Modeling Energy, Education, Trade, and Tourism-Induced Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) Hypothesis: Evidence from the Middle East
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article is very good to publish in the journal, and it seems promising; however, it needs extensive revision as follows:
1. Title should be short and sweet. Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC)
2. Please check Journal’s Guidelines and make sure the manuscript is formatted/prepared by following the Guidelines. Take care of font type, font size, paragraph spacing, indentation, formatting for Table/Figure captions, citation styles, etc.
3. Abstract: Please ensure the Abstract follows this storyline: context & need, specific objectives, methods, key results/conclusions, and implications of this study. Results are missing in the Abstract.
4. Keywords: Please list them in alphabetical order
5. Introduction: Please review the introduction carefully, and make sure it has a good storyline for context setting, and gaps in research, with citations of appropriate recent literature. Insert 2-3 specific objectives or research questions in the last paragraph of the introduction. For that, please consider re-writing the last paragraph to focus on spelling out specific objectives. Also, include the motivational factors and limitations of the study.
6. Conclusions: please be specific in bringing clarity to a conclusion, aligning well with specific objectives again. The conclusion should provide a clear answer to specific research questions or objectives. Policy implications and future works can be integrated as a part of discussion sections.
7 some additional literature to be added and read, such as in the literature section
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032119305969
https://sustainenergyres.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40807-021-00068-9
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8075797
https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=ew9W-YkAAAAJ&citation_for_view=ew9W-YkAAAAJ:qjMakFHDy7sC
https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa58990/Description
8. 5. Conclusion, Policy Recommendation and Future work
5.1 Policy Recommendation
5.2 Recommendation and Future work
remove the limitation and put it in the Introduction section.
9 page 13, please add some literature such as read and cite more literature such as https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ramhari-Poudyal/publication/334491386_conference2019-SONEUK_1/links/5d2ddd18299bf1547cbc8a63/conference2019-SONEUK-1.pdf#page=53
https://thehimalayantimes.com/opinion/sustainable-energy-future-energy-mix-is-the-key
R POUDYAL · R. Poudyal, “Sustainable energy future: Energy mix is the key" The Himalayan. Times, 2019.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer #1
The authors are thankful to editor and anonymous referees for their constructive comments on the paper entitled “Modeling energy, education, trade and tourism-induced EKC hypothesis: Evidence from Middle East” with Manuscript ID: sustainability-2242477 to improve the quality of our paper. We have reviewed the comments and generally agree with those. Accordingly, we have made changes in the paper in line with the referees’ observations to the extent practicable. We take this opportunity to thank each of the individuals involved in the process.
Open Review
( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
Yes Can be improved Must be improved Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?
( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?
( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?
( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?
( ) (x) ( ) ( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?
( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Is the article adequately referenced?
( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?
( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This article is very good to publish in the journal, and it seems promising; however, it needs extensive revision as follows:
- Title should be short and sweet. Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC)
Response: Many thanks to the kind anonymous referee. We written all words in full and used acronym subsequently after the first law of mentioned as suggested by kind referee. We also added a lost of abbreviation for easy for readership.
- Please check Journal’s Guidelines and make sure the manuscript is formatted/prepared by following the Guidelines. Take care of font type, font size, paragraph spacing, indentation, formatting for Table/Figure captions, citation styles, etc.
Response: The revised version has align with journal format as suggested by the referee
- Abstract: Please ensure the Abstract follows this storyline: context & need, specific objectives, methods, key results/conclusions, and implications of this study. Results are missing in the Abstract.
Response: Many thanks for the kind valid observation we modified the abstract as suggested
- Keywords: Please list them in alphabetical order
Response: The key words have been reordered as suggested
- Introduction: Please review the introduction carefully, and make sure it has a good storyline for context setting, and gaps in research, with citations of appropriate recent literature. Insert 2-3 specific objectives or research questions in the last paragraph of the introduction. For that, please consider re-writing the last paragraph to focus on spelling out specific objectives. Also, include the motivational factors and limitations of the study.
Response: Many thanks for the comments. The introductory section been properly motivated with more stylized fact and much more objective and hypotheses appended to the revised version as suggested by the referee.
- Conclusions: please be specific in bringing clarity to a conclusion, aligning well with specific objectives again. The conclusion should provide a clear answer to specific research questions or objectives. Policy implications and future works can be integrated as a part of discussion sections.
Response: The revised version conclusion been updated in line with referee suggestion to reflect main finding, conclusion and policy direction for relevant agent of the study scope
7 some additional literature to be added and read, such as in the literature section
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032119305969
https://sustainenergyres.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40807-021-00068-9
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8075797
https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=ew9W-YkAAAAJ&citation_for_view=ew9W-YkAAAAJ:qjMakFHDy7sC
https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa58990/Description
Response: We improved the literature section significant the study has over a 100 scientific referenced that are relevant and up-to date
- 5. Conclusion, Policy Recommendation and Future work
Response: Done now in revised version
5.1 Policy Recommendation
Response: Done now in revised version
5.2 Recommendation and Future work
Response: Done now in revised version
remove the limitation and put it in the Introduction section.
9 page 13, please add some literature such as read and cite more literature such as https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ramhari-Poudyal/publication/334491386_conference2019-SONEUK_1/links/5d2ddd18299bf1547cbc8a63/conference2019-SONEUK-1.pdf#page=53
https://thehimalayantimes.com/opinion/sustainable-energy-future-energy-mix-is-the-key
R POUDYAL · R. Poudyal, “Sustainable energy future: Energy mix is the key" The Himalayan. Times, 2019.
Many thanks for the suggested studies
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is good paper however i will suggest some must do changes.
1. Keywords should be concise and abbreviation like AMG should be removed.
2. In literature review, fifth line needs language correction see bold text and remove full stop after references. see this in entire section for overall improvement
e.g Usman et al. [34]. looked studied how the top 20 emitting nations' economic growth, travel, .........
e.g Adebayo et al. [35]. ? ..........
3. You have used percentage of energy, trade and education of GDP. the interpretation of the results will change, as taking the logarithm of a percentage will result in a percentage change being transformed into a simple difference in logarithmic terms which will give you proportional change not the absolute change.
Therefore, if you want to interpret in simple percentage form then the data should be in aggregate form which can be obtained by multiplying the related percentages of variables to GDP respectively or rectify interpretations accordingly for these coefficients in results. e.g. your coefficients of trade is very small as you take log of percentage of trade instead of log trade. pls do the needful.
4. In Table 5, you have not provided the p values of unit root estimates.
5. The Westerlund cointegration test is a panel data test for cointegration that allows for heterogeneous unit root processes and cross-sectional dependence. It can be used to test for cointegration between variables that have different orders of integration, such as one variable that is integrated of order one (I(1)) and another variable that is integrated of order two (I(2)). However, it is important to note that the power of the test may be affected by the degree of mixed integration, and the results should be interpreted with caution. You have mentioned it cannot be used when series are I(2) so please remove this in secion 4.3 and onwards.
6. Also note that variables of integration of zero order I(0) can be interpreted as short run coefficients in the VECM and cointegration approach. Therefore interpretation should be adjusted accordingly.
7.GDP2 represents a threshold change after a certain point in time. It is negative but its interpretation should be improved as this means that after some theshold level, co2 starts declining which means that at higher level of development, economies start to control inflation with higher standard of livings.
In coclusion section, you need to write in the above manner for all variables.
You should suggest policy in a concise manner based on your findings only. avoid general suggestions and make it concise.
you can add following references related to energy and GDP in your review.
References
Shakeel M. Economic output, export, fossil fuels, non-fossil fuels and energy conservation: evidence from structural break models with VECMs in South Asia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2021;28(3):3162-71.
Shakeel M. Analyses of energy-GDP-export nexus: The way-forward. Energy. 2021;216:119280.
Author Response
Reviewer #2
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2242477
The authors are thankful to editor and anonymous referees for their constructive comments on the paper entitled “Modeling energy, education, trade and tourism-induced EKC hypothesis: Evidence from Middle East” with Manuscript ID: sustainability-2242477 to improve the quality of our paper. We have reviewed the comments and generally agree with those. Accordingly, we have made changes in the paper in line with the referees’ observations to the extent practicable. We take this opportunity to thank each of the individuals involved in the process.
Open Review
( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the article adequately referenced? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This is good paper however i will suggest some must do changes.
- Keywords should be concise and abbreviation like AMG should be removed.
Response: Thanks for the valid observation we now removed the abbreviation from the updated version
- In literature review, fifth line needs language correction see bold text and remove full stop after references. see this in entire section for overall improvement
e.g Usman et al. [34]. looked studied how the top 20 emitting nations' economic growth, travel, .........
e.g Adebayo et al. [35]. ? ..........
Response: Thanks to the kind anonymous referee, we solve this issue. The revision marked with red.
- You have used percentage of energy, trade and education of GDP. the interpretation of the results will change, as taking the logarithm of a percentage will result in a percentage change being transformed into a simple difference in logarithmic terms which will give you proportional change not the absolute change.
Response: Thanks to the kind anonymous referee, we edited results explanation and the revision marked by red.
- Therefore, if you want to interpret in simple percentage form then the data should be in aggregate form which can be obtained by multiplying the related percentages of variables to GDP respectively or rectify interpretations accordingly for these coefficients in results. e.g. your coefficients of trade is very small as you take log of percentage of trade instead of log trade. pls do the needful.
Response: Thanks to the kind anonymous referee, we edited the result explanation and the revision marked by red/
- In Table 5, you have not provided the p values of unit root estimates.
Response: Thanks to the kind anonymous referee, we provided in the revised version.
- The Westerlund cointegration test is a panel data test for cointegration that allows for heterogeneous unit root processes and cross-sectional dependence. It can be used to test for cointegration between variables that have different orders of integration, such as one variable that is integrated of order one (I(1)) and another variable that is integrated of order two (I(2)). However, it is important to note that the power of the test may be affected by the degree of mixed integration, and the results should be interpreted with caution. You have mentioned it cannot be used when series are I(2) so please remove this in section 4.3 and onwards.
Response: Thanks to the kind anonymous referee for the valid observationbr this important comment. We changed our comment.
- Also note that variables of integration of zero order I(0) can be interpreted as short run coefficients in the VECM and cointegration approach. Therefore interpretation should be adjusted accordingly.
Response: Thanks to the kind anonymous referee, for this valuable comment. We interpreted.
7.GDP2 represents a threshold change after a certain point in time. It is negative but its interpretation should be improved as this means that after some threshold level, co2 starts declining which means that at higher level of development, economies start to control inflation with higher standard of livings.
In conclusion section, you need to write in the above manner for all variables.
Response: Thanks to the kind anonymous referee, for this valuable comment. The problem is here, there is no EKC and GDP2 value is positive and insignificant. So, we explained the GDP2 details.
You should suggest policy in a concise manner based on your findings only. avoid general suggestions and make it concise.
Response: Thanks Professor, for your important suggestion. We concise our policy recommendation.
you can add following references related to energy and GDP in your review.
References
Shakeel M. Economic output, export, fossil fuels, non-fossil fuels and energy conservation: evidence from structural break models with VECMs in South Asia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2021;28(3):3162-71.
Shakeel M. Analyses of energy-GDP-export nexus: The way-forward. Energy. 2021;216:119280.
Response: Thanks to the kind anonymous referee for the valuable suggested article which have been incorporated and helped reposition our study
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the opportunity of reading and reviewing your interesting manuscript. The paper addresses an important topic and it falls within the scope of the journal. It uses data retrieved from international statistics (WDI) and uses adequate methods for investigation. I still see several shortcomings and I provide my recommendations below:
1. while the title announces investigations on energy , education, trade and tourism-induced EKC hypothesis, the literature section does not cover all aspects of this complex relationship. Therefore I strongly suggest to divide this sections into several subsections and to cover all the aspects. Moreover, I suggest several papers to be read: Li, Jing, et al. "The Relationship between Energy Consumption, CO2 Emissions, Economic Growth, and Health Indicators." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20.3 (2023): 2325; Li, Qiucheng, et al. "Exploring the relationship between renewable energy sources and economic growth. The case of SAARC countries." Energies 14.3 (2021): 520.
2.formulating and discussing research hypotheses is needed due to the complex investigation; 3. in this point I make also the suggestion to clarify in the Introduction section the aim and research questions
4. given that there is no Discussion section, I suggest to rename the section Empirical results as Empirical results and discussion.
Good luck!
Author Response
Reviewer #3
The authors are thankful to editor and anonymous referees for their constructive comments on the paper entitled “Modeling energy, education, trade and tourism-induced EKC hypothesis: Evidence from Middle East” with Manuscript ID: sustainability-2242477 to improve the quality of our paper. We have reviewed the comments and generally agree with those. Accordingly, we have made changes in the paper in line with the referees’ observations to the extent practicable. We take this opportunity to thank each of the individuals involved in the process.
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the article adequately referenced? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you for the opportunity of reading and reviewing your interesting manuscript. The paper addresses an important topic and it falls within the scope of the journal. It uses data retrieved from international statistics (WDI) and uses adequate methods for investigation. I still see several shortcomings and I provide my recommendations below:
- while the title announces investigations on energy , education, trade and tourism-induced EKC hypothesis, the literature section does not cover all aspects of this complex relationship. Therefore I strongly suggest to divide this sections into several subsections and to cover all the aspects. Moreover, I suggest several papers to be read: Li, Jing, et al. "The Relationship between Energy Consumption, CO2 Emissions, Economic Growth, and Health Indicators." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health3 (2023): 2325; Li, Qiucheng, et al. "Exploring the relationship between renewable energy sources and economic growth. The case of SAARC countries." Energies14.3 (2021): 520.
Response: Many thanks for the valid observation from the kind anonymous referee. The outlined suggested studies have been incorporated and have helped improved the study accordingly.
2.formulating and discussing research hypotheses is needed due to the complex investigation;
Response: Many thanks for the valid observation from the kind anonymous referee. we discussed the research questions and hypothesis. The changed marked by green color.
- in this point I make also the suggestion to clarify in the Introduction section the aim and research questions
Response: Many thanks for the valid observation from the kind anonymous referee, we clarified the aim and research questions with more motivation accordingly. The changed marked by green color.
- given that there is no Discussion section, I suggest renaming the section Empirical results as Empirical results and discussion.
Response: Many thanks for the valid observation from the kind anonymous referee, we edited as your suggestions. The changed marked by green.
Good luck!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
please see the spelling e.g.
in limitations at the end you wrote the word ; blocs which is misspelled to blocks
do the needful.
Author Response
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2242477
The authors are thankful to editor and anonymous referees for their constructive comments on the paper entitled “Modeling energy, education, trade and tourism-induced EKC hypothesis: Evidence from Middle East” with Manuscript ID: sustainability-2242477 to improve the quality of our paper. We have reviewed the comments and generally agree with those. Accordingly, we have made changes in the paper in line with the referees’ observations to the extent practicable. We take this opportunity to thank each of the individuals involved in the process.
Open Review
( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
please see the spelling e.g.
in limitations at the end you wrote the word ; blocs which is misspelled to blocks
do the needful.
Response: Many thanks to the kind anonymous referee. , we corrected the misspelled word and the entire manuscript been read by English native professor to help expunge all typo and grammatical issues that interfere with the study flow
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
