Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

You have a good job done, but some issues must be still addressed. Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your encouraging comments on the merits. We appreciate the detailed and constructive comments provided by you and have carefully revised the manuscript by incorporating all the suggestions.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

The paper entitled “Energy Consumption, Spatial Spillover and Regional Economic Growth: A Spatial Regression Analysis Based on Partial Differential Effect Decomposition” empirically measures the spatial spillover effect of energy consumption on economic growth by using a statistical spatial model. The topic of the paper is of interest for the journal “Sustainability” of MDPI editor. The paper is well written and could be accepted after some minor revisions as follow:

-          The euquations are not in the same format;

-          The units of measure should me checked and be in the international         system;

-          The english form is generally good but a deeper proofreading is necessare since many missprints are still present;

Kind Regards

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your encouraging comments on the merits. We appreciate the detailed and constructive comments provided by you and have carefully revised the manuscript by incorporating all the suggestions.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I find Energy Consumption, Spatial Spillover and Regional Economic Growth: A Spatial Regression Analysis Based on Partial Differential Effect Decomposition, a very interesting and well written paper. There are a few important suggestions included below that would improve the paper. However, I believe it is a good fit for Sustainability.

 

Notes:

1.      Abstract: The abstract is including too much information about the results and in general is not well written. A smaller and more informative abstract would be better.

2.      Introduction: You should include one more paragraph in the end of the introduction, including information about the structure of the paper (summarizing the structure of the paper, e.g.: section 2 summarizes the literature review on the topic, section 3 presents the methodology used and so on).

3.      Literature Review: Section 2 mainly includes older papers (with the only exception being the paper of Chen Liming(2020)). Please include some more recent papers if possible.

4.      You should include the number of each equation in the text. For example, page 4, line 172-174: from “The Global Moran’s I is a measure of spatial autocorrelation developed by Patrick Alfred Pierce Moran to measure whether there is spatial agglomeration of research objects in the global space.”, write “The Global Moran’s I (expression 1) is a measure of spatial autocorrelation developed by Patrick Alfred Pierce Moran to measure whether there is spatial agglomeration of research objects in the global space”. And similarly for all the rest formulas used.

5.      The above note also holds for the figures (for example figure 3-6 are not included in the text).

6.      You should do the same for the tables as well (Table 6, Table 9)

7.      It would be informative to have a footnote explaining exactly which provinces you’re using. The best part for it would be section 3.2.2 line 224-226.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your encouraging comments on the merits. We appreciate the detailed and constructive comments provided by you and have carefully revised the manuscript by incorporating all the suggestions.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Ok