The Impact of Digital Service Trade on the Carbon Intensity of Well-Being Under Sustainable Development Goals

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The English could be improved to more clearly express the research
2. To strengthen the causal inference, a Difference-in-Differences approach could be applied to compare groups before and after the "event"
3. The paper points out that different regions have varying turning points and curve steepness in the relationship between digital service trade and CIWB but doesn’t really dive into why these differences exist.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

(1) The development of digital service trade have.. The development is singular, so have should be has.

(2) Digital service trade plays a crucial role on reducing carbon emissions. On should be in.

(3) The research findings suggests that digital service trade has a nonlinear effect on carbon intensity. Findings is plural, therefore suggests should be suggest.

Author Response

Comments 1: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have carefully revised the manuscript to improve the clarity, grammar, and overall readability of the English language. To make the changes easily identifiable, all revisions have been marked in red in the revised manuscript. We believe that these improvements have enhanced the manuscript’s clarity and presentation, and we sincerely hope that the revised version meets the journal’s language standards.

Comments 2: To strengthen the causal inference, a Difference-in-Differences approach could be applied to compare groups before and after the "event". 

Response 2: Thank you very much for your insightful and valuable comment. We fully recognize that the Difference-in-Differences (DID) approach is an effective method for establishing causal inference. However, in the present study, we employ a cross-national panel dataset covering 152 countries (regions), where digital service trade policies are highly heterogeneous across countries. The DID method typically requires that the treatment group be subjected to a common policy intervention, a condition not met in our dataset due to the substantial differences in policy implementation. Furthermore, the focus of our study is on the scale of digital service trade, rather than the evaluation of specific policy effects. Nevertheless, we highly value your suggestion and have discussed this point in the Conclusion section. In particular, we have proposed that future research could utilize firm-level or household-level panel data within a single country, where a specific digital service trade policy could be treated as a quasi-natural experiment, and the DID model could be employed to explore the impact of such policies on the carbon intensity of well-being (CIWB). This additional discussion has been incorporated into the Conclusion section (see page 25, paragraph 3, lines 870–874, marked in red).

Comments 3: The paper points out that different regions have varying turning points and curve steepness in the relationship between digital service trade and CIWB but doesn’t really dive into why these differences exist.

Response 3: Thank you very much for your insightful and constructive comment. We fully agree with this comment regarding the need to delve deeper into the reasons behind the regional differences in turning points and curve steepness.Therefore, we have conducted a deep exploration of the underlying reasons for the observed differences in turning points and curve steepness across different regions in the relationship between digital service trade and the carbon intensity of well-being (CIWB). The detailed discussion has been added to the revised manuscript (see page 22, paragraph 2, lines 756–774, marked in red). We hope that these additions address your concern and enhance the depth of our analysis.

Comments 4: The development of digital service trade have.. The development is singular, so have should be has.

Response 4: Thank you very much for your careful and valuable comment. We have thoroughly checked the entire manuscript for subject-verb agreement issues, particularly focusing on the phrase "the development of digital service trade" and similar structures. We have corrected all identified grammatical errors to ensure the consistent and proper use of singular verbs where appropriate. The revised parts are marked in red in the updated manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your attention to detail, which has helped us improve the overall language quality of our paper.

Comments 5: Digital service trade plays a crucial role on reducing carbon emissions. On should be in.

Response 5: Thank you very much for your careful and valuable comment. We have thoroughly checked the entire manuscript and corrected this grammatical issue, changing "on" to "in" where appropriate. Furthermore, we have carefully reviewed the manuscript for similar prepositional errors and made necessary corrections to ensure the accuracy and fluency of the language. All modifications have been marked in red in the revised manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your attention to detail, which has helped us improve the overall quality of our paper.

Comments 6: The research findings suggests that digital service trade has a nonlinear effect on carbon intensity. Findings is plural, therefore suggests should be suggest.

Response 6: Thank you very much for your careful and valuable comment. We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and corrected the subject-verb agreement issue, changing "suggests" to "suggest" as appropriate. Moreover, we conducted a thorough check throughout the manuscript to identify and rectify any similar grammatical inconsistencies. All modifications have been marked in red in the revised manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your attention to detail, which has helped us enhance the grammatical accuracy and overall quality of our paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for submitting the paper. I have some comments:

As I review the similarity report, the similarity is 28%. 

However, after spending 20 minutes, I could easily see that every section had been copied and rephrased. That means the real similarity is far beyond imagination.

This paper should be rejected. 

This is gross research ethics misconduct.

Author Response

Comments 1: As I review the similarity report, the similarity is 28%. However, after spending 20 minutes, I could easily see that every section had been copied and rephrased. That means the real similarity is far beyond imagination. This paper should be rejected. This is gross research ethics misconduct.

Response1: Thank you very much for your critical and important comment. We take concerns regarding research ethics and originality extremely seriously. Upon receiving your feedback, we carefully reviewed the similarity report and conducted a thorough internal audit of the manuscript. We found that the relatively high similarity rate is largely attributable to the extensive use of standard professional terms and official classifications. For example, in the section on the measurement of digital service trade (from the last paragraph on page 10 to the first paragraph on page 11, lines 438–457) , we adopted the statistical framework outlined in the Handbook on Measuring Digital Trade (second edition) jointly published by the IMF, OECD, UN, and WTO, which defines 13 categories of digital service trade based on the EBOPS-2010 classification. These official terminology and classification names are internationally recognized standards and must be cited precisely to ensure academic accuracy and consistency. Arbitrarily altering such terms would not only confuse readers but also violate accepted scholarly practices. Similarly, in the Empirical Analyses section (see pages 12–23, lines 491–820), certain methodological phrases common to econometrics inevitably recur. However, all empirical findings—including coefficients, standard errors, p-values, and other statistics—are entirely original, as they are derived from our own data processing and regression analysis using Stata 18.0. No plagiarism or research misconduct has occurred. Furthermore, in the literature review (see pages 3–5, lines 137–227), minor overlaps stem from properly cited references to previous studies, which is standard academic practice. Importantly, the repetition from any single cited work does not exceed 2%, indicating that there is no over-reliance on any particular source. Nevertheless, we recognize that the overall similarity percentage appeared high. Therefore, we have carefully revised the manuscript to streamline the sections where professional terminology was overly reiterated, and, where appropriate, we have adopted abbreviations to reduce repetition without undermining clarity or accuracy. We have uploaded a thoroughly revised version of the manuscript, and we believe that the updated similarity rate has been significantly reduced. We sincerely appreciate your rigorous assessment, which prompted us to further refine our manuscript, and we reaffirm our strong commitment to upholding the highest standards of research ethics and scholarly writing.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In their article, the authors examined digital service trade, green development and the carbon intensity of well-being. The analysis was performed based on nonlinear relationships. The main comments that can contribute to improving the quality of the article:

1. The title of the article is too long. I suggest shortening it.
2. The authors described a research gap in their article. However, it is also necessary to describe what new information the presented study brings to science? Describe it more broadly.
3. The article formulated 5 hypotheses. Section 4 presents the research methods in the context of each hypothesis. However, the description of the exceptions lacks reference to all hypotheses. The authors discussed the results in relation to hypothesis 1 (lines 566, 595). The description of the results lacks reference to hypotheses 2-5. It should be written whether they were verified positively or negatively.
4. The Discussion section is missing. It can be combined with the Results section. The authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in the perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and limitations of the work highlighted.
5. In the Conclusions, describe directions for future research.
6. References and citations in the text should be formatted in accordance with the requirements of the journal "Sustainability".

Author Response

Comments 1: The title of the article is too long. I suggest shortening it.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your constructive and valuable comment. We fully agree with this comment regarding the length of the title. Therefore, we have shortened the title of the manuscript to make it more concise and focused, while still accurately reflecting the core content of the study. The revised title can be found on page 1, lines 2–3 , marked in red. We sincerely appreciate your suggestion, which has helped improve the presentation of our paper.

Comments 2: The authors described a research gap in their article. However, it is also necessary to describe what new information the presented study brings to science? Describe it more broadly.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have expanded the discussion to more broadly describe the new contributions that our study brings to the existing body of knowledge. Specifically, compared with previous studies, our research is the first to investigate the relationship between digital service trade and the carbon intensity of well-being (CIWB), using CIWB as the dependent variable. This innovation helps to fill an important gap in the literature concerning the determinants of CIWB within the context of global digitalization. Furthermore, we contribute to the existing literature by making a methodological choice to employ a nonlinear regression model, rather than a traditional linear model, to explore the potential complexity and heterogeneity of the relationship between digital service trade and CIWB. This methodological choice is important because the relationship in question is likely non-monotonic and multifaceted. A purely linear regression model may fail to detect underlying nonlinear dynamics, even if statistical significance is achieved. Linear models are limited to fitting straight-line relationships, which can lead to model misspecification when the true relationship is curved (e.g., initially increasing and then decreasing). In contrast, by selecting a nonlinear regression model, our study better captures potential curvilinear patterns, enhances model accuracy, and provides deeper insights into the mechanisms at play. This, in turn, leads to more reliable policy recommendations. The expanded content has been added to the revised manuscript (see pages 5, paragraph 2, lines 213–227, marked in red). We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has significantly improved the clarity and depth of our manuscript.

Comments 3: The article formulated 5 hypotheses. Section 4 presents the research methods in the context of each hypothesis. However, the description of the exceptions lacks reference to all hypotheses. The authors discussed the results in relation to hypothesis 1 (lines 566, 595). The description of the results lacks reference to hypotheses 2-5. It should be written whether they were verified positively or negatively.

Response 3: Thank you very much for your careful and valuable comment. We agree with this comment. We sincerely apologize for our oversight in the initial submission regarding the description of the results related to hypotheses 2–5. In the revised manuscript, we have explicitly stated the verification results for all remaining hypotheses. Specifically, Hypothesis 2 has been verified  (see page 16, paragraph 2, lines 609–610), Hypotheses 3 and 4 have been confirmed (see page 18, paragraph 1, lines 653–654), and Hypothesis 5 has also been supported (see page 20, paragraph 1, lines 720–721). All additions have been marked in red for easy reference. We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback, which has helped improve the clarity and completeness of the results presentation in our manuscript.

Comments 4: The Discussion section is missing. It can be combined with the Results section. The authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in the perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and limitations of the work highlighted.

Response 4: Thank you very much for your careful and valuable suggestion. We fully agree with this comment regarding the need for a more comprehensive discussion of the findings. In the revised manuscript, we have added a dedicated discussion section, which has been integrated with the conclusion to provide a cohesive narrative. Specifically, we have discussed the research findings in detail, interpreting them in the context of previous studies and in relation to the initial working hypotheses (see page 25, paragraph 2, lines 838–864, marked in red). Moreover, we have highlighted the limitations of our study (see page 25, paragraph 3, lines 865–870, marked in red). We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback, which has significantly improved the completeness and scientific rigor of our manuscript.

Comments 5: In the Conclusions, describe directions for future research.

Response 5: Thank you very much for your constructive and valuable suggestion. We fully agree with your comment regarding the importance of outlining directions for future research. Therefore, we have added a discussion of potential future research directions in the conclusion section of the revised manuscript. Specifically, we have outlined an avenue for further investigation based on the limitations and findings of our study. The new content can be found on page 25, paragraph 3, lines 870–874, marked in red. We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback, which has helped improve the completeness and forward-looking perspective of our manuscript.

Comments 6: References and citations in the text should be formatted in accordance with the requirements of the journal "Sustainability".

Response 6: Thank you very much for your careful and valuable comment. We fully agree with your suggestion regarding the formatting of references and citations. Therefore, we have carefully revised the reference list and in-text citations to comply with the formatting requirements of the journal Sustainability. The updated formatting can be found on pages 26–29, lines 929–1057, marked in red. We sincerely appreciate your helpful suggestion, which has improved the consistency and professionalism of our manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your submission. Your manuscript presents a well-timed and relevant analysis of the nonlinear relationship between digital service trade and the carbon intensity of well-being (CIWB). The combination of theoretical modeling, panel data regression, and robust econometric analysis contributes meaningfully to literature on digital globalization and sustainable development.

However, to enhance the clarity and accessibility of your work, I suggest the following improvements:

1. Clarity of Expression and Language Quality

The manuscript contains numerous instances where the English could be improved for clarity. Some sentences are unnecessarily long or use awkward phrasing, which may hinder comprehension for international readers.

Example (Lines 261–263):

"In the long term, with the widespread adoption of digital technologies, digital service trade can optimize production processes, promote green technology innovation, and improve energy efficiency."

This sentence could be simplified for smoother reading. A possible revision:

"Over time, the widespread use of digital technologies can improve production efficiency, drive green innovation, and reduce energy consumption."

A full professional proofreading is strongly recommended before publication.

2. Redundancy and Structure

The paper contains some repetition, particularly in the theoretical analysis and mechanism discussion sections. While the theoretical foundations are well-researched, several arguments are repeated with only slight variations.

Example: The inverted U-shaped relationship is described multiple times in the Introduction (Lines 13–23), Theoretical Analysis (Lines 248–273), and again in Mechanism Analysis (Lines 602–628). This repetition could be reduced to improve flow.

Consider streamlining these discussions by:

• Consolidating repeated arguments.

• Highlighting the conceptual framework once and referring back to it when necessary.

3. Enhance Policy Relevance and Practical Implications

Although policy implications are mentioned in the abstract and conclusion, they remain somewhat general. Expanding this section with clear, actionable recommendations would greatly strengthen the paper’s relevance to Sustainability readers.

Suggestion:

• Include a subsection titled “Policy Implications” summarizing how specific findings (e.g., differences by region or service category) can inform climate, trade, and digital economy policy.

Example: The finding that “insurance and pension services, as well as audiovisual services, directly suppress CIWB” (Lines 625–628) could support targeted investments in these areas within sustainable trade frameworks.

4. Results Interpretation and Visual Support

While the regression results are comprehensive, the interpretation in text could be made more intuitive for non-specialist readers.

Example: Figure 2 (fitted values of CIWB vs. digital service trade) confirms the inverted U-shape, but its implications are not clearly discussed. A few sentences explicitly interpreting what the inflection point (5.4211) means in practical terms would be helpful. Does it imply that countries should aim for a certain scale of digital trade to benefit from emissions reduction?

Also, Table 5 includes detailed sub-sector analysis (DST_Fin, DST_Tel, DST_Pro, etc.), but readers would benefit from a brief narrative summary of key findings for each category in the main text.

5. Clarify Contribution in Literature Review

The literature review is comprehensive but could better emphasize the novelty of your work.

Suggestion: Add a short paragraph clearly stating how this study fills the research gap. For example:

• Is it the first study to use CIWB as a dependent variable in the context of digital service trade?

• How does your nonlinear transmission analysis differ from previous linear models?

6. Terminology and Definitions

Some terms appear technical or region-specific and should be clearly defined for an international readership.

Examples:

• CIWB is explained, but could be more clearly defined upfront with a formula and intuitive interpretation (Lines 423–426).

• Phrases like “energy structure transition” and “public environmental awareness” (Lines 410, 416) should be more precisely operationalized.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript requires careful English language editing to improve clarity and readability. The following issues were noted:

• Grammatical errors and incorrect article usage
  Example: “an enough large scale of financial digital service trade...” (Line 654)
  Suggested revision: “a sufficiently large scale of financial digital service trade...”

• Awkward or unnatural phrasing
  Example: “...leads the world in addressing climate change and reducing environmental pollution.” (Line 102)
  Suggested revision: “...plays a leading role in addressing climate change and reducing environmental pollution.”

• Long and complex sentence structures that could be simplified
  Example: “In the long term, with the widespread adoption of digital technologies, digital service trade can optimize production processes...” (Line 261)
  Suggested revision: “In the long run, as digital technologies become more widely adopted, digital service trade can help optimize production and promote green innovation.”

• Repetitive use of key phrases
  The term “inverted U-shaped relationship” is repeated several times in close succession (e.g., Lines 13–23, 273–283). Rephrasing or summarizing would help improve flow.

• Vague or undefined technical terms
  Terms like “energy structure transition” and “public environmental awareness” appear frequently but are not clearly defined for a global academic audience.

• Imprecise technical expressions
  Example: “the environmental costs for enterprises during low-carbon transitions...” (Line 617)
  Suggested revision: “...the environmental compliance costs faced by enterprises during their transition to low-carbon operations.”

Overall, the manuscript would benefit significantly from a thorough language edit by a native English speaker or professional editing service. This will ensure the content is communicated more clearly and professionally to an international readership.

Author Response

Comments 1: Clarity of Expression and Language Quality

The manuscript contains numerous instances where the English could be improved for clarity. Some sentences are unnecessarily long or use awkward phrasing, which may hinder comprehension for international readers.

Example (Lines 261–263):

"In the long term, with the widespread adoption of digital technologies, digital service trade can optimize production processes, promote green technology innovation, and improve energy efficiency."

This sentence could be simplified for smoother reading. A possible revision:

"Over time, the widespread use of digital technologies can improve production efficiency, drive green innovation, and reduce energy consumption."

A full professional proofreading is strongly recommended before publication.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your constructive and valuable comment. We fully agree with this comment regarding the clarity of expression and language quality. Therefore, we have simplified the specific sentence you highlighted to enhance readability, following your proposed revision. The updated sentence appears between the last paragraph of page 5 and the first paragraph of page 6 (lines 241–243, marked in red). Additionally, we have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript to identify and correct other instances of unnecessarily long or awkward phrasing to further improve overall clarity and language fluency. We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback, which has significantly enhanced the readability and professionalism of our manuscript.

Comments 2: Redundancy and Structure

The paper contains some repetition, particularly in the theoretical analysis and mechanism discussion sections. While the theoretical foundations are well-researched, several arguments are repeated with only slight variations.

Example: The inverted U-shaped relationship is described multiple times in the Introduction (Lines 13–23), Theoretical Analysis (Lines 248–273), and again in Mechanism Analysis (Lines 602–628). This repetition could be reduced to improve flow.

Consider streamlining these discussions by:

Consolidating repeated arguments.

Highlighting the conceptual framework once and referring back to it when necessary.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your valuable and constructive comment. We fully agree with this comment regarding redundancy and structure. Therefore, we have carefully streamlined the manuscript to eliminate repetitive descriptions, particularly concerning the "inverted U-shaped relationship." Specifically, we have consolidated and simplified the related content in the following sections: Abstract (page 1, paragraph 1, lines 7–24), Introduction (page 3, paragraph 2, lines 109–131), Theoretical Analysis (page 6, paragraph 2, lines 253–270; page 7, paragraph 2, lines 310–335), Empirical Analysis (pages 12–23, paragraph 2 on page 12 to paragraph 1 on page 23, lines 513–795), Conclusion (page 25, paragraph 2, lines 838–864). All revisions have been marked in red. Furthermore, we have also reviewed the entire manuscript to identify and address similar redundancies beyond the mentioned sections, thereby improving the overall flow and clarity of the paper. We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback, which has greatly enhanced the structure, coherence, and readability of our manuscript.

Comments 3: Enhance Policy Relevance and Practical Implications

Although policy implications are mentioned in the abstract and conclusion, they remain somewhat general. Expanding this section with clear, actionable recommendations would greatly strengthen the paper’s relevance to Sustainability readers.

Suggestion: Include a subsection titled “Policy Implications” summarizing how specific findings (e.g., differences by region or service category) can inform climate, trade, and digital economy policy.

Example: The finding that “insurance and pension services, as well as audiovisual services, directly suppress CIWB” (Lines 625–628) could support targeted investments in these areas within sustainable trade frameworks.

Response 3: Thank you very much for your insightful and constructive comment. We fully agree with this comment regarding the need to enhance the policy relevance and practical implications of our study. Therefore, we have added a new subsection titled "Policy Implications" in the conclusion section of the revised manuscript (see the last paragraph on page 25 to the last paragraph on page 26, lines 876–927, marked in red). In this subsection, we provide clear, actionable recommendations based directly on our specific research findings, including regional differences and variations across service categories. For example, we have highlighted how the findings that insurance and pension services, as well as audiovisual services, can significantly suppress the carbon intensity of human well-being (CIWB) could inform targeted investments and the formulation of sustainable digital trade and climate policies. We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has greatly improved the practical relevance and policy contribution of our manuscript.

Comments 4: Results Interpretation and Visual Support

While the regression results are comprehensive, the interpretation in text could be made more intuitive for non-specialist readers.

Example: Figure 2 (fitted values of CIWB vs. digital service trade) confirms the inverted U-shape, but its implications are not clearly discussed. A few sentences explicitly interpreting what the inflection point (5.4211) means in practical terms would be helpful. Does it imply that countries should aim for a certain scale of digital trade to benefit from emissions reduction?

Also, Table 5 includes detailed sub-sector analysis (DST_Fin, DST_Tel, DST_Pro, etc.), but readers would benefit from a brief narrative summary of key findings for each category in the main text.

Response 4: Thank you very much for your insightful and constructive comment. We fully agree with this comment regarding the need for clearer interpretation of the results. Therefore, we have made the following revisions to the manuscript. First, we have provided a detailed discussion on the practical meaning of the inflection point identified in Figure 2. Specifically, given that the inflection point occurs at DST = 5.4211 (in natural logarithmic form), we calculated that this corresponds to an actual digital service trade volume of approximately USD 225 million. This implies that countries should aim to expand their digital service trade scale beyond USD 225 million to achieve reductions in carbon emissions and improvements in societal well-being. The additional interpretation has been incorporated into the revised manuscript (see page 14, paragraph 1, lines 552–558, marked in red). Second, we have provided a brief narrative summary of the heterogeneous effects of digital service trade across different sub-sectors, based on the results from Table 5. This summary has been added to the main text (see page 16, paragraph 2, lines 601–606, marked in red) to make the key findings for each category more accessible and easier to understand for readers. We sincerely appreciate your helpful feedback, which has enhanced the accessibility and policy relevance of our findings for a broader readership.

Comments 5: Clarify Contribution in Literature Review

The literature review is comprehensive but could better emphasize the novelty of your work.

Suggestion: Add a short paragraph clearly stating how this study fills the research gap. For example:

Is it the first study to use CIWB as a dependent variable in the context of digital service trade?

How does your nonlinear transmission analysis differ from previous linear models?

Response 5: Thank you very much for your insightful and constructive comment. We fully agree with this comment regarding the need to better highlight the novelty of our study. Therefore, we have added a short paragraph in the literature review section to clearly state how our study fills the research gap. Specifically, compared with the existing literature, our study is the first to use the carbon intensity of well-being (CIWB) as the dependent variable in the context of digital service trade, thereby contributing to filling the gap in understanding the determinants of CIWB. Furthermore, we have made an innovative methodological choice by employing a nonlinear regression model to explore whether the impact of digital service trade on CIWB exhibits nonlinear characteristics and to investigate the underlying transmission mechanisms. Considering the complexity and potential diversity of digital service trade's effects on CIWB, using a linear regression model could overlook underlying nonlinear relationships even if statistically significant results are obtained. Unlike traditional linear models, which can only fit straight-line relationships, our nonlinear regression approach allows for more accurate fitting of potential curvilinear patterns (e.g., an initial increase followed by a decrease), improving model precision and the explanatory power of the results, and providing more accurate policy implications. The added paragraph can be found on page 5, paragraph 2, lines 213–227, marked in red. We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has helped us better present the novelty and contributions of our study.

Comments 6: Terminology and Definitions

Some terms appear technical or region-specific and should be clearly defined for an international readership.

Examples:

CIWB is explained, but could be more clearly defined upfront with a formula and intuitive interpretation (Lines 423–426).

Phrases like “energy structure transition” and “public environmental awareness” (Lines 410, 416) should be more precisely operationalized.

Response 6: Thank you very much for your valuable and constructive comment. We fully agree with this comment regarding the need to more clearly define key technical terms for an international readership. Therefore, we have made the following revisions to the manuscript: First, we have provided a clearer and more formal definition of CIWB by including a formula (see Equation 7 on page 10, line 435, marked in red) and a brief intuitive explanation (see page 9, paragraph 4, lines 407–410, marked in red). Specifically, CIWB measures the per capita carbon emissions associated with generating one unit of well-being. Second, we have explicitly defined "energy structure transition" and "public environmental awareness" from the perspective of variable measurement. "Energy structure transition" (EST) is measured by the proportion of renewable energy consumption in total final energy consumption (unit: %), with data sourced from the World Development Indicators (WDI) database. "Public environmental awareness" (PEA) is measured by the proportion of the population primarily relying on clean fuels and technologies (unit: %), with data obtained from the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDG) database. These definitions have been added to page 11, paragraph 2, lines 461–463 and 465–468, marked in red. We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback, which has helped improve the clarity, precision, and accessibility of our manuscript for a broader international audience.

Comments 7: Grammatical errors and incorrect article usage
Example: “an enough large scale of financial digital service trade...” (Line 654)
Suggested revision: “a sufficiently large scale of financial digital service trade...”

Response 7: Thank you very much for your careful and constructive comment. We fully agree with this comment regarding the correction of grammatical errors and article usage. Therefore, we have revised the sentence according to your suggestion to improve the grammatical accuracy and clarity. The corrected version appears on page 18, paragraph 1, lines 643–645 and 650–652, marked in red. We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback, which has helped improve the overall language quality of our manuscript.

Comments 8: Awkward or unnatural phrasing
Example: “...leads the world in addressing climate change and reducing environmental pollution.” (Line 102)
Suggested revision: “...plays a leading role in addressing climate change and reducing environmental pollution.”

Response 8: Thank you very much for your careful and constructive comment. We fully agree with this comment regarding the improvement of phrasing. Therefore, we have revised the sentence according to your recommendation to enhance the naturalness and clarity of the expression. The corrected version appears on page 2, paragraph 2, lines 89–90, marked in red. We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has helped improve the overall language quality of our manuscript.

Comments 9: Long and complex sentence structures that could be simplified
Example: “In the long term, with the widespread adoption of digital technologies, digital service trade can optimize production processes...” (Line 261)
Suggested revision: “In the long run, as digital technologies become more widely adopted, digital service trade can help optimize production and promote green innovation.”

Response 9: Thank you very much for your valuable and constructive comment. We fully agree with this comment regarding the simplification of long and complex sentence structures. Therefore, we have revised the sentence according to your recommendation to improve readability and clarity. The updated sentence appears at the end of page 5 and the beginning of page 6, lines 241–243, marked in red. We sincerely appreciate your helpful feedback, which has contributed to enhancing the overall readability and accessibility of our manuscript.

Comments 10: Repetitive use of key phrases
The term “inverted U-shaped relationship” is repeated several times in close succession (e.g., Lines 13–23, 273–283). Rephrasing or summarizing would help improve flow.

Response 10: Thank you very much for your valuable and constructive comment. We fully agree with this comment regarding the need to avoid the repetitive use of key phrases. Therefore, we have carefully rephrased or summarized the repetitive mentions of the "inverted U-shaped relationship" to improve the flow and readability of the manuscript. Specifically, revisions have been made in the following sections: Abstract (page 1, paragraph 1, lines 7–24), Introduction (page 3, paragraph 2, lines 109–131), Theoretical Analysis (page 6, paragraph 2, lines 253–270; page 7, paragraph 2, lines 310–335), Empirical Analysis (pages 12–23, from paragraph 2 on page 12 to paragraph 1 on page 23, lines 513–795), Conclusion (page 25, paragraph 2, lines 838–864). All the revisions have been clearly marked in red in the revised manuscript for easy reference. We sincerely appreciate your helpful feedback, which has significantly enhanced the conciseness and overall quality of our manuscript.

Comments 11:  Vague or undefined technical terms

Terms like “energy structure transition” and “public environmental awareness” appear frequently but are not clearly defined for a global academic audience.

Response 11: Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive comment. We fully agree with this comment regarding the need to clearly define technical terms for an international academic readership. Therefore, we have explicitly defined both “energy structure transition” and “public environmental awareness” based on their measurement methods, as follows: Energy structure transition (EST) is measured by the proportion of renewable energy consumption in total final energy consumption (unit: %), using data from the World Development Indicators (WDI) database. Public environmental awareness (PEA) is measured by the proportion of the population primarily relying on clean fuels and technology (unit: %), with data sourced from the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDG) database. These definitions have been added to page 11, paragraph 2, lines 461–463 and 465–468, marked in red. We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has improved the clarity, precision, and accessibility of our manuscript.

Comments 12: Imprecise technical expressions
Example: “the environmental costs for enterprises during low-carbon transitions...” (Line 617)
Suggested revision: “...the environmental compliance costs faced by enterprises during their transition to low-carbon operations.”

Response 12: Thank you very much for your valuable and constructive comment. We fully agree with this comment regarding the need for more precise technical expressions. Therefore, we have revised the sentence according to your recommendation to improve the technical accuracy and clarity of the expression. The corrected version appears on page 16, paragraph 2, lines 615–616, marked in red. We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful feedback, which has helped enhance the overall precision and professionalism of our manuscript.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please find attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: The present title of a paper is not informative, i.e. it does not reflect the purpose of paper about the impact of digital service trade on CIWB. I recommend changing it to make it more understandable to readers. Especially since well-defined purpose, contribution and research hypotheses in the introduction might suggest a better formulation of article’s title.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your valuable and constructive comment. We fully agree with this comment regarding the need to revise the title to better reflect the purpose and content of the paper. Therefore, we have revised the title to make it more informative and aligned with the research objectives, contributions, and hypotheses described in the introduction. The updated title can be found on page 1, lines 1–2, marked in red. We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback, which has helped improve the clarity and relevance of our manuscript.

Comments 2: Throughout the article, there is no explanation of what conditions should be met for the inverted U-shaped relationship to occur. This should be corrected, otherwise the content of the article will be intelligible only to those who use this approach. I mean the signs of coefficients at DST and DST^2 variables, and as well a description of U-test – for what purpose this test is used (as the Lind and Mehlum (2010) described it).

Response 2: Thank you very much for your insightful and constructive comment. We fully agree with this comment regarding the need to clarify the conditions for an inverted U-shaped relationship and the purpose of the U-test. Therefore, we have made the following revisions to the manuscript: First, we have added an explanation in the model specification section (see page 8, paragraph 3, lines 364–370, marked in red) detailing how the signs of the coefficients on DST and DST² determine the curve's shape. Specifically, we stated that an inverted U-shaped relationship occurs when the coefficient of DST is positive and the coefficient of DST² is negative. Second, we have supplemented the U-test description by adding a paragraph in the relevant section (see page 13, paragraph 3, lines 531–538, marked in red). We explained the purpose of the U-test, the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis, and clarified that the test is used to formally verify the presence of a statistically significant inverted U-shaped relationship, as described by Lind and Mehlum (2010). We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has significantly improved the clarity, rigor, and accessibility of our manuscript.

Comments 3: Explanation of control variables (lines 478-492) is not clear, for example: there are no units for GDP per capita, net foreign direct investment inflows, primary energy intensity, economic development level PGDP, urbanization degree (city), energy intensity (prima) and industrial structure (indus), Mech, EST and GTI – this refers not only to units but also to what stands for these variables. This would make it much easier to follow-up on the results in the tables.

Response 3: Thank you very much for your valuable and constructive comment. We fully agree with this comment regarding the need to provide a clearer and more detailed explanation of the control variables. Therefore, we have revised and expanded the descriptions of the control variables by explicitly stating their units and clarifying the meaning of each variable. The updated explanations can be found in the revised manuscript on page 11, paragraph 2, lines 458–477, marked in red. We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback, which has greatly improved the clarity, precision, and accessibility of our manuscript for readers.

Comments 4: Table 4 includes a p-value of 1; I guess this is rounding effect, but this should be changed for value close to one (e.g. 0,999). Otherwise, it is misleading for readers.

Response 4: Thank you very much for your careful and valuable comment. We fully agree with this comment regarding the accurate presentation of p-values. Therefore, we have corrected the p-value in Table 4 that was previously rounded to 1 due to formatting issues. It has now been revised to 0.9999 to avoid any potential misunderstanding for readers. The updated table 4 can be found on pages 15–16, lines 587–588, marked in red. We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful feedback, which has helped improve the precision and clarity of our manuscript.

Comments 5: Table 7 contains coefficient estimates of zero; this is likely rounding effect, however, these zero values together with asterisks (for significance) and p-value of zero are certainly misleading. I recommend changing the number’s format, and very small p-values replace with “ <0,0001” as it is commonly used in many statistical programs.

Response 5: Thank you very much for your careful and constructive comment. We fully agree with this comment regarding the need to adjust the numerical presentation to avoid potential misunderstanding. Therefore, we have revised the number format in Table 7. Specifically, we increased the number of decimal places for the coefficients and standard errors that were previously rounded to zero, and we replaced p-values that were rounded to zero with "<0.0001", following common statistical reporting conventions. The updated Table 7 can be found on page 20, lines 704–705, marked in red. Furthermore, we have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and made consistent adjustments to other tables where similar rounding issues occurred, ensuring a clearer and more accurate presentation throughout. We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has helped improve the precision and professionalism of our manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accept in present form

Author Response

Comment 1: accept in present form.

Response 1: We are deeply honored by your comment recommending acceptance of the manuscript in its present form. Your positive feedback affirms the value of our research and encourages us greatly. We sincerely thank you for your time, expertise, and constructive engagement throughout the review process.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, I have some comments:

1. Authors argument is that "Authors used standard terms, that's why 28%. When we see the iThenticate report on which I spent significant time, it is clearly visible that sentences and even multiple lines are copied and re-engineered from other works. Yes some terms are common. But significant plagiarism. We need to see some originality.
2. Authors need to clarify novelty and theoretical contribution.
3. Methodology is weak, not rigorous.
4. The paper have many grammatical errors and redundant phrasing. For example: “This indicates a possible nonlinear relationship _ _ _ ” are repeated unnecessarily.
5. The paper needs to talk about the endogeneity problem adequately.
6. I see no discussion of multicollinearity and model diagnostics. Further, there is a clear over-reliance on intuitive reasoning, which is weak because it must be formal economic or environmental models.
7. Why do patent counts measure green technological innovation? Patent counts are a weak proxy as they ignore innovation quality or relevance.
8. All data sources must be cited.
9. Need to justify coefficient values as they are statistically significant but economically insignificant. 
10. I see results are over-interpreted, and why is causality inferred? Despite observational data. Further, I see that interpretation is descriptive—insights are missing.

Paper has ethical plagiarism issues. Further, the method is weak and has technical deficiencies. In short, the paper is fundamentally weak on technical grounds apart from plagiarism.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

NA

Author Response

Comments 1: Authors argument is that "Authors used standard terms, that's why 28%. When we see the iThenticate report on which I spent significant time, it is clearly visible that sentences and even multiple lines are copied and re-engineered from other works. Yes some terms are common. But significant plagiarism. We need to see some originality.

Response 1: We sincerely apologize for any concerns our initial manuscript may have caused regarding textual similarity. We deeply appreciate your time and effort in reviewing the iThenticate report and highlighting this issue. In response to your comments in the first round of review, we carefully revised the manuscript to reduce the use of repetitive standardized terminology. Specifically, we removed redundant expressions and employed abbreviations where appropriate. As a result of these efforts, the overall similarity index was successfully reduced from 28% to 21%. To further address your concern in this second round of revision, we conducted a detailed review of the empirical analysis section. We further refined the wording by eliminating unnecessary repetition and, where feasible, replacing technical expressions with equivalent phrasing. These additional efforts were made with great care to preserve the clarity and rigor of our methodological presentation. We are confident that this second round of revisions will lower the overall similarity rate below 20%. We hope these continued improvements address your concerns and demonstrate our genuine commitment to academic integrity and quality.

Comments 2: Authors need to clarify novelty and theoretical contribution.

Response 2: We sincerely thank your insightful and constructive suggestion. We fully agree that clearly articulating the novelty and theoretical contribution of our study is essential. Therefore, we have revised the manuscript to explicitly elaborate on both the innovative aspects and the theoretical contributions of this research. The revised content can be found on page 3, paragraph 2, lines 109–135. We hope this clarification meets your expectations and helps strengthen the theoretical grounding of our study.

Comments 3: Methodology is weak, not rigorous.

Response 3:  We sincerely thank your important comment regarding the methodological rigor of our study. We fully respect your concern and would like to take this opportunity to clarify our methodology in greater detail. First, the nonlinear regression model we adopted follows the established practice of introducing a quadratic term to test for curvature, as applied in authoritative studies such as Blanchflower (2021), Enders et al. (2012), and Aghion et al. (2005), which were published in leading economics journals including the Journal of Population Economics, American Economic Review, and Quarterly Journal of Economics. These precedents demonstrate that the approach we use is theoretically grounded and methodologically sound. Second, we further assessed the potential inverted U-shaped relationship using the formal test proposed by Lind & Mehlum (2010), implemented via the utest command in Stata. This procedure is well-established and widely used in empirical research dealing with nonlinearities, and it provides a robust statistical foundation for testing turning points. Finally, we also followed the methodological guidance of Haans et al. (2016), whose work on testing and interpreting inverted U-shaped moderating effects was published in the Strategic Management Journal—a journal ranked ABS 4*, and listed in both UTD24 and FT50. This underscores the methodological rigor of our moderation analysis. We hope these clarifications demonstrate that the empirical strategy adopted in our study aligns with high academic standards and widely recognized best practices in the field.

Comments 4: The paper have many grammatical errors and redundant phrasing. For example: “This indicates a possible nonlinear relationship _ _ _ ” are repeated unnecessarily.

Response 4: We sincerely thank you for pointing out the language issues and redundancy in our manuscript. We fully agree with your observation. Therefore, we have carefully revised the sentence you identified. Specifically, we have rephrased it to improve clarity and eliminate unnecessary repetition. The revised version can be found on page 13, paragraph 2, line 514. We also conducted a broader review of the manuscript to further improve grammar and eliminate other instances of redundant phrasing. We appreciate your attention to detail and believe these revisions have improved the overall readability and precision of the paper.

Comments 5: The paper needs to talk about the endogeneity problem adequately.

Response 5: We sincerely thank you for highlighting the importance of addressing the endogeneity issue. We agree that this is a critical aspect in ensuring the validity of our empirical results. We would like to clarify that the endogeneity problem has been examined and addressed in the robustness check section of the manuscript. Specifically, we conducted a Durbin–Wu–Hausman (DWH) test to assess potential endogeneity. Furthermore, we introduced two instrumental variables and employed a two-stage least squares (2SLS) regression approach to mitigate the issue. The relevant discussion and analysis can be found on pages 16–17, lines 581–588, as well as in Column (2) of Table 4. We hope this clarification adequately addresses your concern.

Comments 6: I see no discussion of multicollinearity and model diagnostics. Further, there is a clear over-reliance on intuitive reasoning, which is weak because it must be formal economic or environmental models.

Response 6: We sincerely thank your valuable comment regarding multicollinearity diagnostics and the need for a stronger theoretical foundation. We fully agree with your suggestion. Therefore, we have conducted a multicollinearity test using Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) and reported the results in the manuscript. The relevant content has been added on page 12, paragraph 3, lines 485–487. The results of the multicollinearity test indicate that the highest VIF among the variables is 3.07, well below the conventional threshold of 10, suggesting that serious multicollinearity is not present.

Comments 7: Why do patent counts measure green technological innovation? Patent counts are a weak proxy as they ignore innovation quality or relevance.

Response 7: We sincerely thank your insightful and valuable comment. We fully acknowledge the limitations of using patent counts as a proxy for green technological innovation, particularly in terms of not capturing the quality or relevance of innovations. However, we would like to clarify that our measurement is based specifically on patent counts related to climate change mitigation technologies, which have been widely used in empirical research as a quantitative indicator of green innovation. This approach allows us to examine the influence of digital trade in services on the scale and intensity of green technological development. While we agree that this indicator does not reflect the quality dimension of innovation, it provides a valid and practical lens to explore the quantity-based impact within a macro-level, cross-country setting. Furthermore, due to data availability constraints, especially at the international level, there currently exists no comprehensive or standardized dataset that captures the quality or relevance of green innovation across countries. We believe our approach remains appropriate within the empirical scope of the study, and we thank the reviewer again for raising this important issue.

Comments 8: All data sources must be cited.

Response 8: We sincerely thank you for pointing out the importance of properly citing all data sources. We fully agree with your suggestion. In response, we have carefully reviewed the manuscript and added explicit citations for the data sources used to measure each variable. These additions can be found on page 9, last paragraph, line 414; page 10, first paragraph, line 419; page 11, last paragraph, line 445; and page 12, paragraph 2, lines 463 and 466. We appreciate your comment, which has helped us improve the transparency and academic rigor of our work.

Comments 9: Need to justify coefficient values as they are statistically significant but economically insignificant. 

Response 9: We sincerely thank your important and insightful comment. We fully agree that, in addition to statistical significance, the economic significance of the estimated coefficients should also be discussed to provide a more meaningful interpretation of the results. In response, we have added a dedicated discussion of the economic significance of the key coefficients, focusing on the practical magnitude and real-world implications of the estimated effects. This discussion can be found on page 14, paragraph 2, lines 524–529. We hope this addition addresses your concern and contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the empirical findings.

Comments 10: I see results are over-interpreted, and why is causality inferred? Despite observational data. Further, I see that interpretation is descriptive—insights are missing.

Response 10: We sincerely thank you for this important comment. We fully understand your concern regarding potential over-interpretation of the results and the inference of causality from observational data. We would like to clarify that our empirical strategy follows a rigorously established framework used in several influential studies. Specifically, we construct a nonlinear regression model by introducing a quadratic term, drawing on methods used in Blanchflower (2021), Enders et al. (2012), and Aghion et al. (2005), all published in leading journals such as Journal of Population Economics, American Economic Review, and Quarterly Journal of Economics, respectively. Furthermore, to test the presence of an inverted U-shaped relationship, we adopt the approach of Lind & Mehlum (2010) and apply the utest command in Stata, which is widely accepted and methodologically robust in examining nonlinearity. In addition, we conduct a series of robustness checks, including two-stage least squares (2SLS) regression, the use of lagged independent variables, dynamic panel regression, and winsorization, to further support the validity of our findings and mitigate endogeneity concerns before making any causal inference. We also follow Haans et al. (2016), published in the Strategic Management Journal (an ABS 4*, UTD24, and FT50 journal), to analyze the moderating effect within the inverted U-shaped framework, which further reinforces the theoretical and methodological rigor of our analysis. Regarding your point that the interpretation of results appears overly descriptive and lacks insight, we acknowledge that the empirical results section is intentionally structured to provide an objective account of the findings without embedding normative judgments. However, we have addressed interpretive depth and broader implications in a dedicated section titled Policy Implications, where we explicitly derive actionable insights based on the empirical evidence. We hope this explanation clarifies the structure and rationale of our analysis and addresses your concerns.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I am okay with the revised paper.

Thanks

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Proofread before you submit.