Research on the Impact of Carbon Trading Policy on the Structural Upgrading of Marine Industry
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript explores the effects of carbon trading policy on structural upgrading. The topic is interesting, but there are substantial shortcomings as follows:
1. In the first section, the authors should address the importance and why they investigated the research topic, and some prior studies should be discussed in detail.
2. In the literature review section, the author should address the research gaps, which is pivotal in helping readers understand the paper's primary contributions. Meanwhile, more updated literatures are encouraged to be added to highlight the importance and cutting-edge of this study.
3. The hypothesis development should offer more theoretical or literature support, and a conceptual framework is encouraged to be outlined.
4. The reason and representativeness of the data selection should be addressed.
5. The observation size is too small to produce robust and accurate results.
6. The authors are suggested to address the limitations in the last section.
7. The authors are suggested to carefully proofread the manuscript before submission since there are substantial writing mistakes, typos, and the like.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for your efforts to publish an academic paper. Few comments:
1- At line 33 you wrote, "the national carbon emission trading market will be opened in 2021, which means that the carbon trading policy will be promoted and implemented in China nation wide." Could you tell me when have you written this article?
2- What is the meaning of the phrases between line 446 to 491?
3- The policy implications which you derived from this paper are very vague. It is possible to reach to those recommendations without your calculations also.
4- Your reference in English language are not up-to-date.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper, the double-difference method was used to study the data of Marine industrial structure in China's coastal provinces during 2010-2018, and it was found that carbon trading policies promoted the upgrading of Marine industrial structure, and further tested whether the spatial heterogeneity of the impact of carbon trading policies existed. The experimental results of this paper will provide reference for China to achieve the goal of carbon neutrality and become a maritime power.
The research in this article is not up to publication level. Therefore, I propose to reject this article. The specific problems in this paper are as follows:
1. Abstract writing is too simple and does not cover the core content of the full text. Such as the research conclusion, research background, research purpose and other contents are not written.
2. The marginal contribution and research purpose of this paper are not introduced. The introduction of research background and significance in this part is not comprehensive.
3. In the literature review part, the relevant papers are relatively old, the point of view sorting is particularly illogical, and the relevant literature cannot fully support the research theme of the paper.
4. The paper simply puts forward two hypotheses, but does not build a theoretical model. The hypothesis is too direct and lacks sufficient research value. The theoretical model is not clear.
5. The discussion of Sample selection is too simple. This makes me doubt the authenticity of this paper. It is suggested that the original data used in this article be provided to the editorial department as an attachment.
6. The determination of variables also lacks sufficient literature support.
7. The empirical analysis lacks robustness test.
8. The discussion part of the paper is missing.
9. The conclusion of the paper is not fully summarized and lacks the content related to reality.
10. The paper lacks theoretical implications.
11. The paper does not introduce the research deficiencies and future research directions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
The paper is interesting in very important topic, it is well written and well organized, however there are some comments should be considered befor publishing such as:
Please extend the abstract to include the method used as well the most important results not only general findings
Please support the introduction by references as well the first paragraph in the literature review
In the line 104: Please subscript 2 in CO2
Please follow the journal guideline in writing the reference style in text
The result and discussion section is just presenting to the results without any deep discussion supported by previous studies
My best regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Research on the Impact of Carbon Trading Policy on the Structural Upgrading
In this manuscript, we know that although the existing literature has discussed the impact of carbon trading policy on economic development, it has not covered the impact on the structure of marine industry. Based on this condition, this paper starts from carbon trading policy to study its driving effect on the upgrading of marine industry structure.
This paper collects relevant data from 2010 to 2018 in coastal areas and conducts an empirical study using a double difference model. The results passed the parallel trend test, and the robustness test of replacing the indicators of the explanatory variables, etc., and the empirical results have credibility. The author finally concludes that carbon trading policy can promote the upgrading of marine industry structure. In addition, this paper also conducted a spatial heterogeneity test and found that carbon trading policy has the same significant positive promotion effect on the marine industry structure in the surrounding provinces within 160 km of the pilot provinces. However, the influence of carbon trading policy on the structure of marine industry tends to become smaller and then negatively larger as the distance from the pilot provinces increases.
The article is clear in its idea, and the content is complete and professional. Besides, it has an instructive significance for the society.
To sum up, considering the overall quality of this manuscript and the standard of journal, I suggest that this paper should be accepted.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After carefully reviewing the revised manuscript and responses, the authors have addressed most of my comments.
Author Response
Point 1: After carefully reviewing the revised manuscript and responses, the authors have addressed most of my comments.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestion and evaluation. According to your review comments, the paper has been revised to make it more comprehensive.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much. Few comments:
1- I don't know why the main niche of this research -I mean marine industries- is not reflected at the topic of paper?
Author Response
Point 1: I don't know why the main niche of this research -I mean marine industries- is not reflected at the topic of paper?
Response 1: Thank you for pointing out my mistake. The title is still 《Research on the Impact of Carbon Trading Policy on the Structural Upgrading of Marine Industry》. I found that three words (of Marine Industry) were missing from the title of the previous submission. We have now corrected this error.
Reviewer 3 Report
accepted
Author Response
Point 1: accepted
Response 1: Thank you for comments.
Reviewer 4 Report
The introduction still need to be cited in most sentences.
Author Response
Point 1: The introduction still need to be cited in most sentences.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have made further revisions and improvements to the paper, adding six citations in the introduction.
