Environmental Regulation and Fiscal Revenue Growth: Is It Win–Win or Win–Lose?—Evidence of a Multi-Tasking Performance Evaluation System in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and providing valuable feedback. I appreciate your comments and suggestions, which have helped me improve the quality of my work. Please find below my detailed responses to your comments, along with the corresponding revisions and corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files using track changes.

I have carefully considered each of your comments and made efforts to address them in the revised manuscript. I believe that these changes have strengthened the paper and hope that they meet with your approval.

Once again, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your careful review and constructive criticism. Your comments have been instrumental in enhancing the overall quality of my manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for allowing me to review the paper.

 I have some remarks for  the authors regarding the article:

1. References of the article are not provided following the journal's requirements. Additionally, sources are quite old because the newest sources are from 2020, 2021 (one), and 2022 (one), but now we have 2024. Besides, most sources are by Chinese authors. As science is worldwide we need to overview the latest research made in this field, not only in China.

2. The article has no literature review section. Therefore, we don't know what the soundness of this research is in the theoretical context, and what additional knowledge gives us the example of the China case, and also we need strong argumentation as to why it is important to study the research object in China. The introduction section could be improved for conciseness and a smooth flow of ideas. There needs to be a solid storyline. Who earlier has analyzed this topic, what are the results and what is the controversy in the research context (China)? What additional value to the science of this research will be?  There should be clear answers to these questions: who analyzed this topic earlier, what it was analyzed, and why we need to analyze more this. What is the theoretical background - what theory suggests the explanation of the possible relationship between environmental regulation and fiscal revenue growth? What is the gap in the existing scientific literature? 

3. Additionally, we see very old research data. The argumentation in the introduction is based on 2000-2005 data, Figure 1 shows 2000-2010, figure 2 - 2003-2016, data of research 2002-2010 (272 row), and Figure 4 shows 2002-2009 data. Today we have 2024, so the science with old data will be completely useless and obsolete.

4. The end of the article should present the limitations of the research, the theoretical implications of the research, and the comparison of the research results with results of previous similar research.

5. We need strong arguments as to why such research methods were chosen (248-250 row) 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English editing is needed. I found some mistakes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and providing valuable feedback. I appreciate your comments and suggestions, which have helped me improve the quality of my work. Please find below my detailed responses to your comments, along with the corresponding revisions and corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files using track changes.

I have carefully considered each of your comments and made efforts to address them in the revised manuscript. I believe that these changes have strengthened the paper and hope that they meet with your approval.

Once again, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your careful review and constructive criticism. Your comments have been instrumental in enhancing the overall quality of my manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for possibiility of reviewing paper titled Environmental Regulation and Fiscal Revenue Growth: is it Win-win or Win-lose？——Evidence of a Multi-tasking Performance Evaluation System in China. It's interesting, but needs some minor improvements.

- Sustainability is an International Journal, so I suggest to use USD not yuan. It will be more clear for international readers, without currency converter.

- also some words what are "five year plans" needed for non Chinese readres

- figure 1.: vertical axex needs description on (tonnes?). Title: number are total for China? studied cities? - specify in figure's tiitle  

- all titles of tables and figures should contain year of used data

- Discussion part should be added, where authors show their main findings and compare them with previous studies. The data are old (up to 2010), so some recent references showing current situation are needed in this chapter

 

good luck with the paper

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and providing valuable feedback. I appreciate your comments and suggestions, which have helped me improve the quality of my work. Please find below my detailed responses to your comments, along with the corresponding revisions and corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files using track changes.

I have carefully considered each of your comments and made efforts to address them in the revised manuscript. I believe that these changes have strengthened the paper and hope that they meet with your approval.

Once again, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your careful review and constructive criticism. Your comments have been instrumental in enhancing the overall quality of my manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the article is interesting, well structured and written. I have the following comments:

1. The authors must locate the reader in time, indicating in the title or in the abstract the sample period of the study.
2. The abstract should briefly outline the implications of the main results.
3. In the introduction, the authors must substantiate the policy implications that the results of this study would have.
4. A review of theoretical literature is needed and link it with the main research results.
5. Improve the justification of the econometric methodology.
6. Diagnostic tests of the estimated models are needed to validate the statistical inference. Or justify why they don't show up.
7. It is important to briefly point out the limitations of the study and future lines of research.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and providing valuable feedback. I appreciate your comments and suggestions, which have helped me improve the quality of my work. Please find below my detailed responses to your comments, along with the corresponding revisions and corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files using track changes.

I have carefully considered each of your comments and made efforts to address them in the revised manuscript. I believe that these changes have strengthened the paper and hope that they meet with your approval.

Once again, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your careful review and constructive criticism. Your comments have been instrumental in enhancing the overall quality of my manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank You for improving the article.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I found some small mistakes. So editing is needed.