Club Convergence and Spatial Effect on Green Development of the Yangtze River Economic Belt in China with Markov Chains Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please try to explain the results more simple and clear! Please consider that the readers are usually not expert of the characteristics and specialties of the study area. It is pretty difficult to identify the results spatially!

Would be necessary to explain the usability of results (e.g. related to the results of Table 2. Table 3. and Table 4.)

In the legend of Figure 4. I recommend to use: Low level, Lower intermediate level, Higher Intermediate level, High level.

Try to avoid terms like "vice versa". You had better explain what you mean.

I recommend to use "natural breaks" method instead of "nature breaks"!

Author Response

Dear  respected Reviewer:

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort that you  dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in the manuscript. Please see the attached file, in red, for a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I have read your well-written manuscript untiled "Club Convergence and Spatial Effect on Green Development of the Yangtze River Economic Belt in China with Markov Chains Approach."

An important and well-defined research problem, unique research area, the impact of the research performed on the existing state of arts are good.

The quality of planning and conducting the research, criteria for selecting data, the paper's theoretical framework, research methods, and their correct selection and application are good.

A clear layout, cohesion between the main purpose, title and content of the paper, results coming from methods used in the article are good.

The clear and precise language, correct terminology, the accuracy of references, articles from reputable journals used in the paper are good.

I recommend your manuscript for publication in the journal “Land.”

 

Best regards,

The reviewer

Author Response

Dear  the respected Reviewer:

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort that you  dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on  our paper. 

Reviewer 3 Report

In general, the paper is well organized and structured and investigates a very interesting aspect of the green economy (evaluation of this) but without an international orientation. The study has potential to attract interest of international researchers, but the motivation, and discussion should be deeply re-structured to achieve this objective. I hope my comments to help the authors to improve the manuscript.

1. The purposes of the research presented not clear and consistent between in Introduction the Abstract and the Discussion section, but only in part.
2. The literature review, which is very limited, and presented to Introduction section mainly, should be extended according to the paper' objectives and the global interest in the issue of green economy. In this case, I recommend adding a section of literature review who will dealing with this issue.
3. The section 3 needs improvement. Authors must be adding more information about the study area. For a so large economic belt the presentation of study area is brief and is mentioning generally only to the used spatial units in the base of administrative boundaries.
4. The whole section 5 needs to be re-write. I suggest, the authors to separate the Discussion with the Conclusions in two different sections.
5. There is not Discussion in the current form. Missing significant parts of Discussion such the comparison of the results with the findings of similar national and international oriented studies.
6. The current form of section 5, contain repetitions of finding that presented to the previous sections. Only in the last paragraph of the manuscript, authors are trying to present limitations of the research (between them, and the selection of used indices, that remains an 'open' methodological issue), unsuccessfully, in my opinion.
7. Authors, also to the sections of Discussion and Conclusion must be clearly presenting the Contribution of research, proposals for relevant policies, originality, limitations, and future research.
8. The references must enrich significant, and authors avoid repetitions.

Author Response

Dear  respected Reviewer:

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort that you  dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by the reviewers. Those changes are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in the manuscript. Please see the attached file, in red, for a point-by-point response to the reviewer’ s comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

No comments

Author Response

Dear Academic Editor and the respected Reviewers:

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a minor revised draft of the manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our revised manuscript. We have incorporated all the suggestions. Those changes are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in the manuscript. 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.