The Classification Impact of Different Types of Environmental Regulation on Chinese Provincial Carbon Emission Efficiency

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper submitted by Ye et al. (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2437034) analyses the impact of classifying different types of environmental regulations on carbon emission efficiency in Chinese provinces. The paper is well-written and offers valuable insights that could benefit the scientific community. The methodology employed is rigorous, and the article meets the standards of the journal, although a few minor grammatical errors in sentence structure require correction. However, the literature review of the article appears to be inadequate. Also, figure 5 can be redrawn for better clarity. Therefore, I recommend a minor revision before considering its publication.

 Moderate editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Based on the reviewers' comments, a further description of the literature review has been added in the revised paper. Additionally, the necessary revisions to improve the clarity and accuracy of the Figure 5 have been also presented in the revised paper. Finally, the grammatical and tense errors of the entire manuscript have been verified according to the reviewer’s comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

It is an interesting topic to investigate the impact of different environmental regulatory policies on carbon emissions.This paper has some shortcomings. (1) The reference marks are not standard, and the number of references is insufficient;(2) Some tables in the paper are not standard, we suggest you need to recorrect them especially for some boxheads, for example, two columns of Carbon emission efficiency should be distinguished clearly.(3) The paper lack the section of discussion.

 

 Minor english editing

Author Response

According to the reviewer’s comments, we have checked the literature carefully and added more related references in the revised manuscript, and reformatted the format of the references to ensure it compliance with the journal's requirements. In addition, all the tables in the article were reviewed for content and revision. Finally, we have also added the discussion section in the revised paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Title: The Classification Impact of Different Types of Environmental Regulations on Chinese Provincial Carbon Emission Efficiency

 

This paper evaluates the inter-provincial carbon emission efficiency and the analysis of its influencing factors are of great practical significance to carbon emissions reduction and the sustainable development of ecological management. This research investigates innovative research problems. However, it required a comprehensive revision before acceptance.

 

Abstract: The abstract should clearly mention the objective, methods, and concise results in sequence. Revise accordingly

Keywords: put the keywords in order

Introduction: In the introduction section, research objectives are missing. This section should clarify the background, objectives, research gaps, and innovations. I can see that the introduction section is not properly organized. Usually, at the end of the introduction section, the authors describe the innovations and route of the study. Revise accordingly to put the manuscript in the appropriate shape. Further, limit the introduction section and exclude unnecessary repetition.

Literature Reviews and Innovation Introduction:

Add more appropriate and advanced literature on DEA methodology. You could get guidance from the following papers.

1.     https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10878-021-00765-7

2.     https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-022-23484-w

There are numerous DEA models that could handle the negative data. Clearly give the superiority reason for your model in the methodological section.

Usually, negative data exists in output variables; If we transpose the negative data it solves the negativity problem, or if we used that particular output variable as input it also solves the issue In the traditional CCR, BCC, or SBM model. Add some details regarding the Application of your Model

The inputs and outputs in Table 2 don’t look very good indicators. From which study do you adopt these variables? Please provide the reference.

Add more citations to discuss the results.

Conclusions: In the conclusion section, add limitations and future research ideas. Give more policy implications.

Avoid grammatical and typo errors, and revise the manuscripts for these concerns.

 

Minor English editing required

Author Response

According to the reviewer's comments, we have carefully modified  the manuscript and  provided a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments , Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear,

I apprecciate the invitation as reviewer of the current paper. The manuscript is a good paper that exhibits a clear contribution to the topic.

 Please: 

Include in the discussion of the results or the review of the literature, advanced works in relation to the subject of the work. Considers:

What future research lines can be drawn?

 Why is it important to know the research on this topic?

Best regards 

 

 

The English language is understandable.

Author Response

 According to the reviewer’s comments, the future research has been added in the section 7 in revised paper, and the innovation and important to hold the research on this topic has also been added in the Introduction, literature review and methodological section and results discussion.

Reviewer 5 Report

 Comments to Authors

General comments

This is a worthwhile and timely study of a significant topic. The introductory section clearly explains problems of the research and has a well-defined objective. The methodology is clearly explained. The paper is generally well structured, and provides relevant information, which has significant practical implication

The paper would benefit from some revision and clarification of the information presented to emphasize the main take-home messages. There was hardly any discussion at all (comparing your results with the results of others), that should be improved.

Specific in-line comments can be found on the manuscript itself (attached herewith.

Specific suggestions for improvement

 Lines 54-55: Briefly define the difference between formal/informal environmental regulations

Line 88: Spell out the full term at first use

Line 98: Remove this phrase.

Line 98: Rephrase for clarity.

Line 314: What does this abbreviation refers?

Line 320: Define the abbreviation.

Line 361: Check the tense.

Lines 364-366: Improve the tense.

Line 375: Table 1: Units for most indicators are specified. Unnumbered line (in Table 1): incomplete, either rephrase or add the missing word. Add a space. Change to lower case.

Line 377: Table 2: Incomplete, either rephrase or add the missing word.

Line 434: From the figure, it is Huangxi placed at the 3rd.  ‘Guangxi’ is not even shown in the figure.

Line 451: Please add the vertical axis title for this and the other figures (i.e., Fig. 3-5).

Line 461: But, from figure 4, large variations are observed among the regions. 

Line 462: This statement is not matching with what reported by Fig. 4; the figure shows Henan has the highest value followed by Huangdong and Jiang su. Please check and correct.

Line 462: Normally such statement is reserved for significant outcomes and should be based on statistical tests. I did not see such report from Fig. 4

Line 463: Similarly, Ningxia, and Qinghai are shown as the ones having the lowest values. why then Guangxi?  Guangxi is not observed in the mentioned figure. Revise the statement or modify the figure.

Lines 463-464: Again, such statement is made for significant outcomes determined by statistical tests

Line 468: If you name a few examples of such areas would give contexts.

Line 524: remove the bold

Line 530: add come.

Line 530: ‘Inner Mongolia’ appeared for the first time. Was it included only for cluster analysis?  if different analyses of interest are based on data derived from different regions, they should be clearly marked and explained.   

Line 591-593: Rewrite for clarity

Line 602: Change to lower case

Line 614: edit

Line 633: As said above, this region is only lately appeared.

Line 700: Improve the tense.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

According to the reviewer's comments, we have carefully modified  the manuscript and  provided a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments , Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

No

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is much improved.