Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Jinghui Chen 1,2,3,*,
  • Yiying Liang 3 and
  • Yi Guo 5
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Oleg I. Yakhin Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous Reviewer 4: Darshana Athukorala

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Remarks, comments and suggestions to the manuscript “Research on the Evolution Characteristics of Economic Development Quality and Environmental Pollution Intensity in Typical Energy Regions in the Last 20 Years” (authors Chen Jinghui, Liang Yiying, Yang Bo, Ma Yun ,Guo Yi) during the first round of peer review:

1) The manuscript deals with the quality of economic development and the intensity of environmental pollution.

The idea of the manuscript is interesting and topical.

It appears the methods of empirical analysis and statistical analysis used in the work make it possible to solve the research tasks set by the authors.

2) At the same time, the manuscript most definitely needs the most strong and careful processing, editing and polishing.

It is necessary to provide more argumentative clarity and precisionб a greater level of logic of presentation, the consistency of presentation of all information throughout the text of the manuscript.

The abstract and conclusion should be revised and edited thoroughly, especially carefully.

The purpose and objectives of the study need to be formulated more carefully.

3) It is necessary to analyze the source data more carefully and work more carefully with their interpretation.

4) The authors need to be sure that these materials have never been published anywhere else in one form or another.

Could be better.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I was kindly asked to review the manuscript: Research on the Evolution Characteristics of Economic Development Quality and Environmental Pollution Intensity in Typical Energy Regions in the Last 20 Years.

- The title of the manuscript is wordy and not coherent. The authors might consider a different / revised title.

- The introduction section should be reorganized, provide additional information related to the methods followed in previous studies and highlight the gap of knowledge that this study seeks to fill.

- The applied statistics is interesting. However, no one can control the validity of the results. An error analysis has to be included.

 - It is not recommended to place Results in the Discussion section.

- Please, explain in the discussion the limitations of the work.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

 

Please find below and attached my comments and suggestions for your work.

Good luck!

 

Kind regards,

The Reviewer

Review Report Form

Partea superioară a machetei

 

Journal: Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050)

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2486529

Type: Article

Title: Research on the Evolution Characteristics of Economic Development Quality and Environmental Pollution Intensity in Typical Energy Regions in the Last 20 Years

Authors: Chen Jinghui * , Liang Yiying , Yang Bo , Ma Yun , Guo Yi

Submission Date: 19 June 2023

 

Dear Authors,

 

I have carefully analyzed your article entitled “Research on the Evolution Characteristics of Economic Development Quality and Environmental Pollution Intensity in Typical Energy Regions in the Last 20 Years”.

Congratulations for your work and valuable insights reflected in the content of the manuscript!

The structure of my Review Report Form takes into consideration two sections, namely: (A.) General overview of the article and strong points; and (B) Suggestions meant to improve your current manuscript.

 

(A.) General overview of the article and strong points:

 

Ø  Aim of the study: The authors have mentioned that the Shanxi Province, a typical energy region in China, was taken as the research object, while data on economic development quality and environmental pollution intensity from 2001 to 2021 were selected.

Ø  Methodology used: The authors have mentioned that the Linear regression, numerical simulation, and Pearson correlation coefficient were used to analyze the evolution characteristics of economic development quality and environmental pollution intensity in Shanxi Province in the past 20 years, and to explore the relationship between economic development and environmental pollution.

Ø  Results of the study: In terms of the results of this current study, it ought to be mentioned that that the authors mentioned that the results indicate that since 2001, Shanxi Province has made long-term progress in economic development, with GDP increasing by nearly 10 times and an average annual growth rate of around 7%. Also, the authors have highlighted that, in the past 20 years, the main pollutants have shown a trend of increasing first and then decreasing steadily, with a turning point occurring during the "12th Five Year Plan" period. Also, based on the authors notes it ought to be emphasized that this shows that the environmental policies and investments of the Chinese and Shanxi provincial governments in the past 10 years have been effective in the new era. Hence, based on the authors conclusions, the numerical simulation curve results show that the per capita GDP exhibits a classic inverted "U" curve relationship with wastewater and SO2 emissions, with a turning point occurring at around 20000 yuan per capita GDP.

 

(B) Suggestions meant to improve your current manuscript:

 

Distinguished Authors I would kindly like to suggest the following aspects:

(1.) Closely analyzing the article, since there are some English language improvements and slight corrections that need to be taken care of. Thus, my recommendation would be to carefully proofread the entire manuscript. 

(2.) Also, I have closely analyzed the format of the article, in order to check whether it follows the guidelines which are specific to the publisher. Thus, I have noticed that the current form of your work needs improvement in this regard. So, my kind suggestion is to closely analyze again the guidelines belonging to the publisher, since the article should fit exactly the publisher’s guidelines. For instance, the keywords, the subsections, the references, currently do not fit the style and the requirements of the publisher. Also, it would be highly recommendable to include in the abstract of your study more highly relevant details that refer to the general background of the study, the research objectives and the methodology used. This would definitely be considered a plus for your scientific work.    

(3.) In continuation, the suggestion would also be inserting in your article a few ideas concerning the correlation between effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the COVID-19 global crisis, sustainability and sustainability assessment, Sustainable Development Goals, while focusing on the research on the evolution characteristics of economic development quality and environmental pollution intensity in typical energy regions in the last 20 years, since these are key focuses these days. In this context, I had the chance to read a few interesting scientific works recently, among which I would like to mention: An Exploratory Study Based on a Questionnaire Concerning Green and Sustainable Finance, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Performance: Evidence from the Romanian Business Environment. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2019, 12, 162. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm12040162; OECD. Measuring the Impacts of Business on Well-Being and Sustainability. https://www.oecd.org/statistics/Measuring-impacts-of-business-on-well-being.pdf; OECD. 2022. Toward sustainable economic development through promoting and enabling responsible business conduct. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/f7813858-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/f7813858-en.

Dear Authors, congratulations once again for your work and valuable insights reflected in the content of the manuscript, and I hope my comments will be of value to you!

 

Kind regards,

The Reviewer

 

Partea inferioară a machetei

 

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors evaluate the" Research on the Evolution Characteristics of Economic Development Quality and Environmental Pollution Intensity in Typical Energy Regions in the Last 20 Years". 

It is interesting; however, the paper's abstract, material method, discussion, and conclusions should be improved. The manuscript has various types of errors that should be addressed thoroughly, as well as the following revisions, as given below:

Most importantly, the authors did not follow the sustainability journal's author guidelines. 

Therefore, the evaluation of the manuscript is challenging. Please revise it.

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions

 

Comments

 

1. what is the originality of this study?

2. References in the introduction section should be enhanced, as well as in the discussion section. 

3. The research gap should be enhanced.

4. "1 Materials and Methods 1.1 Data sources"

          Correcting the section numbers is necessary. This part should be in section 2.

 

5. The Materials and Methods section is one of the most important sections of the article. 

Please explain Materials and Methods clearly and scientifically. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I suggest to consider, take into account and implement the following points, if possible:

 

5) Once again ensure the most careful editing of all text, as well as ensure a greater level of scientific rigor in the analysis of data and interpretation of research results,

 

6) More clearly formulate the purpose and objectives of the work.

In its current form, it looks somewhat "declarative".

Accordingly, the text in lines 60-68 must be strictly optimized.

 

7) It is seen that many places in the manuscript have, so to speak, a somewhat declarative character.

It is necessary to be closer to a more rigorous scientific sound. 

 

8) Perhaps it would be worthwhile to develop and apply the concept of alternative and critical approaches more in this study.

 

9) It is possible that more and specific information about the role of the effectiveness of the administration system in China and the contribution of the the worker nation to the development of the economy will provide a deeper understanding of the ongoing processes when analyzing the issues considered in the manuscript.

 

10) Definitely, it would make sense to think about more careful wording of conclusions 4 and 5.

 

11) It is desirable to add a more detailed discussion of the implementation of the concept of sustainability in the framework of the study in the context of the novelty of the latter.

Could be better.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept for publication

Author Response

Thank you for your recognition and encouragement。

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you very much for responding. The manuscript has been improved as a result of the author's revisions. There are some inconsistencies within the manuscript that must be clarified prior to acceptance for publication can be recommended.

 

  1. The reference style is incorrect. Please revise it. 
  2. The figure font should be changed. Check the whole manuscript and revise them.
  3. Mention the corresponding author of this manuscript (See the journal guidelines). 
  4. Line number 522 - Reference list 

Remove one number 

e.g., 1. [1]MA Man, ZHAO Wen. An empirical study on the relationship between economic growth and environmental pollution in 523 Guangxi based on the theory of environmental Kuznets curve [J]. Journal of Yulin Normal University, 2019, 40 (6): 122-126

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

It is necessary to seriously revise the manuscript once again in accordance with the remarks and suggestions made in the previous rounds of peer review.

Postponing the necessary optimization and solution of current issues of this manuscript to "future research" (line 507) "in order to obtain more accurate research results" (lines 509-510) may not be the optimal resolve to the problems of the manuscript.

Could be better.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx