The Coupling and Coordination Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Green Innovation Efficiency (GIE) and Economic Development Levels in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper focuses on the coupling coordination model and spatial autocorrelation analysis for exploring the coordination status of green innovation efficiency, the economic development level and the evolution characteristics of time and space.

 

I don’t understand the sentence in line 12!

 

Line 13 space is needed before “At the same time”.

 

It could be nice in the abstract to show the position of the paper in the research area before explaining what would be done.

 

From line 32 to 48, this paragraph has to be justified with references of the literature.

The term “at present” is used many time and can be deleted.

 

From line 49 to 102, this part has to be improved by explaining the specificity of each reference and the opinion of authors. It has to be like an history with consistency between events and not like a list. The objective is to show for which reason this paper can contribute to the literature by measuring what has been done before.

 

The problem to solve has to be presented more clearly!

 

Why to choose the coupling method? This has to be justified! The choices have been done without explain clearly their link with the problem to solve!

The research method presented in section 2.2 combines good formalisms, but the reason of their use has not been well explained. This link has to be added for validating the way used for solving the problem.

 

Space is needed before references (for instance in line 346).

The sections 3, 4 and 5 are good but they can be improved by adding more consistency information and more relation with the problem to solve.  It is a very good thing to have an experimentation area and exploit it.

The last section can be improved through the focus on what the paper clearly changes to the literature. A generalization is needed in relation with the problem to solve.

Author Response

Dear professors

First of all, I'd like to thank the reviewers for their affirmation of the article and their valuable opinions. The article has been revised one by one according to the revision opinions. The following is the specific reply to the revision opinions.

 

I don’t understand the sentence in line 12!

Reply： Thank you for your opinion.I have revised the sentence in line 12.

 

Line 13 space is needed before “At the same time”.

Reply： Thank you for your opinion.I have put a space before “At the same time”.

 

It could be nice in the abstract to show the position of the paper in the research area before explaining what would be done.

Reply： Thank you for your opinion.From line 15 to 19 I have added several references to green innovation in academia.

 

From line 32 to 48, this paragraph has to be justified with references of the literature.

Reply： Thank you for your opinion.I have added two references.

 

The term “at present” is used many time and can be deleted.

Reply： Thank you for your opinion.I have deleted “at present” in the abstract.

 

From line 49 to 102, this part has to be improved by explaining the specificity of each reference and the opinion of authors. It has to be like an history with consistency between events and not like a list. The objective is to show for which reason this paper can contribute to the literature by measuring what has been done before.

 Reply： Thank you for your opinion.I made some improvements and wrote out the references cited to help the writing of this paper or the field of green innovation research.(From line 56 to 116)

 

The problem to solve has to be presented more clearly!

Reply： Thank you for your opinion.I made a few additions at the end of this paragraph.(From line 117 to 134)

 

Why to choose the coupling method? This has to be justified! The choices have been done without explain clearly their link with the problem to solve!

The research method presented in section 2.2 combines good formalisms, but the reason of their use has not been well explained. This link has to be added for validating the way used for solving the problem.

Reply： Thank you for your opinion.In 2.2, I introduced the method of coupling coordination model, which is used to analyze the coupling coordination relationship between the two research objects. I have made some changes in this paper in order to connect this method with the research objects.

 

Space is needed before references (for instance in line 346).

Reply： Thank you for your opinion.I have added Spaces before each reference.

 

The sections 3, 4 and 5 are good but they can be improved by adding more consistency information and more relation with the problem to solve.  It is a very good thing to have an experimentation area and exploit it.

Reply： Thank you for your opinion.I will correct it.

The last section can be improved through the focus on what the paper clearly changes to the literature. A generalization is needed in relation with the problem to solve.

Reply： Thank you for your opinion.I have modified it.(From line 518 to 532)

Best Regards!

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors present a  study on the coupling and coordination characteristics and influencing factors of green innovation efficiency (GIE) and the economic development level in China. The research was carried out on the based  data from 30 provinces and cities in China from 2008 to 2019, this paper uses the coupling coordination model and spatial autocorrelation analysis to explore the coordination status of green innovation efficiency (GIE), the economic development level, and the evolution characteristics of time and space. Additionally to study influential factors in coupling coordination used the Tobit model.

The study is interesting and conducted on relevant data. The test results are described logically and understandably. The last part, in which conclusions and suggestions have been separated into sub-chapters, deserves attention. These sections present three conclusions and identify four solutions. I evaluate this form positively.

I appreciate Authors research work. However, I have following observation and remarks. The comments mainly relate to technical preparation. I encourage Authors to address them.

In the References chapter, references are not referenced uniformly. For example :

-          in positions 2, 3 and 4, there are 2 marks (;;) between the surnames, and in position 7 and following there are already one mark (;),

-          in positions 23, 24 initials are given, and in other places full names. This must be corrected.

In addition, in the content of the work, spaces are missing in many places (here are just a few examples):

-          compare the entries of numbers in lines 527, 542 and in lines 567 and 575

-          in line 393 there is “… software[37]…”, and it should be “… software [37]…”

-          in line 415 there is “… 2019,there…”, and it should be “… 2019, there…”

-          in line 448 there is “… stata12.0”, and it should be “… stata 12.0”

I think that the work is interesting and worth publishing, but that the manuscript do need to be refined.

Author Response

Dear professors

First of all, I'd like to thank the reviewers for their affirmation of the article and their valuable opinions. The article has been revised one by one according to the revision opinions. The following is the specific reply to the revision opinions.

 

-    in positions 2, 3 and 4, there are 2 marks (;;) between the surnames, and in position 7 and following there are already one mark (;),

-    in positions 23, 24 initials are given, and in other places full names. This must be corrected.

Reply： Thank you for your opinion.I have corrected the above problems.

In addition, in the content of the work, spaces are missing in many places (here are just a few examples):

-          compare the entries of numbers in lines 527, 542 and in lines 567 and 575

-          in line 393 there is “… software[37]…”, and it should be “… software [37]…”

-          in line 415 there is “… 2019,there…”, and it should be “… 2019, there…”

-          in line 448 there is “… stata12.0”, and it should be “… stata 12.0”

Reply： Thank you for your opinion.I have corrected the above problems in turn and add some spaces between words.

Best Regards！

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

The work carried out is interesting and the topic is very relevant but the following points need to be changed:

·         Line 13: let space after the point (development. At the same);

·         Line 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 etc: let space between word and references in the main text (eg.  Bauhardt [1] not Bauhardt [1]);

·         Line 136, 139, 151 etc - write de reference in the text according to the paper template ([21,22] not [21], [22]);

·         Line 152, 283, 306, 397, 468, 493 – Write the title of Table 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 according to the paper template (eg. Table 2. Coupling coordination level. Not Table 2 Coupling coordination level);

·         Please rewrite the References Section according to the paper template (for example, for journal articles: Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.).

 

Best wishes!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear professors

First of all, I'd like to thank the reviewers for their affirmation of the article and their valuable opinions. The article has been revised one by one according to the revision opinions. The following is the specific reply to the revision opinions.

 

• Line 13: let space after the point (development. At the same);

Reply： Thank you for your opinion.I have added spaces after the points.

• Line 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 etc: let space between word and references in the main text (eg.  Bauhardt [1] not Bauhardt [1]);

Reply： Thank you for your opinion.I have let space between word and references in the text.

• Line 136, 139, 151 etc - write de reference in the text according to the paper template ([21,22] not [21], [22]);

Reply： Thank you for your opinion.I have corrected it.

• Line 152, 283, 306, 397, 468, 493 – Write the title of Table 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 according to the paper template (eg. Table 2. Coupling coordination level. Not Table 2 Coupling coordination level);

Reply： Thank you for your opinion.I have revised it according to the paper template.

• Please rewrite the References Section according to the paper template (for example, for journal articles: Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.)

Reply： Thank you for your opinion.I have revised the references section.

Best Regards！

Reviewer 4 Report

In my opinion, the article is worthy of publication.

Author Response

Dear professors

Thank you sincerely for your affirmation of this article！

Best Regards!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The corrections have been done.

small revisions are required. Please read slowly the document once again. 

Line 17 improve the part with “secondly”  

 

I don’t understand the sentence in lines 83-85.

 

Please check Spaces in lines 84 and 101. 

 

Good paper 

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thanks for your opinions.I have read the document once again and modified the existing problems.The expression in lines 83-85 is wrong, so I have changed the mean of expression. And I have checked spaces in line 84 and 101.

Best regards!