Spatiotemporal Patterns and Influencing Factors of the “Three Modernizations” Integrated Development in China’s Oil and Gas Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores the spatiotemporal characteristics and influencing mechanisms of the integrated development of “Three Modernizations” (high-end, intelligent, and green) in China’s oil and gas industry. The topic is of significant academic and policy relevance under the background of the “dual carbon” strategy. The manuscript is generally well-organized, employs solid empirical methods, and provides meaningful conclusions. However, several revisions are needed to improve the clarity, rigor, and presentation quality of the paper.

1.

The theoretical interpretation of the "three integration" concept merely stops at the level of conceptual definition. It is recommended to add a conceptual framework or mechanism diagram in Section 5 (“Analysis of the Influencing Mechanism of ‘Three Modernizations’ Integration”).

The figure should visually present the logical pathway: oil and gas resource endowment → policy support / technological innovation / carbon emission constraint → high-end, intelligent, and green development → integrated “Three Modernizations” development.This will make the mediating effect model easier to understand and enhance theoretical clarity.

2.The paper would benefit from a brief robustness analysis. The authors may consider mentioning that alternative indicators (e.g., replacing carbon emission constraint with energy intensity or green investment ratio) yield consistent results. 

3.In Table 9, it is suggested to include an additional column showing the expected sign of each explanatory variable (positive or negative). This will improve the readability and logical consistency of the model specification.

4.The last paragraph of the Introduction could include a short statement highlighting the paper’s innovation, e.g.: “Compared with existing studies, this paper contributes by constructing a comprehensive evaluation system and revealing the spatial convergence mechanism of the ‘Three Modernizations’ in the oil and gas industry.”

5.The conclusion section should be more structured and concise. Policy suggestions should be targeted.

6.Some sentences have ambiguous meanings, such as "fluctuating in the northeast" which does not specify the exact characteristics of the "fluctuation", and "enhanced coordination" which does not clarify whether it refers to "coordination within the region" or "coordination between regions". The analysis of Figure 2 and Table 5 merely stops at the surface level of numerical changes and does not specifically analyze the reasons for the changes.

7.Assume that H1 states that "policy support influences the integration and development by promoting high-endization". However, in Table 11, only the coefficient of policy support on high-endization (0.403) is reported, without verifying the transmission effect of high-endization on the integration and development. This results in an incomplete chain of the mediating mechanism.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

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

Author Response

Response to Reviewer1’s Comments

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your careful review and valuable comments on our manuscript entitled “Spatiotemporal Pattern and Influencing Factors of the ‘Three Modernizations’ Integrated Development in China’s Oil and Gas Industry”. Your insightful suggestions have greatly helped us improve the quality and clarity of the paper. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to your comments, and the main modifications are detailed below.

Q1: The theoretical interpretation of the "three integration" concept merely stops at the level of conceptual definition. It is recommended to add a conceptual framework or mechanism diagram in Section 5 (“Analysis of the Influencing Mechanism of ‘Three Modernizations’ Integration”). The figure should visually present the logical pathway: oil and gas resource endowment → policy support / technological innovation / carbon emission constraint → high-end, intelligent, and green development → integrated “Three Modernizations” development. This will make the mediating effect model easier to understand and enhance theoretical clarity.

A1: Thank you for this constructive suggestion. We have added Figure 5 Mechanism of Influence for the “Three Modernizations” (HIG) Integrated Development in China’s Oil and Gas Industry  in Section 4 to illustrate the logical pathway of the influencing mechanism. The figure clearly shows how resource endowment, policy support, technological innovation, and carbon emission constraints jointly promote high-end, intelligent, and green development, thereby facilitating integrated “Three Modernizations” development. This addition enhances the theoretical clarity and visual understanding of the mechanism.

Q2: The paper would benefit from a brief robustness analysis. The authors may consider mentioning that alternative indicators (e.g., replacing carbon emission constraint with energy intensity or green investment ratio) yield consistent results.

A2: Thank you very much for this valuable suggestion. To ensure the robustness of the empirical results, we conducted an additional robustness test by adjusting the indicator system. Specifically, we removed several relatively less important indicators from the original evaluation framework while retaining the core indicators that best reflect high-end, intelligent, and green development. Based on this refined system, we recalculated the integrated development level, denoted as HIG-1, and incorporated it into both the direct effect and mediating effect analyses. The estimation results show that the coefficients and significance levels of the key variables remain consistent with the original model, indicating that the findings are robust and reliable.

Q3: In Table 9, it is suggested to include an additional column showing the expected sign of each explanatory variable (positive or negative). This will improve the readability and logical consistency of the model specification.

A3: hank you for your practical suggestion. We have revised Table 9 to include an additional column indicating the expected sign (+/–) for each explanatory variable. This modification improves the readability and logical consistency of the model specification.

Q4: The last paragraph of the Introduction could include a short statement highlighting the paper’s innovation, e.g.: “Compared with existing studies, this paper contributes by constructing a comprehensive evaluation system and revealing the spatial convergence mechanism of the ‘Three Modernizations’ in the oil and gas industry.”

A4: Thank you for your suggestion. In response, we have rewritten the Introduction to make the research logic more coherent and to clearly emphasize both the limitations of existing studies and the innovations of this paper. The revised Introduction now systematically discusses the gaps in previous literature—such as insufficient attention to industrial heterogeneity, the lack of a comprehensive evaluation system for “Three Modernizations” integration, and limited exploration of spatial convergence effects—and then highlights this study’s contributions in addressing these issues through an improved index system and empirical framework. These revisions enhance the overall structure and novelty of the paper.

Q5: The conclusion section should be more structured and concise. Policy suggestions should be targeted.

A5: We have completely revised the Conclusion section to make it more structured and concise. The policy recommendations are now clearly divided into three targeted dimensions—policy guidance, enterprise transformation, and regional coordination—to improve readability and applicability.

Q6: me sentences have ambiguous meanings, such as "fluctuating in the northeast" which does not specify the exact characteristics of the "fluctuation", and "enhanced coordination" which does not clarify whether it refers to "coordination within the region" or "coordination between regions". The analysis of Figure 2 and Table 5 merely stops at the surface level of numerical changes and does not specifically analyze the reasons for the changes.

A6: Thank you for pointing this out. We have carefully revised the relevant descriptions in Section 4.2 and Section 4.3.  We have also expanded the analysis of Figure 2 and Table 5 by explaining the regional differences and their underlying causes, such as variations in resource endowment, industrial structure, and technological innovation capacity.

Q7: Assume that H1 states that "policy support influences the integration and development by promoting high-endization". However, in Table 11, only the coefficient of policy support on high-endization (0.403) is reported, without verifying the transmission effect of high-endization on the integration and development. This results in an incomplete chain of the mediating mechanism.

A7: Thank you for your detailed observation. We have supplemented the mediating effect analysis to verify the complete transmission path of “policy support → high-endization → integrated development.” The additional regression results are now reported in Table 11, showing that high-endization significantly promotes integrated development, thereby confirming the mediating mechanism. This improvement strengthens the completeness and credibility of the empirical analysis.

Once again, we sincerely thank the reviewer for your constructive comments and guidance. All revisions have been highlighted in the revised manuscript, and we believe these improvements have significantly enhanced the quality and clarity of the paper.

Sincerely,

FAN Shuo

Northeast Petroleum University

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
The topic of your study is timely and policy-relevant, and the amount of work invested in data construction and empirical computation is evident. However, in its current form the manuscript is not publishable because the reader completely loses track of what the study is trying to demonstrate. The issue is not the topic, nor the tools, but the absence of a clear organising question and narrative thread. Below you will find preliminary suggestions to improve the organisation of your manuscript. Without a deep reorganisation, it is hard to even discuss results and draw relevant conclusions.

1. Lack of framing and research question
The reader fully gets lost in what the study is trying to answer. Many sophisticated techniques are applied but the paper lacks establishing what these methods are being used to show.
The first necessity is to articulate one central research question or objective, and then write the paper so every section serves that objective.

2. Too much material without logical organisation
The manuscript reads like a (too?)full thesis: everything produced is included, whether or not it contributes to a single argument. A great deal of content should be trimmed, moved to appendices, or removed entirely. A journal article must be selective and only the relevant content should be kept.
A useful self-test for every paragraph/table/figure is: “Does this serve to the answer the research question?” If not, move to appendix or delete.

3. Literature review is missing
There is no substantive engagement with research on:
– spatial inequalities and redistribution
– evaluation of industrial modernisation policies
– mechanisms of convergence/divergence
Without this foundation the contribution cannot be positioned.

4. Methods are presented without motivation
Section 2.2 is actually part of the methodology but currently appears as “theoretical construction”. The empirical strategy must be introduced as a method (what you do, why this is a suitable approach for this question), not as a catalogue of indicators and formulas.

5. Data description is insufficient
Although sources are cited, it is not clear which variables are actually used, how they are constructed, and at what level. A concise data section with a variable list (in appendix) is needed.

6. Figures, tables and labels need extensive revision
Several figures and Tables are unclear or lack legends (also mostly they are wrongly labelled); tables are not interpretable for non-experts; some visualisations are not explained in the text. If a figure has no explanatory role toward the research question, it should be moved or removed.

7. Introduction must be rewritten (and properly labelled)
The introduction should state:
what gap is addressed,
what the paper does (precisely),
what headline results emerge,
and a short road-map.
At present the introduction is descriptive background rather than a framing section.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer2’s Comments

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your comments have provided us with valuable guidance to improve the clarity, coherence, and academic quality of our work. Following your suggestions, we have conducted a thorough revision of the paper. The main modifications and corresponding responses are as follows:

Comment 1: Lack of framing and research question

Response:

Thank you for pointing out this important issue. We have restructured the entire paper to make the research framework and objectives clearer. Specifically, we added a brief explanatory paragraph after each subsection title to clarify the purpose and logical role of that section. In the Introduction, we have explicitly articulated the central research question and research objectives, ensuring that all analyses align with them. Additionally, a research framework diagram has been added at the end of the Introduction to visually present the logical flow of the study, which helps readers better understand the overall structure and research logic.

Comment 2: Too much material without logical organisation

Response:

We appreciate your suggestion regarding excessive and redundant material. To improve focus and conciseness, we have moved lengthy tables—such as those reporting the “Three Modernizations” development level and the Gini coefficient analysis—to the Appendix. This makes the main text more streamlined. In addition, we deleted less relevant analyses, such as results based on industry-chain segmentation and spatial autocorrelation tests, and retained only the content that directly supports the core research question.

Comment 3: Literature review is missing

Response:

We appreciate your insightful observation. Indeed, the lack of a detailed literature review was a shortcoming in the previous version. Following your suggestion, we have now added a comprehensive literature review in Section 1, which systematically discusses prior research on spatial inequalities and redistribution, industrial modernization evaluation, and mechanisms of convergence/divergence. This provides a solid theoretical foundation and positions our study within the existing research context.

Comment 4: Methods are presented without motivation

Response:

Thank you for highlighting this important issue. We have revised the methodology section by adding explanatory paragraphs before each method, clarifying the motivation for its use and its suitability for addressing the research question. For instance, before introducing the entropy weight method and spatial econometric models, we now explain why these techniques are appropriate for evaluating the spatial characteristics and influencing mechanisms of “Three Modernizations” integration.

Comment 5: Data description is insufficient

Response:

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have expanded the data description section to provide clearer explanations of data sources, variable construction, and measurement levels. These details are now presented in Section 4.3 “Variable Selection”. Given the length of the paper, we included citations to supporting literature for indicator selection to enhance credibility and methodological transparency.

Comment 6: Figures, tables and labels need extensive revision

Response:

We have carefully revised all figures and tables to ensure clarity and consistency. Labels, legends, and captions have been standardized, and each figure or table is now explicitly explained in the text. We have also simplified complex visualizations and ensured that even non-expert readers can interpret them easily.

Comment 7: Introduction must be rewritten

Response:

Following your recommendation, we have completely rewritten the Introduction. The revised version clearly specifies (1) the research gap addressed, (2) the precise research objectives, (3) the main findings, and (4) the overall structure of the paper. Additionally, we have included a roadmap figure at the end of the Introduction to help readers follow the logical progression of the study.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a comprehensive empirical study dedicated to analyzing the integration of high-end, intelligent, and green development (the "Three Modernizations") within China's oil and gas industry. It employs contemporary data analysis methods, including entropy-weighted TOPSIS, kernel density estimation, spatial autocorrelation, and convergence models. The work is highly relevant in the context of China's "dual carbon" strategy and the objectives of industrial digital transformation. The findings hold practical value for regional policy and industrial planning.

Comments and Recommendations:

1. Not all variables in the indicator table directly reflect "high-end," "intelligent," or "green" attributes. For instance, the connection of indicators like "average employee salary" or "number of employees" to the core modernization concepts requires clearer justification and a more explicit logical link.
2. While the authors identify disparities between regions, the in-depth analysis of underlying factors (e.g., institutional, cultural, historical) remains relatively weak. A deeper exploration of these factors is crucial for understanding the sustainability of the identified trends.
3. The proposed policy measures are somewhat generic. It would be beneficial to specify which particular instruments (e.g., specific taxes, subsidies, regulations) would be most effective for different regions or segments of the value chain, enhancing the practical applicability of the recommendations.

 

The article constitutes a quality and timely piece of research that can be recommended for publication after addressing the noted comments. The results of the work are of interest to scholars, policymakers, and industry specialists working in the fields of energy, sustainable development, and regional economics.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer3’s Comments

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your comments have provided us with valuable guidance to improve the clarity, coherence, and academic quality of our work. Following your suggestions, we have conducted a thorough revision of the paper. The main modifications and corresponding responses are as follows:

Comment 1:

Not all variables in the indicator table directly reflect "high-end," "intelligent," or "green" attributes. For instance, the connection of indicators like "average employee salary" or "number of employees" to the core modernization concepts requires clearer justification and a more explicit logical link.

Response:

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have carefully reviewed the indicator system and clarified the logical relationship between each indicator and the “Three Modernizations” dimensions. Specifically, indicators such as “average employee salary” and “number of employees” are retained to capture the human capital and labor structure dimensions that support high-end and intelligent development. To enhance conceptual consistency, we have revised Section 2.2 (“Construction of the Indicator System for Measuring "Three Modernizations" Integration”) by providing explicit justifications for each indicator’s inclusion and its relevance to the high-end, intelligent, or green attributes.

Comment 2:

While the authors identify disparities between regions, the in-depth analysis of underlying factors (e.g., institutional, cultural, historical) remains relatively weak. A deeper exploration of these factors is crucial for understanding the sustainability of the identified trends.

Response:

We appreciate this insightful comment. In the revised manuscript, we have strengthened the discussion of the underlying drivers of regional disparities. Specifically, we have incorporated an analysis of institutional support, industrial foundation, technological accumulation, and policy orientation in Section 4.4.3 (“Heterogeneity Analysis”). This deeper exploration helps to explain the persistence and sustainability of spatial patterns in “Three Modernizations” integration across China’s oil and gas industry.

Comment 3:

The proposed policy measures are somewhat generic. It would be beneficial to specify which particular instruments (e.g., specific taxes, subsidies, regulations) would be most effective for different regions or segments of the value chain, enhancing the practical applicability of the recommendations.

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. We have refined the policy recommendations section to provide more targeted and actionable measures. In Section 5 (“Policy Implications”), we now differentiate between policy tools applicable to resource-based regions and innovation-driven regions. For example, we propose that resource-based regions strengthen fiscal subsidies for intelligent infrastructure and green retrofitting of traditional facilities, while innovation-oriented regions should focus on tax incentives for high-end equipment R&D and green technology investment. These adjustments enhance the specificity and practical value of the policy guidance.

Once again, we sincerely thank the reviewer for your constructive comments and guidance. All revisions have been highlighted in the revised manuscript, and we believe these improvements have significantly enhanced the quality and clarity of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very for addressing the comments previously made and for the improvements made to the paper. Work has been done and the paper has improved in clarity. I keep thinking that substantial work has been done, but it does not translate well in the current version. Indeed, despite the revisions, I believe further work is required to make the contribution sound. 

The contribution and the main results (“the empirical evidence”) of the study are still not clearly presented. The results section needs to be rephrased to highlight how the authors answer to the research questions. Overall, the text remains too general, lacking analytical precision and depth, at least how it reads in its current written form. The results still read somewhat awkwardly, and it is not clear whether the research questions are properly answered (or answered at all). As a result, the conclusions appear to lack a solid foundation. Furthermore, both the abstract and the introduction need to be revised. Please provide concrete and tangible results in both sections. Likewise, the conclusions and policy insights should be made clearer, and in connection with the results and empirical evidences.

On top of that, minor revisions are needed mostly in formating (issues with label of sections, figures and tables. For example: there is twice b) in figure 4) . Overall, and as already mentioned, figures and tables should be further discussed, also when placed in appendix.

Author Response

Comments

The contribution and the main results (“the empirical evidence”) of the study are still not clearly presented. The results section needs to be rephrased to highlight how the authors answer to the research questions. Overall, the text remains too general, lacking analytical precision and depth, at least how it reads in its current written form. The results still read somewhat awkwardly, and it is not clear whether the research questions are properly answered (or answered at all). As a result, the conclusions appear to lack a solid foundation. Furthermore, both the abstract and the introduction need to be revised. Please provide concrete and tangible results in both sections. Likewise, the conclusions and policy insights should be made clearer, and in connection with the results and empirical evidences.

On top of that, minor revisions are needed mostly in formating (issues with label of sections, figures and tables. For example: there is twice b) in figure 4) . Overall, and as already mentioned, figures and tables should be further discussed, also when placed in appendix.

Response:

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable and constructive comments. Regarding your suggestion that the results section needs to be rephrased, I have carefully revised the entire analysis of figures and tables, incorporating specific numerical values into the discussion to enhance the persuasiveness and analytical rigor of the results. The research questions have now been clearly addressed.

This study consists of three main parts. The first part measures the integrated development level of “Three Modernizations” (high-end, intelligent, and green development) in China’s oil and gas industry. The second part conducts a spatiotemporal pattern analysis based on the measured results to reveal the current state of regional development inequality. The third part explores the influencing factors of such inequality by analyzing both the direct effects and mediating effects, followed by a heterogeneity analysis that proposes differentiated and targeted policy recommendations for different regions and types of areas.

Each of these three parts has been empirically analyzed and validated. Specifically, Section 2 measures the integrated development level of the “Three Modernizations” in China’s oil and gas industry; Section 3 applies kernel density estimation, Gini coefficient, and spatiotemporal convergence analysis to answer questions related to regional inequality; and Section 4 constructs both direct effect and mediating effect models to examine the influencing factors.

In addition, I have revised both the abstract and introduction as you suggested. The abstract now includes the key research results, and the conclusions and policy implications have been aligned more closely with the empirical findings.

As for the formatting issues you mentioned, I have also made the necessary corrections, and the detailed modifications can be found in the revised manuscript.

Once again, I sincerely appreciate your helpful feedback, which has greatly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of the paper.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, thaks for the work conducted to improve the manuscript.

I still believe the introduction and conclusion could be improved to ease the comprehension of the structure of the paper (your answer to my comments are way clearer than what can be read in the paper) and add about the contribution of the study to the field. Also the policy recommendations still read very general while there would be materials to make them more specific to the results of your study.

I believe that following minor revisions you should be able to finalise the paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your valuable comments on our manuscript. Following your suggestions, we have revised the Introduction, Conclusions, and Policy Recommendations to enhance the manuscript’s clarity, highlight our contributions, and make the policy recommendations more specific and actionable. The main revisions are summarized below:

Introduction

The Introduction has been reorganized into a clear logical flow: “research background – research gaps – methodology – findings – contributions.”

The contributions of the study are explicitly stated: “This study develops a unified HIG evaluation framework, provides empirical evidence on spatial heterogeneity and convergence, and identifies the interactive mechanisms of policy, technological innovation, and carbon constraints,” emphasizing both theoretical and practical significance.

Conclusions

The Conclusions are now presented in a clear, itemized format to emphasize key findings and contributions.

Regional disparities, convergence trends, driving factors, and industrial chain gradients are explicitly highlighted, with quantitative results provided, e.g., “the Gini coefficient decreased from 0.093 to 0.058, and the β-convergence parameter in the eastern region reached −1.128,” directly linking to empirical findings.

Policy Recommendations

Policy recommendations have been revised to be more specific, actionable, and directly linked to study results:

1. Strengthen Policy Guidance and Institutional Support: Differentiated measures are proposed for eastern, central, and western regions based on HIG levels and innovation capacity, including R&D tax incentives, demonstration zones, and industrial upgrading subsidies.
2. Accelerate Technological Innovation and Domestic Equipment Development: Emphasizing R&D investment, joint enterprise-university-research innovation mechanisms, and National HIG Demonstration Laboratories, consistent with the observed impact of technological innovation on HIG integration.
3. Promote Intelligent Infrastructure Construction: Region-specific development of smart oilfields, industrial internet platforms, and digital pipelines reflects spatial heterogeneity and industrial chain gradients.
4. Deepen Green and Low-Carbon Transformation: Implement differentiated carbon quotas and taxes, expand CCUS demonstration projects, and establish green supply chain certification and environmental disclosure systems, closely linked to the role of carbon constraints identified in our study.
5. Promote Regional Coordination and Differentiated Development: Eastern regions leverage technological and innovation advantages; central regions focus on industrial chain upgrading and policy synergy; western regions implement resource-based green transformation. Cross-regional cooperation is strengthened to promote nationwide integration, consistent with observed convergence trends.
6. Establish Long-Term Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanism: A national HIG monitoring platform and multi-level evaluation system are proposed to support dynamic supervision, transparency, and policy accountability, ensuring sustained, high-quality development.

These revisions directly address your concern that previous policy recommendations were too general and insufficiently linked to empirical findings. By providing differentiated and evidence-based measures, we have enhanced both the specificity and practical relevance of the recommendations.

We believe that these revisions substantially improve the manuscript’s clarity, logical structure, and practical value, and we sincerely hope that the revised version meets your expectations. Thank you again for your constructive and insightful feedback.

Sincerely,

Fan Shuo