Assessment and Suggestions on Sustainable Development of Regional Ecological Economy Based on Emergy Theory: A Case Study of Henan Province
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Introduction, authors have failed to connect their paper with the international literature. The first and second paragraphs are basically their own thoughts. What is the progress or what is the background?
Authors have not presented a logical introduction. The research aim of this paper was not poorly introduced.
Table 3, how to justify Table 3 is proper and unbiased?
Authors have not justified the reasons of the sustainable economic development. Please improve in the analysis section before the policy implications.
Any theoretical implications for international studies?
Please refer: Evolutionary trends of urban expansion and its sustainable development: Evidence from 80 representative cities in the belt and road initiative region. Cities, 138, 104353. for more implications.
Please improve the description.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are very grateful for your kind guidance and suggestions, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. We have carefully addressed the review team’s comments and suggestions, and revised the paper accordingly. We hope that you would find the revision satisfactory.
Please see the attachment for the modification, thank you!
Best wishes
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Apart from the author's name which contain initial with the surname that should be limited to the surname only, the work is one of best I have read in recent time.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are very grateful for your kind guidance and suggestions, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. We have carefully addressed the review team’s comments and suggestions, and revised the paper accordingly. We hope that you would find the revision satisfactory.
Please see the attachment for the modification, thank you!
Best wishes
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The submitted manuscript shows an evaluation of the Sustainable Development of the Regional Ecological Economy Based on the Theory of Emergence. This work provides a method for studying regional economic development and a reference for governmental decision-making. It is of great importance and applicability, but great improvements must be made. See details below.
Improve the summary with statistical results.
The first two paragraphs must be cited.
The references can be updated with more current articles.
See line 67.
Review the correct way to cite references in the text. There are errors in the manuscript.
Summary of the introduction.
A map or diagram must be presented where the study area is located.
The tables must be homogeneous.
Lines 278 to 295 must be included in methodology as a study area section.
Improve figures.
The discussion needs to be improved. Other works should be cited to establish comparisons.
That is explained between lines 505 and 513 in the conclusions should be in the final part of the results and discussion.
A minor edition of the English language is required.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are very grateful for your kind guidance and suggestions, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. We have carefully addressed the review team’s comments and suggestions, and revised the paper accordingly. We hope that you would find the revision satisfactory.
Please see the attachment for the modification, thank you!
Best wishes
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
I really appreciate the author contribution in constructing an evaluation index system of regional eco-economic sustainable development based on four aspects: natural subsystem, economic subsystem, social subsystem, and sustainable development index. The index system was then used to measure and comprehensively evaluate the sustainable development of the ecological economy and the environmental friendliness of Henan Province. Overall, I like the paper.
1. The paper is generally well written with adequate clarity which demonstrates the author’s knowledge in the field.
2. The paper structure respects the structure requested, in general, in research papers. The authors tackle these topics properly.
3. The abstract presents the aim/objective of the paper, the analysis method and the main results (conclusion) described in the manuscript.
4. In the Introduction section, I recommend clearly defining some hypotheses. And then, build their theoretical approach around these hypothesis. I strongly believe that these wold improve their work considerably.
5. The literature review could use some refinement. The authors present a number of references but the links between these and the purpose of the literature review must be a bit more refined.
In addition, the authors present a number of references but these seem to be mostly of Chinese origin. Is the study limited only to Chinese literature and Chinese data? Then, what is the point of publishing it internationally, while this could be done only at national level?
6. The methodology is well presented and has a dedicated section.
7. References are appropriate with the paper aim (although see point 5 from above).
8. It was very difficult for me to read the numbers in the Table no. 4. This was because how it was formatted. Please take into consideration this. Place it on a landscape paper.
9. Please discuss more clearly the relevance of this particular case study, Henan Province, for the rest of the world. Maybe some comparisons, regarding economics, social, political, geographical aspects with other regions and countries of the world. By itself, Henan Province doesn’t say too much, but with reference to other regions/countries, the reader might relate more easily.
At the end, there is not much more to do in this paper. I enjoyed reading it and I consider it useful. Just one more recommendation: please check the text again for some English misspellings. There are some (minor) changes that may require your attention.
Congratulations!
Some small adjustments, here and there, minor.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are very grateful for your kind guidance and suggestions, which have helped us significantly improve the paper. We have carefully addressed the review team’s comments and suggestions, and revised the paper accordingly. We hope that you would find the revision satisfactory.
Please see the attachment for the modification, thank you!
Best wishes
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have well addressed all my concerns.
Please let a native English speaker to improve the English.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, thank you for considering my suggestions.
Reviewer 4 Report
I appreciate the effort that the authors have made with regard to my recommendations.
