions of this paper have been added to the last part of the introduction. Modified parts are marked in red font.

(2) A more kind and detailed explanation is needed for various mathematical expressions and symbols appearing in papers such as Equations (1)-(8).

Response:According to the review opinions of experts, this revision provides supplementary explanations for the symbols used for explanation. Modified parts are marked in red font.

(3) A more detailed description of the data collection method is required.

Response:According to the review opinions of experts, this revision provides a detailed description of the data collection method. Modified parts are marked in red font.

(4) In conclusion, please supplement the implications and insights of this study a little more. In particular, please mention and describe similar international cases. International readers may be unaware of the regional divisions and differences in economic, social, and industrial China.

Response:According to the review opinions of experts, this revision adds inspiration and insights to the policy recommendations, hoping to provide reference for scholars. Modified parts are marked in red font.

(5) The title and abstract are too long. Please make it short and concise. On the other hand, the number of keywords is too small.

Response:According to the review opinions of experts, this revision compresses the title and abstract, shortens the length, and increases the number of keywords. Modified parts are marked in red font.

(6) Please edit according to the journal editorial guidelines, such as citation method.

Response:According to the review opinions of experts and the format requirements of the reference journals, the full text of the cited part of the literature is revised. Modified parts are marked in red font.

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in present form

Author Response

Thank you very much for the review comments provided by the experts, which have provided great help for the improvement of the quality of the paper.