Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

First, I would like to congratulate you for the theme of the manuscript and for the work you did in developing the article. I acknowledge the effort made and the relevance of the topic. I also recognise the importance of the conclusions you reached. However, I think that until its publication, the article needs significant revision by the authors to fill some important gaps. Briefly, I believe that the text is dull and sometimes dispersed; it lacks a more robust discussion of the results obtained; the notation has some flaws; the formatting also shows some carelessness, namely the type and alignment of the text, missing full stops, spacing, repeated sentences, among others.

Below, I list some suggestions, comments, and major issues, followed by a list of small gaps and details.

Good luck and good work

 

 

Major Comments and Suggestions

1. The article has serious formatting problems, which make the manuscript difficult to read, and which can be confused with a lack of brio and diminish the reader's confidence in your work. Some examples:

There are many words with no spacing between them and the references. For example: Line 41: "increased[1]," Line 43: "improvement[2],".

Also, the references throughout the text do not respect the template of the journal. For example: Line 43: "improvement[2], [3].", Line 72: "[16]-[18]". According to the template: "References should be numbered in order of appearance and indicated by a numeral or numerals in square brackets-e.g., [1] or [2,3], or [4-6]."

Other formatting regarding text, size, alignment, formulas...

 

2. Section 2.1 although it has parts related to Figure 1, in my opinion, the explanation is scarce and not very clear regarding the Figure presented. I think the authors could improve this aspect.

 

3. The text of the first sections is not fluid, it is dull and dispersed. It is not clear what the focus of the work is, and the authors use dull circular language. I would advise the authors to improve the fluidity and sequencing of the various points addressed.

 

4. Review the nomenclature, or formulation, since sometimes the same nomenclature is used to define different magnitudes.

 

5. Line 380: Has a full stop before the variable, which doesn't make sense. In addition, the meaning is repeated, and at this place in the text, it is out of context.

 

6. Lines 372-379: There are references that would only make sense if supported by a non-existent sketch or image. In addition, there are variables that do not appear in the formulation presented in section 3.3.1. The variables are presented as text and not as scientific notation (mathematical writing), which makes the reading unclear.

 

7. The authors mention several times that the study was based on data from certain cities, however there is no indication of which ones. This information would be important to put in the manuscript.

 

8. The text in section 4.2 has one very long sentence (Lines 457 to 468). In addition, it ends with two repeated sentences. I would advise the authors to rewrite this part of the text to make it clearer and more fluid to read.

 

 

Minor Comments and Suggestions

1. In the affiliation, I would advise authors to use the template, i.e. use numbering and underneath put in superscript.

2. Line 11: "Abstract:National". There is a space missing after the colon and "National" should not be bold.

3. Lines 20-32: When authors list 1) and then 2) they lead the author to believe that there are only 2 dots, since they put "and" and at the end of 2) a full stop. However there are more dots. I would advise the authors to place all the dots more coherently.

4. Line 29: "cities.4)": A space is missing after the full stop

5. Lines 32-34: "This study broadens the...". The font is different from the rest of the Abstract.

6. Keywords: Perhaps the visibility of the article would increase with a better choice of keywords.

7. Line 39: When the authors refer to "original traditional" is this not a pleonasm?

8. Lines 197-199: “Hence, they have strong incentives to seek land financing. Therefore, they are strongly incentivised to seek land financing[53]–[55].” The two sentences are practically the same.

9. Lines 256-260: Hypothesis 2 is too long and a bit confusing. Perhaps it would be better, the authors rewrite it.

10. The authors, in Lines 321-322 state that the period chosen is between 2007-2019. Why 2019? Are there no more recent data available? Perhaps clarify the reason for the chosen time range.

11. Line 345: "Explanatory and explanatory variables". Is it supposed to be like that, or did the authors want to write something else?

12. Line 386: "Control variables." I wonder if there was an error because the authors repeat the title at the beginning of the sentence.

13. Table 1: Perhaps the authors should standardize the variables, because all except "economic development" start with a capital letter. In "Panel B", all columns have the title and content aligned, except for "mean".

14. Lines 427-431: The text has repeated sentences.

15. Line 480: "The NIRDZs were established in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, respectively." Perhaps it would be better to clarify the choice of these years.

16. Table 4: Perhaps it would be better, the authors explain better the notation of the variables.

17. Line 533: "the this paper...". Maybe rewrite the whole sentence.

18. Equation (5) is missing a parenthesis in the summation of the third line.

19. The term used in equation (5) and Line 563 are not the same. Is it to keep?

20. Lines 575-580: The sentence is too long. Perhaps it would be better, the authors rewrite it.

21. Line 597: The numbering of the section is the same as before.

22. Lines 604-608: Revise the text because there are words with a lower case letter after a full stop and words in capitals that lack a previous full stop.

23. Check the scientific writing of equations (6) and (7) because the same variables, have indices written differently (with and without a comma).

24. Line 629: "Drawing on the literature (Mo,2018; Lu et al.,2019),". The references are different from the rest of the text.

25. Line 672 and equations (10), (11) and (12). The authors use in the text vaf and in the expression use vfa. In addition, the text mentions that the formula for the calculation is presented next, however this is the last to be presented.

26. Line 720: "approach. and explore". Replace the full stop with a comma.

27. Line 764: “and promotes the The market-based allocation”. Perhaps it would be better to rewrite this part of the sentence.

Author Response

Thank you very much to the reviewers, please see the pdf for the specific responses to the revisions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1.The introduction section is written well and composed. However, a good intro presentation could be precise. The introduction needs to be more structured. It could be the batter that the introduction follows the theme of motivation, brief story, literature gap, and contribution. Please add latest references.

2.The literature review should be added and some parts from introduction can be inserted. The introduction need to be shortened. Add recent literature from studies with different factors used and conducted on different world countries and not only china. I suggest some to include and authors can find more articles as well. https://doi.org/10.56556/jescae.v1i2.41

https://doi.org/10.56556/jescae.v1i2.16

https://doi.org/10.56556/jescae.v1i2.13

https://doi.org/10.56556/jtie.v1i1.142

https://doi.org/10.56556/jtie.v1i2.180

3.The methods used in the study should be supported with references

4.The methodology need to be in sequence, data, data sources, model construction

5.Results need to be supported with references and discussions need improvement

Author Response

Thank you very much to the reviewers, please see the pdf for the specific responses to the revisions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors analyze the relationship between industrial relocation demonstration zones (NIRDZs) and the marketization of industrial land elements. The article is well-referenced and theoretically rigorous. However, I have many concerns:

1. The general logic diagram in Figure 1 should be revised carefully. The upper-left line and the lowest-left line should be deleted or you must show more empirical evidence.

2. The impact mechanism model in Figure 1 is not consistent with the validation in the empirical evidence, which only analyzes the impact mechanism of Takeover Effect. And the corresponding empirical test is missing for the effect of Promising Government on Takeover effect in the figure (the lower part of Figure 1).

3. In the parallel trend test in Table 3, since the authors use multi-temporal DID for regression, why column (2) is a specific year to represent the dynamic trend instead of using the policy implementation year as the differentiation point for before and after dynamic analysis？

4. Please exclude the effects of other policies to ensure the robustness of the empirical results of NIRDZs.

5. In 5.1.1, the authors use the ratio of urban GDP per capita to national GDP per capita to describe the size of the market. Please explain the rationale.

6. In the conclusion section, the policy recommendations of the article are too lengthy and should be streamlined and correspond to the empirical findings.

7.There are some deficiencies in the format of the article, such as font, boldness and line spacing, etc. Please check.

Author Response

Thank you very much to the reviewers, please see the pdf for the specific responses to the revisions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

References are quite old. Please update.

Reference list is not by requirements. Please check.

What is authors contribusion? What is the novelty?

Please rewrite abstract by the requirements.

I cant find the discussion section.

Please expand conclusions with quantative results.

Conclusions should be improved.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much to the reviewers, please see the pdf for the specific responses to the revisions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for the replies and I recognise the enormous effort made by the authors to respond to all the comments and improve the article. Congratulations! The article is much better, in terms of structure and content.

I only have a few specific comments, which I list below, in case the authors want to improve some aspects.

Good luck and good work

 

 

Minor Comments and Suggestions

1. The text is still missing spaces between the text and the references. For example, Line 37: "development [1].Because"; Line 41: "regions[4-6]."; Line 99: "system[37]. Local"; Line 324: "this paper[72]. Economic"; Line 448; etc.

2. Line 23: “factors. market-oriented allocation. The activation”. I think there is an extra full stop because, like this, the sentence becomes meaningless.

3. Line 50: There is a line between the paragraphs. I don't know if it was the authors' intention.

4. Line 103: “supply. [10,42,43]. This”. There is a full stop before and after the references. The same occurs in Line 103: "supply. [10,42,43]."

5. The scientific notation, written in section 3.2.2 is different from that used in the text of section 3.2.1. That is, the variables are presented as text and not as scientific notation (mathematical writing), which makes the reading unclear.

6. Lines 223-227: The change the authors have made has greatly improved the sentence, however, it might be better to include some commas to make it clearer to read.

7. Table 2: Perhaps the authors should standardize the variables, because all except "economic development" start with a capital letter.

8. Line 462: “4.2.1. Parallel trend test”. The numbering is the same as in the previous section.

9. Line 520-521: “of Table 5”. Isn't it Table 6, according to the new version?

10. Check the scientific writing of equations (6) and (7) with those written in the text after them, because the same variables, have indices written differently (with and without a comma).

11. Equations (8) and (9) are numbered with a different font from the template. Also the headings of the pages of the article are different from the template.

12. Line 696: “According to column (2) of 10, the”. Perhaps it would be better to add “Table 10” instead of just having “10”.

13. References: The references are not according to the template and there are some with DOI and others without.

 

Author Response

Please see attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have not yet focused on literature improvement

Author Response

Please see attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article has been effectively revised according to the comments, optimizing the overall layout and structure of the article and elaborating on the points worthy of detail, and I believe it has reached the level of publication and agree to the publication of the article.

Author Response

Please see attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf