Can Environmental Regulations Promote Regional Industrial Transfer?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Many thanks for this kind invitation to read and review this paper.
Abstract:
Your abstract should tell the readers why the study is important (maximum 25% of the text), what you did, i.e. your methodology (maximum 25% of the text), and what you found, i.e. main research results and their major implications (50% of the text). This is very important to promote your work because of the growing trend that authors use Google search to find and cite papers based on the abstract (instead of reading the full paper). The Abstract needs re-writing. I would suggest the authors summarize this part and also add contributions as well.
Introduction:
The introduction is ,in many ways ,the most crucial part of a manuscript. Generally, the introduction should contain 1. General topic - why it is important and what is the problem, 2. Short reporting over the extant knowledge; 3. Identification of the main gap(s); 4. Aim of the study - RQs - in terms of how the paper wants to fill the gap(s) (short); 5. Remainder.
I would suggest you add some paragraphs and move paragraphs related to the contribution and reminder from the literature to this part as well.
The following four-point outline may be useful for the purpose of synthesizing and presenting your contributions more effectively. Specifically, the introduction of your manuscript should consist of no more than 4-5 paragraphs that provide answers to the following four questions (one paragraph per question):
1. What is the general phenomenon you are studying? And why is it important?
2. What has been done so far in terms of research on the subject? I.e., who said what?
3. What is the problem with this research? I.e., what is the gap in our current understanding?
4. Why is it important to fill this gap? How will it help advance theory and practice?
5. What is the solution you are proposing to resolve this problem? I.e., how are you going to fill this gap?
If you structure the introduction of your manuscript in the above way, a likely reader will immediately obtain an understanding of your work and appreciate the unique contribution you are making.
I would suggest authors add references at the end of some important sentences EX: Most researches (….) that focus on the impact of environmental regulations on regional 69 industrial transfer give priority to verification of “Pollution Heaven Hypothesis”, and few (….)70 papers discuss the impact mechanism.
Or this sentence
Most of the existing literatures that dis- 53 cuss the impact of environmental regulations on regional industrial transfer are based on 54 the “Pollution Heaven Hypothesis” and focus on macro level.
The gap does not present well.
I would suggest authors to add contribution at the end of introduction as well.
2. The Background and Hypothesis
Generally, all the concepts are presented well in this part. I would suggest you to classify the concepts in this part. The literature gaps your research attempts to bridge and the theoretical and practical contributions of your study to green economy research should be clearly outlined in the introduction of the paper.
Hypothesis development is weak. There is no clear support for the hypothesized relationships.
3. Research Design
The Research Design part is well developed.
4. The Results And Analysis
I would suggest authors summarize this part. Maybe some part needs to move to discussion and the last parts.
6. Conclusion and suggestion
I would suggest adding a discussion section that your paper is more comprehensively developed that links back to your initial research questions and a clear statement of proposed contributions, once you have reframed your arguments.
What should we, as readers, take away from your study? What are the key theoretical contributions that are gained? How can these findings contribute to the literature stream associated, or to the broader scholarly understanding in general? What do we know about this literature stream now that we have read your study? What future research should be conducted within this literature stream that can be extended based on your study?
I would suggest the authors re-writing the last parts. Please add contributions and theoretical and practical implications part as well.
Overall, the paper is easy to read and understand. The paper may require good proofreading in order to correct grammar mistakes and incoherencies. The use of terminology has no problems, and it presents coherency in the general structure of the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I have read the work with care. The topic is important and the results may be useful for science and practice. The paper needs to improve or clarify a few points:
- clearly define the purpose of the research, listing the scientific and implementation objectives
- explain what the " Two-Control Zones" policy is and where it applies in addition to China,
- the hypotheses are like theses - you can call them theses or improve the editing of the theses
- explain whether China's regions (eastern, western and central) can independently formulate and implement environmental regulations or whether it is a state policy (compare the description in lines 576-590)
- expand the discussion to include a comparison of the research results obtained with the existing body of science; in this respect, increase the list of scientific papers.
The key question is: why does the research only go back to 2010? This makes the results not up to date. Please do research for subsequent years or explain the reasons for such a research period.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The recommendations are very non-specific. It would be useful to investigate how environmental legislation is being built in other countries, for example, in terms of introducing "best available technologies" and something other like this.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I read the article and the letter. I believe that the changes made improve the quality of the article.
