Producer Services Agglomeration and Carbon Emission Reduction—An Empirical Test Based on Panel Data from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research work deal with the empirical study to test and find the effect of producer service agglomeration process on the carbon emission reduction and other factors. Interesting to see how the researchers used temporal and spatial differentiations to get the good results.

There are various following critical concerns, which are required to correct and improve.

1.The title of the article is representing the context and research study. However, it can be improved. Also, why not to add China in the Title?

2.I recommend to change the structure of the Abstract: No need to state all the finding results in the abstract instead these must be the part of Results and Findings Section. Add background, problem statement, need of research, method used, experiments, analysis, and at the end just give conclusive findings.

3.At the end of Section 01, it is recommended to add the structure of the manuscript e.g., Section 02 is about…, Section 03…., and so on.

4.Literature is not clearly represented related to the main context of the research study. You did not refer any work related to the proposed model. One more thing, no any source or base article’s reference is discussed and year wise evolution of the work from 2010 to 2019 (last decade) is also necessary. Overall, main and concise contribution is required to discuss (What is new, addition, or extension in your proposed work?)

5.There are various formatting and grammatical errors as following.

5.1. Equation 09 is no aligned, better to make its font size smaller.

5.2. The notation should be given before equations or model formulation.

5.3. What is this IPAT model? Acronyms are also required to be given.

5.4. There must be a space between statement and citation bracket.

5.5. Line 212, 221, there must be space between bullet and starting statement.

5.6. Use full Collin: Line 189 and Line 221.

5.7. Line 248, there must be comma after and, Correct throughout manuscript.

6.The data is not mentioned or the average data may be given in the Appendix.

7.Conclusion should also include future extensions and managerial insights.

8.Overall, the research is showing a good sign with empirical test results of the producer service agglomeration in China to have a positive impact on carbon emission reduction: A positive environmental effect from industrial development.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

REVISE INSTRUCTIONS

Manuscript ID: Sustainability -1588091

Title: Producer Services agglomeration and Carbon Emission Reduction--Empirical test based on inter-provincial panel data

Dear reviewer，

We are thankful for the valuable suggestions from the reviewer. Based on comments and suggestions, we have carefully modified the manuscript. Now, the paper is revised as follows. The original comments are in italics.

The research work deal with the empirical study to test and find the effect of producer service agglomeration process on the carbon emission reduction and other factors. Interesting to see how the researchers used temporal and spatial differentiations to get the good results. There are various following critical concerns, which are required to correct and improve.

1. The title of the article is representing the context and research study. However, it can be improved. Also, why not to add China in the Title?

Reply:

Thank you very much for the guidance of the reviewers. The research area of this article is a provincial-level administrative unit in China, and it should indeed be reflected in the title. Therefore, we have revised the title of the paper to add China. For the details, please refer to lines 2-3 on Page 1.

2. I recommend to change the structure of the Abstract: No need to state all the finding results in the abstract instead these must be the part of Results and Findings Section. Add background, problem statement, need of research, method used, experiments, analysis, and at the end just give conclusive findings.

Reply:

The opinions of the reviewer are very professional and targeted. Thanks to the reviewer for their guidance on the writing of the abstract. According to the requirements, we have completely revised and improved the abstract, and added the research background, problem elaboration, research needs, research methods, analysis process, and general conclusions. We hope that by revising the abstract, we can provide the reader with the main content and conclusions of the paper concisely and clearly. For the details, please refer to lines 10-27 on Page 1.

3. At the end of Section 01, it is recommended to add the structure of the manuscript e.g., Section 02 is about…, Section 03…., and so on.

Reply:

As the reviewer said, a detailed description of manuscript structure is necessary after the first part. According to your comments, the description of manuscript structure is added after the first part. For the details, please refer to lines 56-61 on Page 2.

4. Literature is not clearly represented related to the main context of the research study. You did not refer any work related to the proposed model. One more thing, no any source or base article’s reference is discussed and year wise evolution of the work from 2010 to 2019 (last decade) is also necessary. Overall, main and concise contribution is required to discuss (What is new, addition, or extension in your proposed work?)

Reply:

Many thanks to the reviewer for comments and suggestions for revision. The literature review is a very important part of the thesis, especially the literature in recent years, it is very important for the overall grasp of the current research status and progress. At the same time, literature review helps to carry out innovative research in terms of ideas, structure, content, etc. Therefore, the literature review has been thoroughly revised and refined in accordance with the comments of the reviewers, with particular attention to recent and recent research findings.The detailed modifications can be seen in lines 62-152 on page 2-4.

At the same time, after the literature review, we also discussed the academic contribution of this paper. For the details, please refer to lines 153-181 on Page 4.

5. There are various formatting and grammatical errors as following.

5.1.    Equation 09 is no aligned, better to make its font size smaller.

5.2.    The notation should be given before equations or model formulation.

5.3.    What is this IPAT model? Acronyms are also required to be given.

5.4.    There must be a space between statement and citation bracket.

5.5.    Line 212, 221, there must be space between bullet and starting statement.

5.6.    Use full Collin: Line 189 and Line 221.

5.7.    Line 248, there must be comma after and, Correct throughout manuscript.

Reply:

Regarding the first question, we adjusted the format of the formula and adjusted the font size. Please refer to lines 349 on Page 8.

Regarding the second question, we adjusted the position of the notation to improve the normativeness of the article. Please refer to lines 312-349 on Page 7-8.

Regarding the third question, we have added an explanation of the IPAT model to the article. Please refer to lines 313 on Page 7.

Regarding the fourth question, we have carefully revised the entire article, and added a space between statement and citation bracket.

Regarding the fifth question, we have also made detailed revisions. The carefulness and seriousness of the reviewer are admirable. Please refer to lines 374 and 383 on Page 9.

Regarding the sixth question, We have made corrections. Please refer to lines 351 and 383 on Page 8 and 9.

Regarding the seventh question, We have made corrections. Please refer to lines 410 on Page 9.

6. The data is not mentioned or the average data may be given in the Appendix.

Reply:

Thank you for the comments. Most of the data in the paper has been presented in the form of graphs, and the unmentioned data will be considered in the appendix in the follow-up research.

7. Conclusion should also include future extensions and managerial insights.

Reply:

According to your comments, We have revised the conclusion section of the article by adding future extensions and managerial insights. For the details, please refer to lines 565-625 on Page 15-16.

8. Overall, the research is showing a good sign with empirical test results of the producer service agglomeration in China to have a positive impact on carbon emission reduction: A positive environmental effect from industrial development.

Reply: We would like to thank the reviewer for the comments. We will continue to improve the quality of the paper based on your comments.

Finally, we carefully checked and proofread the language of the entire article and made great improvements. Besides, to strengthen the rationality and validity of the language grammar and improve the language quality, we invited an English-speaking scholar to carefully proofread and modify the manuscript.

We wish to thank you again in helping us to improve the quality of this paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The research on which the paper is based has been designed in a good manner. The results are clearly presented and appropriately analyzed.  There are only a few suggestions:

1. The paper needs to be proofread.
2. The term ‘discussions’ should be removed from section 6, i.e., conclusions, which is an important section and mainly provides the reader with a sense of closure on the topic. The findings have been enough discussed in sections 4 & 5. Instead, you can use the term ‘future directions’ and improve the section to this end.
3. The caption of figure 2 must be put under the figure.
4. The references must be formatted according to the journal instructions.  

Author Response

REVISE INSTRUCTIONS

Manuscript ID: Sustainability -1588091

Title: Producer Services agglomeration and Carbon Emission Reduction--Empirical test based on inter-provincial panel data

Dear reviewer，

We are thankful for the valuable suggestions from the reviewer. Based on comments and suggestions, we have carefully modified the manuscript. Now, the paper is revised as follows. The original comments are in italics.

The research on which the paper is based has been designed in a good manner. The results are clearly presented and appropriately analyzed.

1. The paper needs to be proofread.

Reply: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We carefully checked and proofread the language of the entire article and made great improvements.

2. The term ‘discussions’ should be removed from section 6, i.e., conclusions, which is an important section and mainly provides the reader with a sense of closure on the topic. The findings have been enough discussed in sections 4 & 5. Instead, you can use the term ‘future directions’ and improve the section to this end.

Reply: Your suggested revisions are very helpful to us. According to your opinion, we removed the term discussions. At the same time, on the basis of in-depth thinking, we have added the future directions. Finally, we have also made detailed modifications and improvements to the corresponding content. Please refer to line 602-625 on Page 16.

3. The caption of figure 2 must be put under the figure.

Reply: We would like to thank the reviewer for the comments. Based on your comments, we have adjusted the position of the title of Figure 2. Please refer to line 431 on Page 10.

4. The references must be formatted according to the journal instructions.

Reply: Thanks to the reviewer for the reminder that the format of the references is very important. We have adjusted and revised the reference format of the article according to the format requirements of the journal to meet the requirements of the journal.

Finally, we carefully checked and proofread the language of the entire article and made great improvements.

We wish to thank you again in helping us to improve the quality of this paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you dear authors for the paper. I have gone through the paper and my comments are given below:

It is necessary to rewrite the abstract based on structure. 

What is the motivation of the paper?

I didn't get any research questions and research goals.

It is necessary to highlight the research gap. 

Theoretical discussion is very limited. 

There is no specific literature review. 

Methodology part is necessary to describe about sample selection criteria and variable measurement

techniques. 

Results analysis part is required to support prior results. 

Rearrange the contributions.

Thank you

Author Response

REVISE INSTRUCTIONS

Manuscript ID: Sustainability -1588091

Title: Producer Services agglomeration and Carbon Emission Reduction--Empirical test based on inter-provincial panel data

Dear reviewer，

We are thankful for the valuable suggestions from the reviewer. Based on comments and suggestions, we have carefully modified the manuscript. Now, the paper is revised as follows. The original comments are in italics.

1. It is necessary to rewrite the abstract based on structure

Reply:

Thanks to the reviewer for guidance on the writing of the abstract. According to the structure, we have completely revised and improved the abstract, and added the research background, problem elaboration, research needs, research methods, analysis process, and general conclusions. We hope that by revising the abstract, we can provide the reader with the main content and conclusions of the paper concisely and clearly. For the details, please refer to lines 10-27 on Page 1.

2. What is the motivation of the paper?

Reply:

The questions raised by the reviewer are very important. Before starting to write, it is first necessary to clarify the purpose and motivation. Our motivation for writing this article is mainly to study two aspects. The first aspect is to use China as a research area to systematically analyze the spatiotemporal evolution characteristics and future development trends of producer services; the second aspect is to construct Panel data to discuss the impact of producer service agglomeration on carbon emissions. Regarding the motivation for writing the article, we also mentioned it in some paragraphs of the article. For the details, please refer to lines 153-181 on Page 4.

3. I didn't get any research questions and research goals

Reply: Thanks for your constructive questions. The research question and goals are critical to the entire article. Our research question revolves around the carbon emission effect of agglomeration of producer services. For example, taking China as the research area, what is the current status of the development of producer services? What are the temporal and spatial evolution characteristics of the producer service industry? And is there a clustering trend in space? And, does the agglomeration of producer services have an impact on carbon emissions, and what is the specific mechanism? Further, how is the spatiotemporal heterogeneity and robustness of the impact of producer services on carbon emissions? These are the research questions of this paper.

For the research objectives, this paper mainly hopes to analyze the development status of China’s producer service industry and empirically test the impact of producer service industry agglomeration on carbon emissions, so as to provide reference for industrial structure optimization and green and low-carbon development.

In response to the comments of reviewers, we have supplemented and adjusted relevant content in the text to highlight its importance. For the details, please refer to lines 48-55 on Page 2, and lines 182-246 on page5.

4. It is necessary to highlight the research gap.

Reply:

According to the literature review, the existing research has provided some references to investigate the impact of producer service industry agglomeration on carbon emissions in China; however, there is still room for further study. Therefore, it is necessary to shed light on research gaps. According to your comments, we revised the research gap section. For the details, please refer to lines 49-56 on Page 2, and lines 153-181 on page4.

5. Theoretical discussion is very limited.

Reply:

Thank you for your valuable comments. As the reviewer said, theoretical discussion is very important and fundamental to the entire article. According to your comments, we have supplemented the theoretical discussion part of the article and made modifications to the previous content. Please see lines 182-246 on page 4-5.

6. There is no specific literature review.

Reply:

Many thanks to the reviewer for comments and suggestions for revision. The literature review is a very important part of the thesis, especially the literature in recent years, it is very important for the overall grasp of the current research status and progress. At the same time, literature review helps to carry out innovative research in terms of ideas, structure, content, etc. Therefore, the literature review has been thoroughly revised and refined in accordance with the comments of the reviewers, with particular attention to recent and recent research findings. The detailed modifications can be seen in lines 63-152 on page 2-3.

7. Methodology part is necessary to describe about sample selection criteria and variable measurement techniques.

Reply:

Your comments are very targeted. Based on your comments, we have revised the previous content and added sample selection criteria. and variable measurement descriptions. Regarding variable measurement technology, it mainly focuses on methods and data sources, and explains it through calculation formulas. The detailed modifications can be seen in lines 253-402 on page 6-9. Please refer to the Methods and Data Sources section for detailed modifications.

8. Results analysis part is required to support prior results.

Reply:

Based on your valuable comments, we have revised this section so that the analysis of the results can better support the previous research results. Please see lines 566-625 on page 15-16.

9. Rearrange the contributions

Reply:

Based on your comments and the contributions of the authors to the paper, we have revised this part of the content. Please see lines 627-630 on page 16.

Finally, we carefully checked and proofread the language of the entire article and made great improvements.

We wish to thank you again in helping us to improve the quality of this paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, I have no further reviews because the manuscript has been improved well according to my suggestions.

Thanks

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the revision of the paper. Most of my comments are taken into consideration. Now the paper is looking well. 

I just like to request again checking and reviewing the incremental contributions of the paper based on theory and practices. This is most novelty paper of a research.