Green Efficiency Measurement of Seaweed Culture in China under the Double Carbon Target
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Congratulations on the choice of subject matter. The layout of the manuscript is correct. The literature cited is relevant to the topic undertaken. I believe that the subject matter is original and important from the point of view of the development of science, although in my opinion, the following elements need to be clarified:
1. The purpose of the article needs to be clarified. Now, the stated purpose is too ambiguous.
2. In "Discussions and recommendations" section, no indication of the application value of the research, both in the theoretical and practical parts. Please specify what the uniqueness of the presented research and its contribution to science.
3. The research methodology needs to be expanded. Please explain clearly what research methods and research instruments were used in the article. Please provide reasons for using the listed research methods and techniques.
4. The bibliography, there is no balance between Chinese and non-Chinese authors. Bibliography rather poor, please expand literature research.
5. Line 215 “industry has been developing upward”. What it means “developing upward”? Is it possible to develop downward?
6. There are numerous errors in the article with the numbering of figures and tables, for example:
a) Page 8 - two tables numbered 6
b) Line 280: "...are shown in Tables 7 and 8". There are no Tables 7 and 8 in the text
c) Line 231 "...are shown in Table 6 and Figure 3" There is no Figure 3 in the text
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled Green efficiency measurement of seaweed culture in China under double carbon target. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Please refer to the attachment for the main corrections in the document and the reply to the reviewers' opinions.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Thank you again for taking your valuable time to review our manuscript and hope to learn more from you.
2023-04-30
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I have read the manuscript and concluded that the its worth publication and the authors have done a wonderful job.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled Green efficiency measurement of seaweed culture in China under double carbon target. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Thank you again for taking your valuable time to review our manuscript and hope to learn more from you.
2023-04-30
Reviewer 3 Report
The article "Measurement of green development efficiency of seaweed farming in China under the dual carbon goals" presents an analysis of the carbon sink potential and green development efficiency of seaweed farming in China from 2008 to 2020. The article employs a comprehensive evaluation index system of green development efficiency and uses the Super-SBM model to calculate the efficiency of seaweed aquaculture. The study finds that seaweed farming has significant potential to support the development of carbon sink fisheries and achieve carbon neutrality goals.
The article's strengths lie in the comprehensive evaluation index system employed, which takes into account carbon aggregate and carbon emissions, and the Super-SBM model used to calculate the green development efficiency of seaweed farming. The study's findings are useful in identifying the factors that influence the net carbon sink output of seaweed farming, the degree of coordination of ecological and economic benefits, and the differences in green development efficiency among the three seas and seven coastal provinces.
However, the article has some limitations. The analysis is limited to China and does not provide a comparative analysis of seaweed farming in other countries. Additionally, the article´s focus is on the ecological and economic benefits of seaweed farming, while the social and cultural impacts are not discussed.
The article would benefit from the inclusion of a literature review section, as this would provide a thorough understanding of the existing research on the topic. Furthermore, the scarcity of literature sources utilized within the study may be expanded upon to enhance the depth of analysis. Additionally, the absence of well-formulated research questions or hypotheses is noted, and their inclusion would serve to enhance the overall rigor and focus of the study.
The article's findings could be useful for policymakers and stakeholders in developing strategies to optimize the structure of seaweed farming, innovate seaweed farming technology, and improve carbon sink trading policies. However, future research should consider the social and cultural impacts of seaweed farming and compare the results with other countries.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled Green efficiency measurement of seaweed culture in China under double carbon target. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Please refer to the attachment for the main corrections in the document and the reply to the reviewers' opinions.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Thank you again for taking your valuable time to review our manuscript and hope to learn more from you.
2023-04-30
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I thank the authors for their insightful analysis of the reviewers' comments. I accept the article in its current form.
Reviewer 3 Report
I really appreciate that authors added the literature review and extended the methodology chapter. It raised the quality of this research paper.
