Spillover Effects of Financial Development and Globalisation on Environmental Quality in EAEU Countries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is very interesting but needs to pay more attention to the following matters:

The absract is well composed, and it make sense with the relevant details. Introduction is well-composed too, but in the methodology section, the author's writing demonstrates a strong understanding of the research process. By incorporating these suggestions, authors can further enhance the clarity and impact of their peer review. It begins with a unique explanation with hypothesis of the research concerns with negative impact of integration spillover effects on environmental quality in EAEU countries. I cannot find anything to add in the introduction, and the methodology is complete. However, this study has no discussion of relevant literature in detail. It has been observed that tabulation of the relevant literature is enough, but as per the general formatting of the research paper, there should be paragraphs of previous literature if possible.   In the conclusion section, while mentioning the R-squared value is good, briefly explaining what a value of ~69% means in this specific context would be helpful. While the text mentions "fixed time effects," it would be beneficial to briefly mention the specific type of spatial model used (e.g., Spatial Error Model, Spatial Autoregressive Model, Spatial Durbin Model) to provide more context. The discussion mentions conflicting results regarding the impact of integration (lines 443-448). It would be stronger if the authors offered potential explanations for these discrepancies. Are there differences in the countries studied, the time periods, the methodologies, or the specific measures of integration used? Exploring these differences would add depth to the analysis.The citation format is inconsistent (e.g., "(Alola et al., 2019) (Alola et al., 2019)"). This should be standardized.   In conclusion, while the section mentions "blind spots," it would be stronger to more explicitly connect the specific findings of the research to the proposed future research questions. With so many recommendations, it would be beneficial to prioritize them or group them by short-term, medium-term, and long-term goals. This would provide a clearer roadmap for implementation.   While many recommendations are self-explanatory, providing brief justifications for some of the less obvious ones would strengthen the argument. For example, why "turnover penalties for champion enterprises in CO2 emissions" instead of a carbon tax?   Some recommendations could be more specific. For example, "strict emission standards" (line 466) could be elaborated on by mentioning specific pollutants or target levels. Similarly, "ESG agenda" (line 477) could be defined more clearly.

Author Response

Comments 1: However, this study has no discussion of relevant literature in detail. It has been observed that tabulation of the relevant literature is enough, but as per the general formatting of the research paper, there should be paragraphs of previous literature if possible.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a sub-section 1.1 Evaluation of the literature. This change can be found: page 8, line 67-94.

Comments 2: In the conclusion section, while mentioning the R-squared value is good, briefly explaining what a value of ~69% means in this specific context would be helpful.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added more explanation about R-squared value in the article context. This change can be found: page 20, line 483-489.

Comments 3: While the text mentions "fixed time effects," it would be beneficial to briefly mention the specific type of spatial model used (e.g., Spatial Error Model, Spatial Autoregressive Model, Spatial Durbin Model) to provide more context.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added new sub-section 3.1.6. Evaluation of the econometric strategy of the research. This change can be found: page 19, line 444-475.

Comments 4: The discussion mentions conflicting results regarding the impact of integration (lines 443-448). It would be stronger if the authors offered potential explanations for these discrepancies. Are there differences in the countries studied, the time periods, the methodologies, or the specific measures of integration used? Exploring these differences would add depth to the analysis.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added 4 more explanations about these discrepancies. This change can be found: page 20, line 512-523.

Comments 5: In conclusion, while the section mentions "blind spots," it would be stronger to more explicitly connect the specific findings of the research to the proposed future research questions.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have completely rewritten this part of the article to more explicitly connect the specific findings of the research to the proposed future research questions. This change can be found: page 21, line 538-549.

Comments 6: With so many recommendations, it would be beneficial to prioritize them or group them by short-term, medium-term, and long-term goals. This would provide a clearer roadmap for implementation. While many recommendations are self-explanatory, providing brief justifications for some of the less obvious ones would strengthen the argument.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added new sub-section 5.2 Recommendations for the EAEU countries (prioritize the economy, institutional, and social policy frameworks + providing brief justifications for every key action). This change can be found: page 21, line 552-570.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have examined the article entitled " Spillover effects of financial development and globalization on environmental quality in EAEU countries ". I have some considerations that are stated below:

1.      Updated highlights to reflect the scope, data, and econometric approaches used in the study.

2.     Add an acronym table before the introduction section. Accordingly, use these abbreviations in a consistent manner throughout the study.

3.     Remove inclusive (i.e., we, our) language usage from the study.

4.     Although there is a literature review section, it is incomplete. Add a sub-section for empirical approaches and add another for "evaluation of the literature" to state the literature gap. There are many studies, which analyzed the environmental quality

DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123647

DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2024.132540

DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2024.121025

Some recent studies are exampled here. Examine these studies in order to revise your study and incorporate them in both literature and empirical sections.

5.     Add a table into the data and methodology section to present all details for the variables (e.g., name, abbreviations, units, data sources).

6.     Policy implications are not explained. Revise and develop them. Also, handle policy implications in the newly created "discussion and implications" sub-section.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Comments 1: Updated highlights to reflect the scope, data, and econometric approaches used in the study.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the abstract section to fully reflect the scope, data, and econometric approaches used in the study. This change can be found: page 1, line 12-31.

Comments 2: Add an acronym table before the introduction section. Accordingly, use these abbreviations in a consistent manner throughout the study.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment but decided not to make a separate table with acronyms. Instead, we rechecked all the work and tried to use acronyms more correctly.

Comments 3: Remove inclusive (i.e., we, our) language usage from the study.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have removed all inclusive language usage from the study.

Comments 4: Although there is a literature review section, it is incomplete. Add a sub-section for empirical approaches and add another for "evaluation of the literature" to state the literature gap. There are many studies, which analyzed the environmental quality

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added: (1) a sub-section 1.1 Evaluation of the literature. This change can be found: page 8, line 67-94; (2) а few more studies, which analyzed the environmental quality in the Table 2 and Discussion section. This change can be found: page 2, line 65; page 20, line 499-529.

Comments 5: Add a table into the data and methodology section to present all details for the variables (e.g., name, abbreviations, units, data sources).

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added table 2 with the main indicators profile. This change can be found: page 10, line 119-120.

Comments 6: Policy implications are not explained. Revise and develop them. Also, handle policy implications in the newly created "discussion and implications" sub-section.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a sub-section 5.3 Policy Implications. This change can be found: page 23, line 572-649.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examined the spillover effects of financial development and globalization on environmental quality in EAEU countries, focusing on the period from 1990 to 2023. It utilized advanced econometric models, including SEM, SAR, and the Common Correlated Effects Mean Group estimator, to analyze the relationships between economic growth, financial development, globalization, and ecological footprints. The results indicated that economic growth and globalization had a positive and statistically significant impact on ecological footprints, while financial development did not show a long-term significant effect on environmental quality in the region. The study also provided detailed policy recommendations for improving environmental outcomes in EAEU countries. This manuscript could be accepted after a minor revision.

1.     The abstract could be more concise while summarizing the methodology and findings. Including key numerical results (e.g., R² values or Moran’s I results) could help highlight the study’s rigor.

2.     While the review discusses many related studies, it could benefit from a clearer organization, perhaps grouping studies by theme (e.g., financial development, globalization, or ecological footprint) to enhance readability.

3.     Please provide a more detailed explanation of why specific models (e.g., SEM or SAR) were selected over others and how robustness was ensured. Furthermore, please clarify why variables such as FDI were found insignificant despite their theoretical importance.

4.     Graphs like those illustrating Moran’s I index or the dynamics of key variables over time could improve the visual representation of findings. Moreover, please enhance Figure 1 by including trend lines or other visual cues to highlight key patterns.

5.     Please expand the discussion on why findings about globalization and environmental degradation differ from some previous studies. This could involve a deeper dive into the unique characteristics of the EAEU region.

6.     The conclusion could synthesize key findings more explicitly and link them back to the stated research objectives.

7.     The manuscript contains minor grammatical issues and overly complex sentences. Refining the language for clarity and conciseness would improve readability.

Author Response

Comments 1: The abstract could be more concise while summarizing the methodology and findings. Including key numerical results (e.g., R² values or Moran’s I results) could help highlight the study’s rigor.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have updated the abstract section by adding numerical results. This change can be found: page 1, line 12-31.

Comments 2: While the review discusses many related studies, it could benefit from a clearer organization, perhaps grouping studies by theme (e.g., financial development, globalization, or ecological footprint) to enhance readability.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added: (1) a sub-section 1.1 Evaluation of the literature. This change can be found: page 8, line 67-94; (2) grouping studies by theme to enhance readability in the Table 1. This change can be found: page 2, line 65.

Comments 3: Please provide a more detailed explanation of why specific models (e.g., SEM or SAR) were selected over others and how robustness was ensured. Furthermore, please clarify why variables such as FDI were found insignificant despite their theoretical importance.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added: (1) new sub-section 3.1.6. Evaluation of the econometric strategy of the research. This change can be found: page 19, line 444-475; (2) in the Discussion section we have added some FDI explanations. This change can be found: page 20, line 524-529.

Comments 4:  Graphs like those illustrating Moran’s I index or the dynamics of key variables over time could improve the visual representation of findings. Moreover, please enhance Figure 1 by including trend lines or other visual cues to highlight key patterns.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We could not plot the graph because the Moran’s I index values are close to zero, but we added trend lines to enhance Figure 1. This change can be found: page 9, line 101.

Comments 5: Please expand the discussion on why findings about globalization and environmental degradation differ from some previous studies. This could involve a deeper dive into the unique characteristics of the EAEU region.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added 4 more explanations about these discrepancies. This change can be found: page 20, line 512-523.

Comments 6: The conclusion could synthesize key findings more explicitly and link them back to the stated research objectives.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have completely rewritten this part of the article to more explicitly connect the specific findings of the research to the proposed future research questions and the research objectives. This change can be found: page 20-21, line 534-549.

Comments 7: The manuscript contains minor grammatical issues and overly complex sentences. Refining the language for clarity and conciseness would improve readability.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have tried to simplify sentence structure and correct typos in the text of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the impact of economic integration on environmental quality. The methodology is robust, employing various econometric models to ensure the reliability of results. However, the paper could benefit from a clearer explanation of the theoretical framework underpinning the study. Additionally, while the results are well-presented, the discussion section could be expanded to include more comparisons with existing literature. The policy recommendations are insightful but would be strengthened by more specific examples of successful implementations in similar contexts. Overall, the paper makes a valuable contribution to the field but could be enhanced with more detailed theoretical and comparative discussions.

Author Response

Comments 1: However, the paper could benefit from a clearer explanation of the theoretical framework underpinning the study.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a sub-section 1.1 Evaluation of the literature. This change can be found: page 8, line 67-94.

Comments 2: Additionally, while the results are well-presented, the discussion section could be expanded to include more comparisons with existing literature.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have expanded the Discussion section by adding some new sources for more comparisons with existing literature. This change can be found: page 20, line 419-529.

Comments 3: The policy recommendations are insightful but would be strengthened by more specific examples of successful implementations in similar contexts.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added new sub-section 5.2 Recommendations for the EAEU countries (providing examples of successful implementations in similar contexts). This change can be found: page 21, line 552-570.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your submission. Based on my thorough review, I am pleased to recommend the acceptance of the manuscript titled ''Spillover effects of financial development and globalisation on environmental quality in EAEU countries'' for publication, as it significantly contributes to the field and meets the journal's standards for quality and relevance.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have addresses the all comments, so i endorsed the publication of this article.