Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

The objective/hypothesis of this study is clear and results have been discussed well. However I noticed that the text of the manuscript needs improvements in terms of language. For example : Line 12/13 : This paper regards Dawen River Basin ecological compensation pilot implemented.......... This sentence appears to be incorrect .I understand it Should be : This paper is regarding Dawen River Basin ecological compensation policy.... Pilot word appears to be misfit here !?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

I would like to thank the authors for the interesting and relevant research. Please find some comments for the improvement of the article below.

1) There is a lack of deeper theoretical substantiation.

2) The authors should present the results of previous similar studies in more detail.

3) It is not clear what the purpose of this study is.

4) At the end of the introduction, I suggest presenting the structure of the article.

5) I suggest you to improve the clarity of the article’s empirical research by some schemes and figures that will help readers to better follow your research.

6)  I would recommend forming and highlighting the discussion part.

7) Limited list of used scientific sources, it should be supplemented.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The paper discusses the effect Dawen River Basin ecological compensation on the environmental pollution of water. I have the following concerns about this paper:

- The paper introduces three hypotheses for studying and improving the water pollution without evident validation of the outcomes of those hypothesis.

- The paper is so short that it can be considered as: a Conference Paper, a Short Communication, a Brief Report, a Hypothesis, and so on, but in no it should be considered as a journal article, as far as I know. 

- The study needs validation through clear computational and business models. I addition, there is no enough analysis of the previously published literature. 

-  For example, the esteemed authors are advised to view some articles published by MDPI to see the required materials - to be included - and the level of standard and quality, see this published article that is closely related to your work:

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/14/16/2542

- Finally, although I think the paper general aims are useful, but the weakness in clarity, details, and validation parts make the paper somehow vague and therefore difficult to be recommended for publication. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

The present manuscript entitled “Analysis on the Impact of River Basin Ecological Compensation Policy on Water Environment Pollution——PSM-DID analysis based on Dawen River Basin” is a quality research conducted by the authors. I appreciated the hard work and research concerns of the authors. However, despite the importance of the idea, the manuscript language in most section is confused. Moreover, I highlighted some changes in different sections of the manuscript, which may further aid in the quality of the manuscript. Therefore, I will recommend major revision with thorough text filtration for improvement.

Title: title is lengthy of possible reduces the length and it’s also very confused having abbreviation PSM-DID --- did not understand it at all

Abstract

The abstract lacks the need for research, proper aims, and method—the abstract needs thorough revisions for a clear understanding of the readers. Some specific comments are

- Line 12. “Beautiful china” is it a project of government or any other else matter or just an introductory statement attraction

-Line 12-13. “This paper” very unusual can u replace it with some suitable phrase like the present research or something like that..

-Line 13. “Pilot” did you mean pilot project implementation.

-PSM-DID… abbreviation at first appearance is not the way or writing scientific writing

-Line 17. 10% level of significance. Did you mean P < 0.1

-Line 18. “and an upward trend marginal effect” confusing.. Did you mean the regression model significance if so than please represent the numerical value or else please clarify

Line 22. Abbreviated Keywords, two-way panel fixed effects model (not found in abstract)

Introduction

The section needs restructuring clearly mentioning the research importance, gaps and objective of the current research

-Line 29-31. “In order to improve the increasingly severe ecological problems” please rephrase like “In order to reduce the increasingly severe ecological problems’

-Line 34. The second river basin can be deleted

-Line 38. Using pilots alone creates confusion.. Can u replace it by pilot studies or pilot project?

-Line 40-50.. Not suitable here can be shifted to last paragraph before research hypothesis

-Research hypothesis can better be shifted to conclusion and recommendation

-H1 ECP improves water pollution or reduces water pollution? Please be clear

-Three hypothesis, out of scientific context i.e. null and alternate hypothesis

Material and method

Well and comprehensive written but need topographic correction.

-Line 134. Can you elaborate your experimental and control group please

-can section 3.2 be placed earlier in methodology

-Line 212. Ex-cept correct please

-justify the log-transformation please

-Table 2. Can you add standard error or deviation in descriptive statistics if possible?

Results and Discussions

-Line 217-224. Part of methodology

-In tables reduce digits (round off) Upto two points.. i.e. 4.32 like this

-Line 259-263. Can be a part of introduction highlighting the research gap

-Line 268. It can be seen from table 5.. Please delete the unnecessary words

-Add legends for table 5 and also the titles of the table is very poor and also for other table please

-Discussion is weak and can be improved by adding further literature

Conclusion

The conclusion needs to be refined and try to reduce the bulk of result repetition in conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors have substantially revised the version and can now be accepted in its present form.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors have complied with my comments with good arguments. All vague points have been handled in the revised manuscript. Recommend to accept the article. 

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors has substantially revised the version and can now be accepted in its present form.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study should be very interesting when the results will be presented. We just can see the models, the equations, but not the real values of each variable that is in the hypothesis. Besides, these hypothesis are not testable.  As it is, you demonstrate just what you expect to see.

You don´t have a discussion of your "results" comparing studies and raising hypothesis that are testable.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is original and well organized

Stastistical analysis is sound

Referenceces are OK

Reviewer 3 Report

I have gone through the manuscript entitled "Analysis on the Impact of River Basin Ecological Compensation 3 Policy on Water Environment Pollution 4 ——PSM-DID analysis based on Dawen River Basin" and found it interesting. However, the discussion can be enhanced further in the light of the some more recent relevant publication.