Killing Two Birds with One Stone or Missing One of Them? The Synergistic Governance Effect of China’s Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme on Pollution Control and Carbon Emission Reduction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
-
Clarify the research questions: While the introduction provides a good overview of the research topic, it would be helpful to clarify the specific research questions that the study aims to answer. For example, you mentioned that a multiperiod difference-in-differences (DID) model was used to analyze the synergistic governance effect and influence mechanism of China's carbon emissions trading scheme on pollution control and carbon emission reduction. However, it would be beneficial to explicitly state the research questions that this model seeks to address. This will provide readers with a clear understanding of the study's objectives from the beginning.
-
Provide more details on data collection: You mentioned that data was collected from various sources, but it would be helpful to provide more details on how the data was collected and processed. Specifically, you could elaborate on the specific data sources, the criteria used for selecting the data, and any data cleaning or preprocessing techniques applied. This will enhance the transparency and replicability of your study.
-
Discuss limitations in more detail: While you acknowledge some limitations of your study, it would be helpful to discuss these limitations in more detail and suggest ways in which future research could address them. Provide a comprehensive discussion of the potential shortcomings and constraints of your methodology, data, and analysis. This will demonstrate a critical understanding of the study's limitations and encourage future researchers to build upon your work.
-
Consider including a policy recommendation section: Given that your study has important implications for policy-makers, it would be beneficial to include a section that provides specific policy recommendations based on the findings of your study. Consider discussing how the synergistic governance effect and influence mechanism of China's carbon emissions trading scheme can inform policy-making in the areas of pollution control, carbon emission reduction, and air quality improvement. This will enhance the practical value of your research.
-
Consider expanding the discussion section: While your discussion section provides a good overview of the results, consider expanding it to provide a more detailed analysis of the implications for future research and policy-making. Discuss the broader significance of your findings within the context of existing literature and theories. Furthermore, explore avenues for future research, such as potential extensions of your methodology or the investigation of related research questions. This will further enrich the scholarly contribution of your study.
Overall, your paper makes a significant contribution to scholarship, and with these suggested improvements, it can be further strengthened. Addressing these comments and suggestions will enhance the clarity, rigor, and impact of your research.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewer 1,
Thank you very much for your letter and for the reviewer comments concerning our manuscript titled”Killing two birds with one stone or missing one of them? The synergistic governance effect of China’s carbon emissions trading scheme on pollution control and carbon emission reduction” (ID: 2453217). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper getting better, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope will meet with approval.
The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are attached file that we submitted separately.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewer’s warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval. If there are still things that need to be addressed, we are very open to receiving comments from you on the perfection of our paper, please feel free to contact us.
Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Best regards,
Zhang Ying
Huang Ying Li
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript talked about the effects of China’s carbon emissions trading scheme on pollution control and carbon emission reduction using a multi-period difference-in-differences (DID) model. They also investigated the impact of total factor productivity and administrative intervention on the synergistic governance effect. The study showed that China’s carbon emissions trading scheme promotes the synergistic governance effect of pollution control and carbon emission reduction mainly through industrial structure upgrading and energy structure transformation. Generally, the manuscript is well organized and the results helpful in understanding the effects of emissions trading scheme on pollution control and carbon emission reduction. The manuscript could be accepted for publication after the following comments addressed.
Some specific comments and suggestions:
1. Line 68-70, references should be provided.
2. Line 92-97, the sentence is not readable and should be modified/clarified. And, brief introduction is needed for the Porter hypothesis.
3. Line 139, why is NOx excluded?
4. Line 146, SBM and GML should be defined before use.
5. Line 213-253, serial numbers such as (1)(2)(3) should be given to the possible channels.
6. Line 292, 296, 312, 316, 327, 330 and et al., expressions such as “[46] indicated.....” are not correct citation manners. The authors or the main point of view of the cited papers should be listed.
7. Line 364 and others, the titles of all the tables and figures in the manuscript were too simple to be understood. To enhance the self-explanatory of the tables/figures, meaningful titles and notes/explanations are needed.
8. Obs in Table 1 is observations or sample number?
9. The section of conclusions is too long and should be written in more concise way especially the “relevant policy implications”.
Generally speaking, the language usage is good, but could be better.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewer 2,
Thank you very much for your letter and for the reviewer comments concerning our manuscript titled”Killing two birds with one stone or missing one of them? The synergistic governance effect of China’s carbon emissions trading scheme on pollution control and carbon emission reduction” (ID: 2453217). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper getting better, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope will meet with approval.
The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are attached file that we submitted separately.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewer’s warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval. If there are still things that need to be addressed, we are very open to receiving comments from you on the perfection of our paper, please feel free to contact us.
Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Best regards,
Zhang Ying
Huang Ying Li
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this study, the authors analyzed the synergistic governance effect and influence mechanism of China's carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS) on pollution control and carbon emission reduction using a multiperiod difference-in-differences (DID) model on a sample of China's provincial panel data from 2006 to 2020.
The abstract part of the study can be enriched in terms of numerical or statistical data. In this section, long written sentences should be shortened to make them more understandable.
The authors well cover the introduction and literature parts of the study.
Information should be given about the statistical program used in the study.
The method, results, and conclusion parts of the study are explained in detail.
Finally, the authors can provide information about the difference, relationships, and autonomy between this study and other studies by creating a discussion section in the study text. Having only this section can be perceived as a recommendation. The quality of this work is increased by writing this section.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewer 3,
Thank you very much for your letter and for the reviewer comments concerning our manuscript titled”Killing two birds with one stone or missing one of them? The synergistic governance effect of China’s carbon emissions trading scheme on pollution control and carbon emission reduction” (ID: 2453217). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper getting better, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope will meet with approval.
The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are attached file that we submitted separately.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewer’s warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval. If there are still things that need to be addressed, we are very open to receiving comments from you on the perfection of our paper, please feel free to contact us.
Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Best regards,
Zhang Ying
Huang Ying Li
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript "Killing two birds with one stone or missing one of them? The 2 synergistic governance effect of China’s carbon emissions trading scheme on pollution control and carbon emission reduction" analyzes synergistic governance effect and influence mechanism of China's carbon emissions trading scheme(ETS) on pollution control and carbon emission reduction.
The topic of the manuscript fits the scope of "Sustainability" and the section "Air, Climate Change and Sustainability".
The authors provide a detailed list of references to justify the aim of the manuscript and its outcomes. Research introduction, theoretical mechanisms and methods are described in detail and seem to be convincing. The level of English is sufficiently high to render the science clear, although the authors are recommended to revise the manuscript text to avoid undesirable typos and formatting errors.
The manuscript can be considered for publication after the following issues are addressed:
1) Please clarify how the error bars in Fig. 3 were calculated. Is there a considerable difference between pre_5 and post_7 according to the Fig. 3a errors? What is the reason for pre_1 drop in Fig. 3b?
2) Conclusions seem to be too long and hard to read. Is it more relevant to provide a Discussion section in the end of the manuscript and then finalize the paper with a shorter, more readable conclusion of 1-3 paragraphs?
3) Lines 95, 97, 113, and 116 - check formatting of references (lack of spaces or unnecessary spaces, dots between references and so on). Same for the rest of the manuscript.
4) Check text formatting in Lines 259-264.
5) X axis info in Fig. 1-3 (such as years in Fig. 1) is hard to distinguish although readable with large image enhancement. Is it possible to enlarge it in the revised manuscript?
6) Recommendation (not issue): maybe it is better to clarify the numbers marked by asterisks in all Tables 3-10 in addition to Table 2 for better readability of information.
The quality of English is good enough although a slight text revision is recommended to avoid typos and stylistic imperfections.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept in present form
