How Does the Circular Economy Asymmetrically Affect Clean Energy Adoption in EU Economies?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, which addresses an important intersection between circular economy practices and clean energy adoption across EU member states. The paper employs advanced econometric techniques—most notably the Method of Moments Quantile Regression (MMQR)—to capture asymmetric effects that would otherwise be overlooked by mean-based estimators. This methodological approach is commendable and allows for a more nuanced understanding of distributional heterogeneity in clean energy adoption. However, several substantial issues must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered suitable for publication.

First and foremost, the abstract is significantly too long and does not comply with academic norms or journal guidelines. It currently exceeds the recommended word limit of 250 words and includes an excessive level of technical detail that should be reserved for the body of the paper. The abstract should be revised and condensed to communicate the core objective, methodology, main findings, and implications in a more concise and accessible manner.

Second, the manuscript suffers from overly dense and at times convoluted language that may hinder comprehension for even a specialized audience. There is an overuse of jargon and unnecessarily complex sentence structures throughout, particularly in the introduction and theoretical framework. A thorough editing pass is recommended to enhance clarity and streamline exposition without compromising academic rigor. The readability and structural flow must be improved to allow the core arguments and contributions of the study to stand out more clearly.

Additionally, while the authors make a reasonable effort to position their study within existing literature, the current review could benefit from further development. In particular, the theoretical background should be deepened by integrating recent discussions on sustainability metrics and ESG frameworks, which are becoming increasingly central to evaluating circular economy outcomes. The inclusion of the following reference is recommended to support this enhancement: Garefalakis A., Dimitras A. (2020). “Looking back and forging ahead: The Weighting of ESG Factors,” Annals of Operations Research, 294, pp. 151–189. This work provides a valuable perspective on the operationalization of sustainability indicators and would offer conceptual reinforcement to the analysis.

Furthermore, while the empirical findings are statistically robust and the quantile approach is appropriate, the interpretation of results at times appears overstated, particularly in the conclusion. The policy recommendations would benefit from greater caution and contextual nuance, especially considering the heterogeneous institutional capacities across EU member states. The manuscript could also be strengthened by explicitly acknowledging potential endogeneity concerns, data limitations, and unobserved heterogeneity, which are only implicitly addressed.

In summary, the manuscript presents a timely and technically sophisticated contribution, but its presentation and conceptual framing need significant revision. Improved clarity, a sharper articulation of originality, a shorter and more precise abstract, and an expanded engagement with relevant sustainability literature are essential to enhance its academic value and practical relevance. I encourage the authors to revise the manuscript thoroughly with these considerations in mind.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally well written, with a high level of academic English and a clear structure. The vocabulary is sophisticated, and the syntax is consistently appropriate for a scholarly article. However, a few sections would benefit from light editing to improve clarity, eliminate redundancy, and ensure grammatical precision. Occasional long or complex sentences could be simplified to improve readability. Additionally, careful proofreading is recommended to correct minor punctuation and formatting inconsistencies (e.g., spacing, citation placements, and hyphenation). Overall, the language quality supports the paper's scientific rigor and should not hinder comprehension.

Author Response

1. Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, which addresses an important intersection between circular economy practices and clean energy adoption across EU member states. The paper employs advanced econometric techniques—most notably the Method of Moments Quantile Regression (MMQR)—to capture asymmetric effects that would otherwise be overlooked by mean-based estimators. This methodological approach is commendable and allows for a more nuanced understanding of distributional heterogeneity in clean energy adoption. However, several substantial issues must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered suitable for publication.

Response: We thank the reviewer for their constructive feedback. We appreciate the recognition of the study’s contribution, acknowledge the substantial issues raised, and have carefully revised the manuscript to address them.

2. First and foremost, the abstract is significantly too long and does not comply with academic norms or journal guidelines. It currently exceeds the recommended word limit of 250 words and includes an excessive level of technical detail that should be reserved for the body of the paper. The abstract should be revised and condensed to communicate the core objective, methodology, main findings, and implications in a more concise and accessible manner.

Response: Thank you for this helpful observation. We have revised and condensed the abstract to less than 250 words. The updated abstract presents the core objective of the study, methodology, key findings, and main implications, while avoiding technical details.

3. Second, the manuscript suffers from overly dense and at times convoluted language that may hinder comprehension for even a specialized audience. There is an overuse of jargon and unnecessarily complex sentence structures throughout, particularly in the introduction and theoretical framework. A thorough editing pass is recommended to enhance clarity and streamline exposition without compromising academic rigor. The readability and structural flow must be improved to allow the core arguments and contributions of the study to stand out more clearly.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In response, we have conducted a thorough revision of the whole manuscript to enhance clarity, minimize excessive jargon, and simplify complex sentence structures.

4. Additionally, while the authors make a reasonable effort to position their study within existing literature, the current review could benefit from further development. In particular, the theoretical background should be deepened by integrating recent discussions on sustainability metrics and ESG frameworks, which are becoming increasingly central to evaluating circular economy outcomes. The inclusion of the following reference is recommended to support this enhancement: Garefalakis A., Dimitras A. (2020). “Looking back and forging ahead: The Weighting of ESG Factors,” Annals of Operations Research, 294, pp. 151–189. This work provides a valuable perspective on the operationalization of sustainability indicators and would offer conceptual reinforcement to the analysis.

Response: We thank the esteemed reviewer for this insightful suggestion. We agree that the theoretical background would benefit from further development. In response, we improved the literature review section to deepen the theoretical discussion. We also added the suggested reference, among others.

5. Furthermore, while the empirical findings are statistically robust and the quantile approach is appropriate, the interpretation of results at times appears overstated, particularly in the conclusion. The policy recommendations would benefit from greater caution and contextual nuance, especially considering the heterogeneous institutional capacities across EU member states. The manuscript could also be strengthened by explicitly acknowledging potential endogeneity concerns, data limitations, and unobserved heterogeneity, which are only implicitly addressed.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable feedback. We have thoroughly revised the conclusion to temper overstated interpretations and reframed policy recommendations with greater caution, explicitly acknowledging the heterogeneous institutional capacities across EU member states. Methodologically, we have strengthened the manuscript by explicitly addressing endogeneity concerns and unobserved heterogeneity through additional robustness checks using IV-2SLS and High-Dimensional Fixed Effects models, as reported in Table 7. We have also expanded the limitations section to discuss data constraints and methodological caveats explicitly.

6. In summary, the manuscript presents a timely and technically sophisticated contribution, but its presentation and conceptual framing need significant revision. Improved clarity, a sharper articulation of originality, a shorter and more precise abstract, and an expanded engagement with relevant sustainability literature are essential to enhance its academic value and practical relevance. I encourage the authors to revise the manuscript thoroughly with these considerations in mind.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive feedback. In response, we have undertaken substantial revisions to improve the overall clarity and coherence of the manuscript. Specifically, we have: i) refined the abstract to make it more precise, ii) enhanced the clarity of the study’s originality, and iii) expanded the theoretical framework by engaging recent literature and detailing the mechanisms through which the circular economy may influence energy transition. We believe these revisions significantly strengthen the academic value of the research.

7. The manuscript is generally well written, with a high level of academic English and a clear structure. The vocabulary is sophisticated, and the syntax is consistently appropriate for a scholarly article. However, a few sections would benefit from light editing to improve clarity, eliminate redundancy, and ensure grammatical precision. Occasional long or complex sentences could be simplified to improve readability. Additionally, careful proofreading is recommended to correct minor punctuation and formatting inconsistencies (e.g., spacing, citation placements, and hyphenation). Overall, the language quality supports the paper's scientific rigor and should not hinder comprehension.

Response: We have conducted a thorough revision of the manuscript to enhance clarity, minimize excessive jargon, and simplify complex sentence structures.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript, titled "How does the circular economy asymmetrically affect clean energy adoption in EU economies?", demonstrates a high level of academic excellence in research methodology, data analysis, literature review, and policy recommendations, particularly in its innovative methods and empirical analysis. However, some notable issues exist:

1. The construction of the CEI (Circular Economy Index) lacks detail. While the paper mentions the use of an entropy weighting method to construct the CEI, encompassing four dimensions (resource recycling, technological innovation, trade flows, and investment), it does not provide specific indicators, weights, or normalization methods for each dimension. It also fails to explain how missing values ​​or inter-country differences are handled, nor does it provide validation of the CEI (e.g., comparison with existing indices or robustness checks).
2. The definition of the dependent variable may be oversimplified. The paper uses "the share of renewable energy in final energy consumption" as a proxy for clean energy, ignoring energy efficiency improvements, the clean use of non-renewable energy sources (such as CCUS), and the distinction between electricity and heat.
3. The introduction of the MMQR method is unclear. While the paper cites Machado & Silva (2019), it fails to fully explain why MMQR outperforms traditional quantile regression (QR) or fixed-effect quantile regression. Details regarding the MMQR estimation procedure, software implementation, and convergence are also not provided.
4. The asymmetric decomposition method warrants discussion. The paper uses max(0, CEI) and min(0, CEI) to decompose positive and negative shocks, but fails to specify whether CEI is decentralized or standardized. If CEI is always positive, CEI⁻ will always be 0, resulting in the model being unable to identify negative shocks (data distribution needs to be examined).
5. Selection of control variables and endogeneity. The control variables (GDP, FDI, EMP, TO, POP) may be endogeneous, but instrumental variables or system GMM methods are not used to address this. Multicollinearity between variables (e.g., POP and GDP) is not discussed.
6. The theoretical mechanism is insufficiently elaborated. While the paper mentions that "the circular economy promotes clean energy through resource efficiency and technological innovation," it lacks: a detailed diagram of the transmission mechanism; microfoundations or behavioral assumptions; and a dialogue with existing theories (such as ecological modernization theory and transition theory).
7. The policy recommendations are overly general. For example, the "Differentiated Policy Approaches" section fails to specify which policies apply to which countries; fails to propose actionable policy tools (such as taxes, subsidies, and standards) based on empirical results; and fails to discuss the relationship between existing EU policies and the findings of this study.

Author Response

1. This manuscript, titled "How does the circular economy asymmetrically affect clean energy adoption in EU economies?", demonstrates a high level of academic excellence in research methodology, data analysis, literature review, and policy recommendations, particularly in its innovative methods and empirical analysis. However, some notable issues exist.

Response: We thank the esteemed reviewer for their support of our work and hope that the revised manuscript will meet their satisfaction.

2. The construction of the CEI (Circular Economy Index) lacks detail. While the paper mentions the use of an entropy weighting method to construct the CEI, encompassing four dimensions (resource recycling, technological innovation, trade flows, and investment), it does not provide specific indicators, weights, or normalization methods for each dimension. It also fails to explain how missing values or inter-country differences are handled, nor does it provide validation of the CEI (e.g., comparison with existing indices or robustness checks).

Response: Thank you for this recommendation. We have incorporated a schematic table (Figure 1) that outlines the four core components of the Circular Economy Index (CEI), their associated indicators, measurement methodologies, and assigned weights based on entropy-weighting. This addition enhances the transparency and reproducibility of our index construction methodology.

3. The definition of the dependent variable may be oversimplified. The paper uses "the share of renewable energy in final energy consumption" as a proxy for clean energy, ignoring energy efficiency improvements, the clean use of non-renewable energy sources (such as CCUS), and the distinction between electricity and heat.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful comment. We acknowledge that the share of renewable energy in final energy consumption does not capture all aspects of clean energy deployment, such as energy efficiency improvements, carbon capture and storage, or the differentiation between electricity and heat. However, our study specifically focuses on the energy transition, emphasizing the structural shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. In this context, the indicator used (share of renewables in final energy consumption) has been widely employed in the previous literature to track the progress in the energy transition process. While we recognize that energy efficiency and technologies like CCUS are essential components of broader decarbonization strategies, they fall outside the primary scope of our analysis. Section 3.3. (Data) has been accordingly revised to provide more details on the dependent variable.

4. The introduction of the MMQR method is unclear. While the paper cites Machado & Silva (2019), it fails to fully explain why MMQR outperforms traditional quantile regression (QR) or fixed-effect quantile regression. Details regarding the MMQR estimation procedure, software implementation, and convergence are also not provided.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have revised the methodology section to clarify the motivation for using the MMQR method. Specifically, we explain the advantages of the MMQR over traditional mean-based methodologies and other panel quantile regressions. We also added MMQR implementation and computational procedures. Please see sections 3.2. and 3.3 for details.

5. The asymmetric decomposition method warrants discussion. The paper uses max(0, CEI) and min(0, CEI) to decompose positive and negative shocks, but fails to specify whether CEI is decentralized or standardized. If CEI is always positive, CEI⁻ will always be 0, resulting in the model being unable to identify negative shocks (data distribution needs to be examined).

Response: We thank the esteemed reviewer for their thoughtful comment and totally agree with the point raised. We apologize for the confusion caused by a misstatement in the original formula. The decomposition was applied to changes in CEI, not the CEI levels. As in previous literature, we used max(0, ΔCEI) to compute the positive shocks on CEI (CEI+) and min(0, ΔCEI) to compute the negative shocks on CEI (CEI-). Indeed, CEI was used in its first-differenced form (i.e., ΔCEI) to compute the asymmetric components of CEI, which include both positive (increase) and negative (decrease) values. This ensures that both positive and negative shocks are accurately identified and incorporated into the model. This correction has been made in section 3.1 (Econometric model).

6. Selection of control variables and endogeneity. The control variables (GDP, FDI, EMP, TO, POP) may be endogenous, but instrumental variables or system GMM methods are not used to address this. Multicollinearity between variables (e.g., POP and GDP) is not discussed.

Response: Thank you for this valuable observation. We have strengthened the manuscript by explicitly addressing potential endogeneity and unobserved heterogeneity through additional robustness checks using IV-2SLS and High-Dimensional Fixed Effects (HD-FE) models, as reported in Table 7. Furthermore, we have assessed and reported multicollinearity diagnostics using Variance Inflation Factors (VIFs) in Table 2, confirming that no severe collinearity exists among the control variables.

7. The theoretical mechanism is insufficiently elaborated. While the paper mentions that "the circular economy promotes clean energy through resource efficiency and technological innovation," it lacks: a detailed diagram of the transmission mechanism; micro foundations or behavioral assumptions; and a dialogue with existing theories (such as ecological modernization theory and transition theory).

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. Accordingly, we made a substantial revision of the literature review section by incorporating the main transmission mechanisms through which the circular economy may influence renewable energy transition. We also engaged more explicitly with relevant theoretical frameworks, including Ecological Modernization Theory and Socio-Technical Transition Theory.

8. The policy recommendations are overly general. For example, the "Differentiated Policy Approaches" section fails to specify which policies apply to which countries; fails to propose actionable policy tools (such as taxes, subsidies, and standards) based on empirical results; and fails to discuss the relationship between existing EU policies and the findings of this study.

Response: We have revised the policy recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.The theoretical foundation of this paper is very weak. Although the author used a series of econometric methods to empirically test the relationship between circular economy and clean energy applications, the author needs to explain in detail in Chapter 2 why circular economy affects clean energy applications in European countries. In addition, the author needs to apply relevant theories of environmental economics in the theoretical framework to illustrate and support the relationship between circular economy and clean energy applications.

2.In empirical methods and data selection, the author used data from 2010 to 2023 to study the relationship between circular economy and clean energy applications in European countries. However, in 2019, the global COVID-19 broke out, which affected the progress of European countries in adopting clean energy. This major event will affect the empirical research of this paper, so the author needs to exclude the interference caused by the COVID-19 epidemic. In addition, the Russia-Ukraine conflict also affected the application of traditional petroleum energy in Europe, making European countries actively adopt clean energy, so the Russia-Ukraine conflict also needs to be considered in the empirical process. The author needs to supplement relevant empirical tests.

3.In terms of policy recommendations, is the impact of circular economy on clean energy in European countries applicable to other developed or developing countries around the world. The author needs to propose relevant policy recommendations applicable to other countries around the world based on the results of this study.

Author Response

1. The theoretical foundation of this paper is very weak. Although the author used a series of econometric methods to empirically test the relationship between circular economy and clean energy applications, the author needs to explain in detail in Chapter 2 why circular economy affects clean energy applications in European countries. In addition, the author needs to apply relevant theories of environmental economics in the theoretical framework to illustrate and support the relationship between circular economy and clean energy applications.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion. In the revised manuscript, the literature review has been substantially expanded to articulate the main transmission mechanisms through which the circular economy can drive the renewable energy transition. Furthermore, we have deepened the theoretical discussion.

2. In empirical methods and data selection, the author used data from 2010 to 2023 to study the relationship between circular economy and clean energy applications in European countries. However, in 2019, the global COVID-19 broke out, which affected the progress of European countries in adopting clean energy. This major event will affect the empirical research of this paper, so the author needs to exclude the interference caused by the COVID-19 epidemic. In addition, the Russia-Ukraine conflict also affected the application of traditional petroleum energy in Europe, making European countries actively adopt clean energy, so the Russia-Ukraine conflict also needs to be considered in the empirical process. The author needs to supplement relevant empirical tests.

Response: Thank you for this insightful comment. We have accounted for the COVID-19 pandemic (2019–2021) and the Russia–Ukraine conflict (2022–2023) by excluding these event years from the sample and re-estimating the models. As reported in Table 7, the results remain consistent, confirming that our main findings are robust and not driven by these external shocks.

3. In terms of policy recommendations, is the impact of circular economy on clean energy in European countries applicable to other developed or developing countries around the world. The author needs to propose relevant policy recommendations applicable to other countries around the world based on the results of this study.

Response: We have expanded the policy recommendations to address the global relevance of our findings and proposed some context-specific measures applicable to both developed and developing countries. Additionally, we have emphasized in the limitations section the importance of further research on other geographic contexts.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is recommended that the introduction emphasize how the study's findings complement or advance previous research to more explicitly demonstrate the added value.
It is recommended that the Discussion section more clearly highlight which elements are innovative compared to the existing literature.
It is recommended that the Discussion section be enriched with critical comparisons with recent studies and that the research gaps identified be emphasized more fully.
In the Results section, it is recommended:
- A more direct connection after each equation would be helpful to include a short paragraph explaining in simple terms what each term means (e.g., "α1 measures how much the share of renewable energy changes when the circular economy index increases by 1%").

- Highlight key findings in the text, not just in tables. Numerical results now appear in extensive tables, but the text could be highlighted with clear phrases such as "in countries with low renewable penetration, a 1% decline in the CIS reduces the share of clean energy by 0.15%."

- Visualization Figures 3 and 4 are helpful, but could be complemented with a diagram or graphic summary showing the difference between the effects of CEI⁺ and CE

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Reduce the use of long phrases and opt for more direct constructions.
Avoid unnecessary repetition of previously explained concepts.
Maintain consistency in technical terminology throughout the document.
Simpler language in results sections: currently, highly technical phrases ("quantile-specific heterogeneity," "distributional asymmetries") are used, which could be alternated with more accessible explanations so that the findings can be understood without the need for a strong econometric background.
A general review in the language by a native speaker is recommended.

Author Response

1. It is recommended that the introduction emphasize how the study's findings complement or advance previous research to more explicitly demonstrate the added value.

Response: We thank the esteemed reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In response, the introduction has been revised to highlight how the results contribute to existing research.

2. It is recommended that the Discussion section more clearly highlight which elements are innovative compared to the existing literature.

Response: We have revised the discussion of results to highlight the contributions of our work compared to existing literature.

3. It is recommended that the Discussion section be enriched with critical comparisons with recent studies and that the research gaps identified be emphasized more fully.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion. We have revised the discussion to include critical comparisons with recent studies, despite their scarcity, and have emphasized the identified research gaps.

4. A more direct connection after each equation would be helpful to include a short paragraph explaining in simple terms what each term means (e.g., "α1 measures how much the share of renewable energy changes when the circular economy index increases by 1%").

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have added short explanations after each equation to clarify the meaning of key parameters.

5. Highlight key findings in the text, not just in tables. Numerical results now appear in extensive tables, but the text could be highlighted with clear phrases such as "in countries with low renewable penetration, a 1% decline in the CIS reduces the share of clean energy by 0.15%."

Response: Done. We have revised the discussion of the findings.

6. Visualization Figures 3 and 4 are helpful, but could be complemented with a diagram or graphic summary showing the difference between the effects of CEI⁺ and CE

Response: We thank the esteemed reviewer for this suggestion. In response, we added a new figure (Figure 5) that visually compares the quantile effects of CEI⁺ and CEI⁻, highlighting their asymmetric impacts across the distribution. Additionally, we included a brief discussion following Figure 5 to compare the effects of positive and negative shocks on CEI.

7. Reduce the use of long phrases and opt for more direct constructions.

Response: Done. The manuscript has been revised to avoid long sentences.

8. Avoid unnecessary repetition of previously explained concepts.

Response: Done. In the revised manuscript, we removed redundant explanations and repetitive content.

9. Maintain consistency in technical terminology throughout the document.

Response: We have reviewed the manuscript to ensure consistent use of technical terms throughout the text, along with improvements to language clarity.

10. Simpler language in results sections: currently, highly technical phrases ("quantile-specific heterogeneity," "distributional asymmetries") are used, which could be alternated with more accessible explanations so that the findings can be understood without the need for a strong econometric background.

Response: We have revised the results section to enhance technical precision.

11. A general review in the language by a native speaker is recommended.

Response: We have had the manuscript thoroughly reviewed and edited by a native English speaker to improve language clarity, grammar, and overall readability.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the manuscript is well-written and methodologically sound, and it contributes meaningfully to the literature on circular economy and clean energy adoption. The analysis is clearly presented, and the findings are relevant and insightful.

However, I would like to draw your attention to the abstract, which currently stands at 260 words not less. According to standard academic conventions, abstracts are generally expected to be more concise—usually within a 150–200 word range—and should avoid excessive numerical detail or technical specificity.

To enhance clarity and accessibility, I suggest restructuring the abstract with the following streamlined format:

A single paragraph of about 200 words maximum. For research articles, abstracts should give a pertinent overview of the work. We strongly encourage authors to use the following style of structured abstracts, but without headings: (1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; (2) Methods: briefly describe the main methods or treatments applied; (3) Results: summarize the article’s main findings; (4) Conclusions: indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The abstract should be an objective representation of the article and it must not contain results that are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions.

Reducing the level of detail—particularly the exact elasticity values and percentile ranges—will help make the abstract more reader-friendly and aligned with typical journal requirements.

Author Response

Comment 1

Overall, the manuscript is well-written and methodologically sound, and it contributes meaningfully to the literature on circular economy and clean energy adoption. The analysis is clearly presented, and the findings are relevant and insightful.

However, I would like to draw your attention to the abstract, which currently stands at 260 words or fewer. According to standard academic conventions, abstracts are generally expected to be more concise—usually within a 150–200 word range—and should avoid excessive numerical detail or technical specificity.

To enhance clarity and accessibility, I suggest restructuring the abstract with the following streamlined format:

A single paragraph of about 200 words maximum. For research articles, abstracts should give a pertinent overview of the work. We strongly encourage authors to use the following style of structured abstracts, but without headings: (1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; (2) Methods: briefly describe the main methods or treatments applied; (3) Results: summarize the article’s main findings; (4) Conclusions: indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The abstract should be an objective representation of the article and it must not contain results that are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions.

Reducing the level of detail—particularly the exact elasticity values and percentile ranges—will help make the abstract more reader-friendly and aligned with typical journal requirements.

Response 1

We thank the reviewer for this valuable feedback and the positive assessment of our manuscript. We fully agree with the concern regarding abstract length and detail.

We have revised the abstract from 260 to approximately 195 words, following the suggested structured format. Specifically, we have:

• Removed specific numerical values (elasticity coefficients and percentile ranges)
• Restructured into a single flowing paragraph with the four-part structure (Background, Methods, Results, Conclusions)
• Maintained core findings while improving readability and accessibility

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is worth publishing.

Author Response

Comment 1: This paper is worth publishing.

Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive assessment and recommendation for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments made were clearly addressed and included in the corresponding sections of the text. Therefore, it is recommended for publication.

Author Response

Comment 1:

The comments made were clearly addressed and included in the corresponding sections of the text. Therefore, it is recommended for publication.

Response 1: We are pleased that our revisions have successfully addressed all previous comments and improved the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

;