Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Usman Mehmood 1,2,*,
  • Salman Tariq 2 and
  • Ali Imran 2
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Zbysław Dobrowolski Reviewer 2: Dorota Czerwińska-Kayzer Reviewer 3: Anonymous Reviewer 4: Akshoy Ranjan Paul Reviewer 5: Anonymous Reviewer 6: Ana Irina Lequeux Dinca

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please use proofreading. For example, the phrase "across the board" may be wordy. Consider changing the wording and use "globally". The author used the phrase "poor nations". Consider using the phrase "developing nations". 

I suggest significantly changing the abstract. As such, the reader may get the impression that research adds nothing to science and confirms what is already known. 

I propose to significantly emphasize the research gap and research problems.

The research summary confirms what has been known for a long time. What is really new about this research? What is a significant contribution to the development of the theory? What theory do authors develop? Due to the lack of basic information, this article is not suitable for publication in this form.

 

Author Response

Reviewer No 1

  1. Please use proofreading. For example, the phrase "across the board" may be wordy. Consider changing the wording and use "globally". The author used the phrase "poor nations". Consider using the phrase "developing nations". 

Response.

The above mentioned corrections have made in the manuscript.

 

  1. I suggest significantly changing the abstract. As such, the reader may get the impression that research adds nothing to science and confirms what is already known. 

Response.

Some significant changes have been done in Abstract as Objectives, methods and results og the study to get good impression from reader.

  1. I propose to significantly emphasize the research gap and research problems.

Response.

The reserach gap and research problem have been mentioned in the manuscript.

 

  1. The research summary confirms what has been known for a long time. What is really new about this research? What is a significant contribution to the development of the theory? What theory do authors develop?

Response.

Significant contribution have been added in the manuscript and theory authors develop is Theoretical justifications for the study are presented here. These findings are grounded in the theories of ecological modernization and trade-adjusted carbon emissions (EMT). Since export-oriented economies tend to have higher technology levels, the theory of trade-adjusted carbon emissions suggests that trade-adjusted carbon emissions should be studied, particularly in emissions exporting nations. The EMT arrives at the conclusion that increasing resource efficiency (renewable energy) through technological innovation may help alleviate environmental concerns brought on by economic growth. Under the aforementioned conditions, we draw linkages between technical progress and emissions from consumer behavior.

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors present a study effects of eco-innovations, globalization (GLO), and GDP on CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions  in a panel comprising India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bhutan. This study employs a panel quantile autoregressive distributed lag methodology to data from 1980Q1 through 2017Q4 for analysis (QARDL). The study, has been confirmed the existence of the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) theory in poor nations. The authors emphasize that these nations need should switch to renewable energy sources, and governments to rethink their approach to global trade.

The study is not very original, it only confirms the conclusions widely described in the literature. The method, considered by the authors as unique, is described with many errors.

The only value is a panel of data from 6 South Asian countries for the period 1980-2017. Here the question arises: Was the data for the period 1980-2017 (as stated in the abstract) or 1980-2018 (as stated in the text). According to the Reviewer, if there were 156 observations (Table 2), the data should be for the years 1980-2018. This needs to be clarified and specify one time range.

There are still other errors and mistakes in the work. Here is what needs to be improved:

1)     The method is presented, but it is described in many errors. First, it is not clear why natural logarithmic was used? This should be explained. Secondly, there is an index i next to the sum sign, which does not appear in the formula. Why was it included? In formulas 1 and 2 three times the indices q are included, and after the fourth q4? What does it mean? Is this correct?

The description also contains errors:

-        line 158 is missing a space. In text is ...X4up toX5reprents... should be X4 up to X5 represents.

-        line 159 is missing spaces and a comma. In text is ...represents????,????,???????2?... should be ...represents????, ????, ????, ???2?...

-        line 157 need to change the font size in the description,

-        line 165 () missing information in parenthesis

It is worth explaining what uniqueness of analysis (QARDL) is all about.

2)     Data sources should be clarified. In line 169 the authors state that the data comes from collection data of world data indicators. Data od this colection  was used in table 1 as WDI. Therefore, this abbreviation should be included in the text. In addition, a link to this data should be provided. The authors further state that the data on GLO, was collected from the KOF economic institute (line 170 and table 1). In line 151, the Authors state that this data was obtained from the KOF institute. If it is one entity, one name and abbreviation should be used. According to the Reviewer, only an abbreviation should be included in the table. In Instructions for Authors is “Acronyms/Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in each of three sections: the abstract; the main text; the first figure or table. When defined for the first time, the acronym/abbreviation/initialism should be added in parentheses after the written-out form”.

3)     Carbon dioxide is abbreviated differently. In the title have CO2 emissions.  This abbreviation is then used in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 as Co2 and Table 2 as CO (C0 is carbon monoxide). Moreover,  in the text mainly refers to carbon emission (CO2em). According to the reviewer, this form should be the same throughout the work. In the abstract, instead of the abbreviation EKC theory, the entire name should be used “environmental Kuznets curve”.

4)   In the text are more editorial errors. They must necessarily be corrected.

a)      in line 104 is{Formatting Citation} should be a reference to the literature

b)     different fonts are used in the titles of Tables 2 and 4. It must be unified.

c)     in line 168 is GLO (GLO) should be globalization (GLO). Why twice abbreviation?

5)     The abbreviation Eco, used in Table 1, is not explained. Whereas, in the text is used the abbreviation ECO.

6)     The bibliography should be organized. For example, in lines 268, 296, 323 there is an incorrect presentation of the

7)     In lines 63-70 the text is blue???

8)     The graphic design of tables 3, 4 and 5 should be improved (There are different borders. The explanatory notes are sometimes aligned to the right, sometimes centered. Sometimes they are in the table, sometimes outside).

9)     There are incorrect citations in the work. In Instructions for Authors is “In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. For embedded citations in the text with pagination, use both parentheses and brackets to indicate the reference number and page numbers; for example [5] (p. 10). or [6] (pp. 101–105)”.

 Despite many errors and shortcomings, I appreciate the Authors research work.  I recommend, that you consider and correct them in the text. I think that the manuscript do need to be refined.

Author Response

Reviewer No 2

The only value is a panel of data from 6 South Asian countries for the period 1980-2017. Here the question arises: Was the data for the period 1980-2017 (as stated in the abstract) or 1980-2018 (as stated in the text). According to the Reviewer, if there were 156 observations (Table 2), the data should be for the years 1980-2018. This needs to be clarified and specify one time range.

Response.

The data is from 1980-2018 period.

 

 

  1. The method is presented, but it is described in many errors. First, it is not clear why natural logarithmic was used?

Response.

The logarithmic values are taken to avoid any problem of endogeneity and multicollinearity problems in the panel data.

 

 

  1. Secondly, there is an index inext to the sum sign, which does not appear in the formula. Why was it included?

Response.

Dear reviewer, now the formula is revised as instructed.

  1. In formulas 1 and 2 three times the indices q are included, and after the fourth q4? What does it mean?

Response.

That is a mistake and we are really sorry about that and correction has made.

 

  1. Line 158 is missing a space. In text is ...X4up toX5.. should be X4up to X5 represents.

                  line 159 is missing spaces and a comma. In text is ...represents????,,???????2?... should  be ...represents????, ????, ????, ???2?...

                     line 157 need to change the font size in the description,

                     line 165 () missing information in parenthesis.

      Data sources should be clarified. In line 169 the authors state that the data comes from collection data of world data indicators. Data on this collection was used in table 1 as WDI. Therefore, this abbreviation should be included in the text. In addition, a link to this data should be provided. The authors further state that the data on GLO, was collected from the KOF economic institute (line 170 and table 1). In line 151, the Authors state that this data was obtained from the KOF institute. If it is one entity, one name and abbreviation should be used. According to the Reviewer, only an abbreviation should be included in the table. In Instructions for Authors is “Acronyms/Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in each of three sections: the abstract; the main text; the first figure or table. When defined for the first time, the acronym/abbreviation/initialism should be added in parentheses after the written-out form”.

Response.

Line 157, 158, 159 and 165 corrections have been done in the manuscript.

Line 169 has justified and WDI abbreviation mentioned with data link from World Data Indicators. (WDI). Link has been provided in the manuscript.

Line 151 and 170 corrections have done and one entity from KOF economic institute have mentioned in table 1 according reviewer instructions.

 

  1. Carbon dioxide is abbreviated differently. In the title have CO2 emissions.  This abbreviation is then used in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 as Co2 and Table 2 as CO (C0 is carbon monoxide). Moreover, in the text mainly refers to carbon emission (CO2em). According to the reviewer, this form should be the same throughout the work. In the abstract, instead of the abbreviation EKC theory, the entire name should be used “environmental Kuznets curve”.

 

 

Response.

CO2 emissions abbreviation have corrected in Title Abstract and in Table 1 and Table 2, while CO emissions is different abbreviation which is mentioned by mistake as CO2 emissions we are really sorry for this mistake.

      CO2em has corrected in entire text as CO2.

The abbreviation EKC theory have corrected in entire text as complete abbreviation Environmental                                        Kuznets Curve theory.

 

  1. In the text are more editorial errors. They must necessarily be corrected.
  2. a)      in line 104 is{Formatting Citation} should be a reference to the literature
  3. b)      different fonts are used in the titles of Tables 2 and 4. It must be unified.
  4. c)      in line 168 is GLO (GLO) should be globalization (GLO). Why twice abbreviation?

Response.

 Line 104 is {Formatting Citation} have been a referenced in the literature

Different fonts of Table 1 and Table have been unified.

Globalization abbreviation is used twice by mistake, it has been corrected.

 

  1. The abbreviation Eco, used in Table 1, is not explained. Whereas, in the text is used the abbreviation ECO.

Response.

ECO abbreviation in Table 1 and text is same and correction has done.

  1. The bibliography should be organized. For example, in lines 268, 296, 323 there is an incorrect presentation of the

Response.

The bibliography has organized in lines 268,296, and 323 in the manuscript.

 

  1. In lines 63-70 the text is blue???

Response.

Line 63-70 text is blue by mistake, we are really sorry and correction has done.

 

  1. The graphic design of tables 3, 4 and 5 should be improved (There are different borders. The explanatory notes are sometimes aligned to the right, sometimes centered. Sometimes they are in the table, sometimes outside).

Response.

The graphic design of tables 3, 4 and 5 have been improved as instructed by honorable reviewer.

 

  1. There are incorrect citations in the work. In Instructions for Authors is “In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. For embedded citations in the text with pagination, use both parentheses and brackets to indicate the reference number and page numbers; for example [5] (p. 10). or [6] (pp. 101–105)”.

Response.

According to the reviewer above mentioned instructions incorrect citations have been corrected in the manuscript.

 

  1. Despite many errors and shortcomings, I appreciate the Authors research work.  I recommend, that you consider and correct them in the text. I think that the manuscript do need to be refined.

Response.

We are highly thankful for reviewer appreciation for our research.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper aims to study on how GLO, economic growth, and technical  breakthroughs influence to environmental degradation in a few selected South Asian  countries using the Quantile Autoregressive Distributed Lag (QARDL) method. However, I have some comments as follows:

 1)      The title is a bit long. Need to rephrase the title to be more precise.

2)      In section 1 (Introduction), line 85-93 actually can be combined in a single paragraph.

3)      The equations (1) and (2) are not properly aligned.

4)      Please include the limitation of this study. For example, the limitation of QARDL method.

Author Response

Reviewer No 3

 

  1. The title is a bit long. Need to rephrase the title to be more precise.

Response.

According to instructions title has been changed.

  1. In section 1 (Introduction), line 85-93 actually can be combined in a single paragraph.

Response.

Line 85-93 are combined in a single paragraph according above mentioned instructions.

 

  1. The equations (1) and (2) are not properly aligned.

Response.

Equation 1 and 2 are properly aligned in the manuscript.

 

  1. Please include the limitation of this study. For example, the limitation of QARDL method.

 

Response.

Thank you for your suggestion. Now the limitations of this work are added.

 

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript tries to draw a relationship between the CO2 emissions and the globalization & eco-innovations specific to south Asian nations. The manuscript however attracts the following queries from the reviewer, which need to be addressed by the authors in the revised version of the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer No 4

 

  1. The major outcome/results of the study must be included in the Abstract.

Response.

The abstract have been revised and outcomes of the study have been added in the abstract.

 

  1. The authors are advised to include more relevant literature published in the area in last five years. Some of the suggested literatures that are required to be included are,

 

Response.

The advised both research articles by the reviewer have been added in the manuscript.

 

  1. Write full form of 'EKC' when it is appeared first in the manuscript.

 

Response.

EKC full form have mentioned in the manuscript as per reviewer instructions.

 

 

 

  1. Objectives should be discussed only after literature review followed by

             Research gaps.

Response.

Above mentioned instructions have been followed and Literature review has revised.

 

 

  1. The assumptions taken for the analysis need to be clearly written.

 

Response.

The assumptions have been clearly written in revised manuscript.

 

 

 

  1. Write conclusions in brief and bulleted forms with tangible outcomes, which is missing in the manuscript.

Response.

Conclusions have been written in bulleted form with tangible outcomes now in the manuscript.

 

 

  1. It is suggested to give the future prospects in separate paragraph after giving the concluding remarks of the present study.

 

Response.

According instructions separate paragraph for future prospects have created and mentioned in the manuscript.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear Authors,

 

Thank you for the manuscript draft entitled “How economic growth contributes to CO2 emissions in the presence of globalization and eco-innovations in South Asian countries? ".

My comments, suggestions, and views on this article are as follows:

 

TITLE

Comment(s): The title is comprised of the study process in full, its' purpose, focus and area of interest.

Suggestion(s): -

 

ABSTRACT

Point 1: The abstract is can be improved by containing the purpose, methods, findings and implication of the study. Please, rewrite it

KEYWORDS

Comment(s): can be improved.

INTRODUCTION

Point 1:objectives of the paper should be clearly show

Point 2: The verbs/ terminology used in section one to describe the study objectives should be consistent throughout the paper.

METHODS/ MATERIALS

Comment(s): Justified, theoretically supported/ previously used in the field of study.

Suggestion(s): -

 

RESULTS, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Comment(s): Justified and well organized

Suggestion(s):

MISCELLANEOUS

Abbreviation(s)/ Acronym(s)

Suggestion(s): Please recheck and revise (if any) all acronyms and/or abbreviations in terms of consistency of style and/or conformity with journal's standard. Each acronym and/or abbreviation used in this paper should be explained in full at the first mention only. After that, the abbreviation(s) and/or acronym(s) should be referred to by the acronym/ abbreviation throughout the article.

 

Equations, Formulae &/or Subscripts &/or Superscripts

Suggestion(s): Please recheck and revise (if any) all equations, formulae, Subscripts, and Superscripts in terms of:

1) Numbering

2) Contents

3) Formatting

4) Consistency of style

5) Conformity with journal's standard

 

Figures and Tables

Suggestion(s): Please recheck and revise (if any) all Figures and Tables in terms of:

1) Link to the text (citation, discussion)

2) Numbering - Please recheck and standardise the use of Tab., Fig., Figure, and Table.

3) Contents/ Facts

4) Labels, Legends, Pixel

5) Consistency of style

6) Conformity with journal's standard

 

Thanks again and best regards.

Author Response

Reviewer No 5

 

My comments, suggestions, and views on this article are as follows:

 

TITLE

Comment(s): The title is comprised of the study process in full, its' purpose, focus and area of interest.

Suggestion(s): -

 

ABSTRACT

Point 1: The abstract can be improved by containing the purpose, methods, findings and implication of the study. Please, rewrite it

Response.

 From page 12 to 13 the line for method has been added already.

The purpose of this study is to find the relation between GDP, GLO, ECO and CO2em.

The findings has been shared in the abstract from line 14 onward.

This study implies that the selected south Asian Countries should switch to the renewable energy source to improve environmental quality.

 

KEYWORDS

Comment(s): can be improved.

Response: The more relevant and precise keywords have been added.

INTRODUCTION

Point 1: Objectives of the paper should be clearly shown.

Response.

Over half of the world's population lives in Asia, making it a key region for the world's largest economies. The fact that Asia is responsible for 28% of global energy demand and 53% of total coal consumption of coal, both of which are major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, also played a role in the decision to focus research efforts there (Amin et al., 2020). Half of the world's CO2 emissions come from this area.

 

Point 2: The verbs/ terminology used in section one to describe the study objectives should be consistent throughout the paper.

Response.

 The required amendment in text has been made to reflect the change.

 

METHODS/ MATERIALS

Comment(s): Justified, theoretically supported/ previously used in the field of study.

Suggestion(s): -

Response.

: Thank you for appreciating our work.

RESULTS, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Comment(s): Justified and well organized

Suggestion(s):

Response: Thank you for acknowledging our efforts.

MISCELLANEOUS

Abbreviation(s)/ Acronym(s)

Suggestion(s): Please recheck and revise (if any) all acronyms and/or abbreviations in terms of consistency of style and/or conformity with journal's standard. Each acronym and/or abbreviation used in this paper should be explained in full at the first mention only. After that, the abbreviation(s) and/or acronym(s) should be referred to by the acronym/ abbreviation throughout the article.

Response.

: Initially defined and acronym used accordingly.

Equations, Formulae &/or Subscripts &/or Superscripts

Suggestion(s): Please recheck and revise (if any) all equations, formulae, Subscripts, and Superscripts in terms of:

1) Numbering

2) Contents

3) Formatting

4) Consistency of style

5) Conformity with journal's standard

Response.

 The required changes have been made. The equations are in accordance with the guided format.

 

Figures and Tables

Suggestion(s): Please recheck and revise (if any) all Figures and Tables in terms of:

1) Link to the text (citation, discussion)

2) Numbering - Please recheck and standardise the use of Tab., Fig., Figure, and Table.

3) Contents/ Facts

4) Labels, Legends, Pixel

5) Consistency of style

6) Conformity with journal's standard

 

Thanks again and best regards.

 

 

 

Reviewer 6 Report

The article entitled

How economic growth contributes to CO2 emissions in the presence of globalization and eco-innovations in South Asian countries?

presents  an interesting research topic  and a logical research approach. However the paper needs some improvements in order to be published in the World journal that I resume below as follows:

 

1. After presenting the introduction, the scientific rationale of the study and its aim, the paper needs a more clear explanation of its objectives / research questions or hypotheses. These should be formulated after carefully debating what were the findings of interest for authors and readers in the present context. In other words what the authors proposed themselves to discover/to verify according to existing theories, methodologies and assumptions ?

2. Literature review follows the main elements and the logic of the study. However the presented paragraphs remain general and too synthetic. Considering the clear geographical context of the study and the application of methods on it I would suggest the authors:

- either to enlarge each treated notion in literature review (eco-innovations, globalization respectively CO2 emissions) in a subchapter starting from the existing paragraph and afterwards to explain the situation both theoretically and practically in the studied territory

- or to enlarge in literature review just the theoretical aspects for the studied territory on each of the three theoretical concepts with implications for South Asia and make an entire new chapter on the case study/studies (South Asia and the four countries) explaining the existing context and practical implications of this linkage between economic growth/CO2 emissions, eco-innovation and globalization for South Asia respectively for Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka

3. Please add some diagrams and scores in the first part of the paper (see point 2) on the current or evolving position of the analysed countries / region in terms of GDP , economic growth and eco-innovation according to worldwide and regional reports and statistics. They might help to present the existing situation and further underline the necessity of this study and develop comments on results.

4. The authors should also explain in the methodology why and how this region was analyzed as a whole. Authors should think and see if at least some of the descriptive statistics and tests could not be applied separately on each of the four countries. Regional differences explained from existing statistics and after the consultation of available studies/reports and afterwards compared and explained also in results could enhance and enrich discussions. If not possible entirely through the involved indicators and methods this should be explained in the limitations of the study.

5. The chapter on methodology and data should explain what is the basis of the indicators used in the analysis.  Comments on these indicators’ appropriateness for the analyses and some quotations of other studies that used them might help in order to make more convincing the discourse in this paper.

6. According to above comments the chapter of results and discussions must be therefore enlarged. Besides the mathematical explanations the authors should explain the implications of their findings in real context. In fact all the above suggestions (see points 1-5) would help to bring much more complex explanations for the chapter of results and discussions.

7. A question that arise and continues my idea in point 4 is if there are differences in terms of results among the four analyzed countries comprised in the study. This is another point which will raise the interest on the study, could develop the comments on results and finally make them much more interesting and debatable from the geographical point of view and for national policies implications.

8. Conclusions and policy implications chapter might envisage also discussing limitations (methodological, territorial etc.) and possible or needed completions / follow up directions of this study. Some of the sentences in the first paragraph of conclusions should be also found / or may be moved to methodological aspects “quarterly data from 1980Q1 to 1970Q4 are analyzed…..”. Methodology should anyway be completed with explanations on basic indicators available on the four different countries for the aggregated indicators further integrated in the analysis, on the type of data and on their availability in terms of time series etc.

Please consider all the above comments in order to support and develop your scientific discourse and improve the paper for publication.

Considering the above suggestions I recommend the paper to be published in World journal.

Kind regards

Author Response

Reviewer No 6

 

  1. After presenting the introduction, the scientific rationale of the study and its aim, the paper needs a more clear explanation of its objectives / research questions or hypotheses. These should be formulated after carefully debating what were the findings of interest for authors and readers in the present context.

 In other words what the authors proposed themselves to discover/to verify according to existing theories, methodologies and assumptions?

Response.

The paper has revised and more clarity has done, objectives and findings are in clear form now according above mentioned instructions in the manuscript.

 

 

  1. I would suggest the authors:

Either to enlarge each treated notion in literature review (eco-innovations, globalization respectively CO2 emissions) in a subchapter starting from the existing paragraph and afterwards to explain the situation both theoretically and practically in the studied territory.

Response.

Above mentioned instructions by reviewer has made and subchapter has added in the manuscript.

 

  1. Please add some diagrams and scores in the first part of the paper (see point 2) on the current or evolving position of the analyzed countries / region in terms of GDP , economic growth and eco-innovation according to worldwide and regional reports and statistics. They might help to present the existing situation and further underline the necessity of this study and develop comments on results.

Response.

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Please see that we have added the scores and current condition of the south asian countries.

 

 

  1. The authors should also explain in the methodology why and how this region was analyzed as a whole. Authors should think and see if at least some of the descriptive statistics and tests could not be applied separately on each of the four countries. Regional differences explained from existing statistics and after the consultation of available studies/reports and afterwards compared and explained also in results could enhance and enrich discussions. If not possible entirely through the involved indicators and methods this should be explained in the limitations of the study.

 

Response.

Thank you for your important sugesstion. This work applied the QARDL approach that can consider the cross sectional dependence in the data. Therefore, QARDL provides robust results.

 

 

  1. The chapter on methodology and data should explain what is the basis of the indicators used in the analysis.  Comments on these indicators’ appropriateness for the analyses and some quotations of other studies that used them might help in order to make more convincing the discourse in this paper.

Response.

Thank you for your concern. Now the theoretical framework is added to highlight the basis of data used in this work.

 

  1. According to above comments the chapter of results and discussions must be therefore enlarged. Besides the mathematical explanations the authors should explain the implications of their findings in real context. In fact all the above suggestions (see points 1-5) would help to bring much more complex explanations for the chapter of results and discussions.

Response.

This section is revised now.

 

 

  1. A question that arise and continues my idea in point 4 is if there are differences in terms of results among the four analyzed countries comprised in the study. This is another point which will raise the interest on the study, could develop the comments on results and finally make them much more interesting and debatable from the geographical point of view and for national policies implications.

 

Response.

We already respond to this comment that QARDL approach consider the cross sectional dependance while presenting the panel results. This is the limitaion of this work that future works can conduct country specific analysis.

 

 

  1. Conclusions and policy implications chapter might envisage also discussing limitations (methodological, territorial etc.) and possible or needed completions / follow up directions of this study. Some of the sentences in the first paragraph of conclusions should be also found / or may be moved to methodological aspects “quarterly data from 1980Q1 to 1970Q4 are analyzed…..”. Methodology should anyway be completed with explanations on basic indicators available on the four different countries for the aggregated indicators further integrated in the analysis, on the type of data and on their availability in terms of time series etc.

 

Response.

In future prospects to further investigate the effects of GLO and eco-innovations on environmental degradation, future studies can expand to include additional groups of emerging nations. Quantile-to-quantile regression can potentially be used in the future to conduct country-specific analysis. Moreover, the country specific analysis would also give some interesting findings to these south Asian countries.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The last part of the article requires a significant change. Simply put, the conclusions are disappointing. It is not enough to use mathematical formulas to conduct research. Mathematical formulas are something auxiliary. The authors write, and I quote: "A few novel insights on developing nations are presented in this study. First, these countries still use a very high share of fossil fuels in their manufacturing sectors, suggesting that GDP may be more ecologically friendly. Because of this, it is imperative for these nations to investigate renewable energy options. Second, GLO contributes to pollution because of the way it affects economies and trade patterns." Well, with all due respect to the research authors who worked hard to write this text. These are not innovative observations. It has been known for years. For example, in the EU "plan 55" was created, and therefore an extremely wide energy transformation. If the authors had reached deeper into the Euro-Atlantic literature, they would have avoided such formulations. It leads me to the conclusion that literature study still need to be deepened. Please analyze world literature very thoroughly, not only regional literature, and then confront your research with existing theories. Please answer to the question: what theories the research supports and which it negates. In summary, the article needs a very thorough revision.

Author Response

Dear esteemed reviewer, Thank you for your important concern. Now the last part is revised thoroughly. Please see.

The research findings offer some useful policy recommendations for sustainable development. As we can see from the empirical findings, South Asian countries' environmental condition is not improving at a rate that is sustainable. The fact that these countries rely heavily on energy derived from fossil fuels could be the cause. India is one of the economies with the highest global emissions, according to the most recent BP study. More initiatives utilizing renewable energy sources need to be funded by these economies. By examining the research findings, we can create policy options for the various quantiles. We have seen that the turnaround points of EKCs are smaller at the low GDP quantiles than they are at the higher quantiles. Governments should implement a variety of legislative changes to enhance environmental quality. These economies have the capacity to create various initiatives based on the concept of green development. These governments must make investments in renewable energy projects to support the process of green development and meet the rising energy demand. The government should support businesses in adopting clean manufacturing techniques, and it's crucial to offer incentives for businesses to use green energy practices. A national awareness program encouraging people to live less resource-intensive lifestyles should also be launched by the government. The use of social media and mass media can assist in achieving the intended results. The national education curriculum needs to be revised, which is another crucial stage. It is crucial to cover a variety of subjects connected to how using renewable energy is good for the environment. This action will start a household-level learning process.

 

Our analysis also shows that globalization is having a beneficial impact on emissions levels. Globalization is currently having a beneficial impact on economic growth. By encouraging market efficiency, it reduces income inequality. In order to reduce the negative effects of globalization, governments must impose strict regulations and policies on foreign companies. It is not possible to stop the process of globalization in any country. Additionally, it's critical to separate the commercial, political, and social aspects of globalization. The next step is to determine which aspect of globalization is more closely related to carbon pollution. Following that, the analysis will be used to formulate the best strategy to achieve the goal.

Furthermore, through the three factors of income, size, and composition, globalization is causing a surge in CO2 emissions. Finding out which of these three channels has the strongest relationship with CO2 is a crucial job. The policy consequence for the EKC hypothesis is that if CO2 is rising through the income channel, it is more appropriate to concentrate on the income aspect of globalization. The economies must switch to cleaner production methods if CO2 levels rise because of scale and composition impacts. Incentives for businesses to use ecologically friendly technologies, such as tax exemptions or subsidies, are crucial.

 

Another significant finding from our research is the contribution of eco-innovation to the improvement of environmental quality. The development of investment strategies in environmentally friendly innovations is a task for policymakers. The government should also start new initiatives and support the study and creation of environmentally friendly technologies. In this respect, the government should start fresh initiatives with the assistance of business. To address the problem of environmental degradation, it is also crucial to promote new and diverse sources of clean energy at the household and commercial levels.

In prospects to further investigate the effects of GLO and eco-innovations on environmental degradation, future studies can expand to include additional groups of emerging nations. Quantile-to-quantile regression can potentially be used in the future to conduct country-specific analysis.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of the day 22.02.2023

The author has made corrections, but there are still some shortcomings in the text that require correction.

Comments:

Line 83 No paragraph indentation. The text is still blue.

Patterns on line 183 and 189.

The formulas contain indexes p, q and q4. Indices p and q are explained in the text, but q4 is not explained. Why does the q4 index occur?

In the formula Yt, the index β0 should be italic as in the formula below.

Linie 185 indexes p, q should be italic.

Linie 186 represents??S space is missing.

In Table 3 is lnCO2t should lnCO2t  and is lnGDP2t should lnGDP2t It should be corrected so that the markings are the same throughout the text.

The authors write that in table 2 anmd 4 they have unified the font in the tables. In tables 2 and 4 there is a different font (probably Ariel) than in tables 1 and 3. It should be corrected.

Still the graphic design in tables 3 and 4 is not corrected. Note applies to the bottom of the table (with explanation of significance). It is correct in table 5.

Line 274, 287 The abbreviation EKC should be behind the name. Just like in line 16 and 89. Please, check the record throughout the work.

Kind regards

Author Response

The author has made corrections, but there are still some shortcomings in the text that require correction.

Comments:

Line 83 No paragraph indentation. The text is still blue.

Patterns on line 183 and 189.

Dear esteemed reviewer, thank you for your patience. Now these corrections are made.

The formulas contain indexes p, q and q4. Indices p and q are explained in the text, but q4 is not explained. Why does the q4 index occur?

Dear Reviewer, sorry for the inconvenience. 4 is removed with q.

In the formula Yt, the index β0 should be italic as in the formula below.

Linie 185 indexes p, q should be italic.

Linie 186 represents??S space is missing.

In Table 3 is lnCO2t should lnCO2t  and is lnGDP2t should lnGDP2t It should be corrected so that the markings are the same throughout the text.

These corrections are made now with blue font.

The authors write that in table 2 anmd 4 they have unified the font in the tables. In tables 2 and 4 there is a different font (probably Ariel) than in tables 1 and 3. It should be corrected.

Now the all fonts are in same form.

Still the graphic design in tables 3 and 4 is not corrected. Note applies to the bottom of the table (with explanation of significance). It is correct in table 5.

Thank you for highlighting it. Now the explanation is in bottom.

Line 274, 287 The abbreviation EKC should be behind the name. Just like in line 16 and 89. Please, check the record throughout the work.

Thank you sir, now the acronyms are after the proper word.

Kind regards

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Although the authors have amended their manuscript to an extent based on the report received from the reviewers, the authors should also be careful in incorporating all the suggestions.

For example, a reviewer has suggested incorporating the following relevant citations in context to south Asia's power usage and policy in the revised manuscript, which is still missing in the revised manuscript.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2019.02.112
https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0117098

The authors are, therefore, advised to ensure that all suggestions are incorporated in the revised manuscript. 

Author Response

Although the authors have amended their manuscript to an extent based on the report received from the reviewers, the authors should also be careful in incorporating all the suggestions.

For example, a reviewer has suggested incorporating the following relevant citations in context to south Asia's power usage and policy in the revised manuscript, which is still missing in the revised manuscript.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2019.02.112
https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0117098

Dear esteemed reviewer, sorry for the inconvenience, now these studies are also included.

The authors are, therefore, advised to ensure that all suggestions are incorporated in the revised manuscript. 

Thank you

 

Reviewer 6 Report

The article entitled

How economic growth contributes to CO2 emissions in the presence of globalization and eco-innovations in South Asian countries?

is an improved version of the first one but which still missed major changes pointed out in the previous report which should be revised by the authors.

Please revise previous comments and suggestions considering:

1.       Study’s hypotheses / research questions – they were still not formulated and should be derived from existing literature review, in concordance with previous studies or official reports and related to what this research would like to discover (please read point 1 in previous report)

2.       Please present which are the major sources of CO2 in the analysed region/countries and their evolving trends as related to economic growth and eco-innovations in the studied countries. The article added some data on electricity consumption which is undoubtedly one of the major sources of CO2 emissions but not the only one. What about heating systems, transport…etc. Please resume and restructure the background, context and rationale which determines the  necessity of the study (please read point 2 in previous report)

3.       Please also refer to points 3-8 in the previous report as like in the case of points 1-2 the changes brought are not in accordance with the consistent changes demanded by the previous report.

Author Response

Please revise previous comments and suggestions considering:

  1. Study’s hypotheses / research questions – they were still not formulated and should be derived from existing literature review, in concordance with previous studies or official reports and related to what this research would like to discover (please read point 1 in previous report)

Dear esteemed reviewer, thank you for your patience. Now the introduction part is thoroughly revised to add the objectives of this work.

  1. Please present which are the major sources of CO2 in the analysed region/countries and their evolving trends as related to economic growth and eco-innovations in the studied countries. The article added some data on electricity consumption which is undoubtedly one of the major sources of CO2 emissions but not the only one. What about heating systems, transport…etc. Please resume and restructure the background, context and rationale which determines the  necessity of the study (please read point 2 in previous report)

Now the evolving trends of the South Asian countries are included regarding the GDP, CO2, and other related information.

  1. Please also refer to points 3-8 in the previous report as like in the case of points 1-2 the changes brought are not in accordance with the consistent changes demanded by the previous report.

Thank you for your suggestion. Now the literature part is in subheadings for the proper structure.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

No comments

Author Response

Thank you. 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

No further suggestion. 

Author Response

Thank you

 

Reviewer 6 Report

The third version of the article entitled:

How economic growth contributes to CO2 emissions in the presence of globalization and eco-innovations in South Asian countries?

is an improved version which better complies with publication standards for the World journal.

Consistent adequate parts were added in introduction, literature review as well as in the chapter dedicated to Conclusion and policy implications.

The reader could also read the general objectives of the study. Please also refer to them if accomplished or not and which are the main findings as connected to them in the last part of your study.

Regarding the form of the article I suggest the authors to revise the writing and numbering of bibliographic references.

The reference Aziz et al., 2021 is not numbered in the body text of the paper (it appears three times) and could not be found at the end on the list of References.

Other references are also not numbered and numbers should also be revised in this context (see lines 28, 30, 41….101….etc.)

After these last addings and form corrections (please double check) I recommend publication of this article in World journal.

Author Response

The third version of the article entitled:

How economic growth contributes to CO2 emissions in the presence of globalization and eco-innovations in South Asian countries?

is an improved version which better complies with publication standards for the World journal.

Consistent adequate parts were added in introduction, literature review as well as in the chapter dedicated to Conclusion and policy implications.

The reader could also read the general objectives of the study. Please also refer to them if accomplished or not and which are the main findings as connected to them in the last part of your study.

Dear esteemed reviewer, Thank you for your appreciation.

Regarding the form of the article I suggest the authors to revise the writing and numbering of bibliographic references.

The reference Aziz et al., 2021 is not numbered in the body text of the paper (it appears three times) and could not be found at the end on the list of References.

Other references are also not numbered and numbers should also be revised in this context (see lines 28, 30, 41….101….etc.)

After these last addings and form corrections (please double check) I recommend publication of this article in World journal.

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Now the whole document is proofread and all references are corrected.