Research on the Effect and Path of CBAM on Green Technology Innovation in China’s High-Carbon Manufacturing Industries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The selection of the paper is relatively new and innovative in that it explores the impact of CBAM on green technology innovation. At the same time, the content of this paper is more adequate and the empirical part is more detailed and complete.

However, the following sections need to be revised and improved.

[1] The introduction needs to be further expanded and the purpose and significance of the research needs to be clearly stated.

[2] The references are old, it is recommended to update more excellent foreign literature in the last three years.

[3] In terms of policy recommendations, it is suggested that the recommendations should be somewhat more evidence-based. More specific and detailed policy recommendations are made based on the evidence.

[4] Some of the charts and graphs have blurry fonts and should be clearer.

[5] It is noted that your manuscript needs to pay attention to English grammar, spelling and sentence structure so that the reader clearly understands the objectives and results of the study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is noted that your manuscript needs to pay attention to English grammar, spelling and sentence structure so that the reader clearly understands the objectives and results of the study.

Author Response

Please  see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper empirically analyzes the impact of the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) on green technology innovation in high-carbon manufacturing industries in China. This study provides some new findings in the impact mechanism. However, this manuscript requires further revision. Specific recommendations are provided below.

1) It is suggested that the title be changed to “Research on the Effect and Path of CBAM on Green Technology Innovation in China's High-Carbon Manufacturing Industries.”  

2) Reorganize the abstract. The abstract should describe the research methodology after briefly describing the background. Then concisely state the conclusions of the study. Finally, state the policy recommendations of the study.  

3) The introduction needs to be reorganized to emphasize the importance of this study and the impact of CBAM on high-carbon manufacturing in China. In addition, this manuscript lacks a statement of novelty.  

4) Harmonize formatting, including paragraphs, formulas, fonts, etc. And the quality of English needs further improvement.  

5) Please refer to the official website of the journal for the citation format of the references.

6) Replace Chapter 2 Literature reviews with Literature reviews and research hypotheses.  

7) In Figure 1, a distinction should be made between moderating and mediating effects. Academically, the mechanism test can only be one or the other. Chapter 5.2 needs to be separated. As mentioned earlier, the mechanism test (5.2.1) is a mediated effect. The moderating Statistical descriptions are missing.  

8) effect (5.2.2) should be chapter 5.3.  

9) There are certain problems with moderating effects models. Need to add “(Treat × Period” and “PA” to equation (3). This is inconsistent with the results in Table 4.  

10) The dotted line in Figure 7 should be located in the year of the policy shock.  

11) The quality of Figure 2 needs to be further improved.  

12) The Cragg-Donald Wald F statistic fails 10% significance in the instrumental variable test. This is contrary to the description (by 5% distinctiveness) in lines 578-580 of the text.  

13) The conclusion needs to be further simplified. Policy recommendations need to be based on research findings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, English expression needs further improvement. First, symbols, formulas and the format of tables need to be harmonized. Second, excessively long sentences should be avoided. Finally, authors should avoid using a large number of Chinese expressions in the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author revised the manuscript appropriately according to my comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

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