Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

After reading your manuscript, I realized that you were examined inequity in Environmental Pollution of China’s Livestock and Poultry Industry: A Frontier Applications of Spatial Models. The issue that you dealt with is well described in the paper, and your work complements previous knowledge and opens up the possibility for further research. Paper is technically and clearly written. Discussion is clearly written. The methodological details are explain well.

 

Remarks: The linguistic quality of the paper should be revised more carefully once more by English expert.

The Introduction does not indicate the status of current knowledge. Moreover, there doesn’t seem to be a clear research hypothesis formulated. The experimental design is appropriate to resolve the stated objectives of the study. The experimental techniques are appropriate to resolve the stated objectives of the study.

Please check all references in main text and in the references list.

Certainly the results are important to scientific literature.

Sincerely,

 

 

Author Response

1. The linguistic quality of the paper should be revised more carefully once more by English expert.

Response: We have carefully read the whole manuscript and revised the English.

2. The Introduction does not indicate the status of current knowledge. Moreover, there doesn’t seem to be a clear research hypothesis formulated. The experimental design is appropriate to resolve the stated objectives of the study. The experimental techniques are appropriate to resolve the stated objectives of the study.

Response: We have added current knowledge in the third paragraph of the introduction and stated the purpose of the research in the fourth paragraph.

3. Please check all references in main text and in the references list.

Response: We have Checked all the references carefully and add some new references according to reviewer requirements. All the references and citations are in a proper sequence.

4. Certainly the results are important to scientific literature.

Response: We have carefully read the results and add some new lines and provide discussion that could help in simplified the results.

Reviewer 2 Report

The presented article is relevant and will interest a wide range of scientists and readers. It should be especially noted correctly selected research methods and a qualitative mathematical apparatus, which ensured a high degree of data analysis and their modeling. The idea of research and the logical presentation of the results and their discussion are well traced. The stated conclusions are complete and correct. A qualitative review of the literature is presented. I recommend the article for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your appreciation will help us to publish a quality manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract is too long and unclear: the context of the research  is missing. The material and methods, results, conclusions, and policies implications are not presented in a clear structured way.

Introduction

-          Other studies dealing with the same topic in other parts of the words are rather missing to see the scientific contributions of the paper;

-          The agricultural environmental regulations developed by the policy makers in China are not presented/detailed, so it is difficult to understand the context of the paper; Compare such burdens with other parts of the word.

Material and methods

-          Not clear how the value-added of animal husbandry is obtained in lines 140 to 144;

-          The data used in the study is not properly described in section 2.1. The references to other similar studies are also missing.

-          Not clear what is the coefficient manual mentioned in line 172 and what are its limits in the calculation of different pollution coefficients;

-          Alarm values self-established in table 2 are not linked with relevant scientific literature;

-          Not clear what type of data and how data is obtained to calculate equations 3 to 7 and model 8; what are the literature references behind equations 3 to 7 and model 8;

-          The descriptive statistics of the data used in the study is missing.

Results

Difficult to assess how results were obtained. Figures 1 and 2 are not clear. Section 3.3.2 belongs to the material and methods section.

Discussions are missing.

Author Response

1. Abstract is too long and unclear: the context of the research is missing. The material and methods, results, conclusions, and policies implications are not presented in a clear structured way.

Response: The Abstract has been simplified.

Introduction

2. Other studies dealing with the same topic in other parts of the words are rather missing to see the scientific contributions of the paper.

Response: A review of research on the same topic is added in the third paragraph of the introduction that helpful for describing our study contribution.

3. The agricultural environmental regulations developed by the policy makers in China are not presented/detailed, so it is difficult to understand the context of the paper; Compare such burdens with other parts of the word.

Response: At the end of the second paragraph of the introduction, we have added some relevant policies and research background of China.

Material and Methods

4. Not clear how the value-added of animal husbandry is obtained in lines 140 to 144.

Response: the expression has been adjusted.

5. The data used in the study is not properly described in section 2.1. The references to other similar studies are also missing.

Response: We have modified some expressions in 2.1 and also wrote the reference for more explanation.

6. Not clear what is the coefficient manual mentioned in line 172 and what are its limits in the calculation of different pollution coefficients.

Response: The full title of the manual has been supplemented in the article.

7. Alarm values self-established in table 2 are not linked with relevant scientific literature;

Response: literature has been added as table notes under Table 2.

8. Not clear what type of data and how data is obtained to calculate equations 3 to 7 and model 8; what are the literature references behind equations 3 to 7 and model 8.

Response: I have added references at the appropriate places in equations 3-8. Among them, the references of equations 5, 6, and 7 are mentioned in the text, namely, references 23-24-25.

9. The descriptive statistics of the data used in the study is missing.

Response: The descriptive statistics of the data used in the study has been mentioned on page 15.

Results

10. Difficult to assess how results were obtained. Figures 1 and 2 are not clear. Section 3.3.2 belongs to the material and methods section.

Response: -  Figures 1 and 2 include the data of 31 provinces in China for a total of 13 years into the calculation, and each matrix contains 403*403 information, which is a large amount of information, so it may not be very clear to show.

- Since the 3.3.2 is based on the completion of the calculation in sections 3.1 and 3.2, that is to say, we need to use the results of 3.1 and 3.2 to calculate 3.3.2, so if it is put in the method section, it will appear in an inappropriate order.

11. Discussions are missing.

Response: Discussion has been added

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor and Authors,

This paper can be accepted for publication.

 

All the best!

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript and give us suggestions for improvement in major revision. Now, Your appreciation will help us to publish a quality manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

The suggestions from the first review process were incorporated in the current draft with the exception of the abstract that remains unclear.

Author Response

The suggestions from the first review process were incorporated in the current draft with the exception of the abstract that remains unclear.

Response: We rewrite the major part of the abstract. Hopefully now its more clear.