Evaluation of the Provincial Carbon Neutrality Capacity of the Middle and Lower Yellow River Basin based on the Entropy Weight Matter-Element Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents interesting results.

However, there are some issues to clarify in order for the manuscript to be ready for publication.

There are many mistakes, generally a final reading of the work is done before submitting it to a journal.

It is recommended to separate the discussion from the conclusions, so that the ideas are concrete and objective.

References should be checked. There are lines of text that must be supported with current references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments to the Author

General Comment

I commend the author for presenting this research work titled “Evaluation of the Provincial Carbon Neutrality Capacity of the 2 Middle and Lower Yellow River Basin based on the Entropy 3 Weight Matter-Element Model” for review and possible publication. Although the topic is interesting, being environment research, the authors did not justify the reasons for the research currently. What major natural activities have happened that might have changed the cause of nature in the area. The authors should state clearly what motivated them to embark on the research at this time. Also, the authors should help the would-be readers to understand if the middle and Lower Yellow River Basins are locations or mere common terminology. While writing a paper for publication, authors should bear in mind that the paper if published will be read by experts, non-experts, and beginners in the field. Therefore, every presentation should be explicitly stated.

The authors should show a more convincing description of how the parameters were used in relation to the method to achieve the presented results. If not, the research results may appear like manipulated data from previous similar research work on the same topic.

The authors should use Journal acceptable and uniform reference format.

Abstract:

The authors should first present a general introduction of the research topic which captures the literature of the work. This immediately takes the reader to the key aspect of the research literature. It is usually done in one or two sentences depending on the Journal abstract size. Do well to include the aim of the research which is followed by the research method.

Linking line 17 with lines 18-20, what caused the improvement in carbon absorption observed in carbon neutrality should be mentioned, and the implication of your result in comparison with the literature.

Introduction,

Minor correction

Lines 35-40 should be split to more sentences to make the intended points clear and understandable. A compound sentence as it is now made it cumbersome to understand the key points in the sentence.

Check your reference style from line 40 downwards and compare it to that in line 28. Use a uniform referencing style

It is bad that the whole introduction contains about two references. It creates an impression that you did not review much existing literature before embarking on the research.

Materials and Method

Break lines 88 -102 into more sentences. It is unscientific and clumsy.

Figure 1 should be referenced.

It is not clear what you meant in lines 107-114. Recast please.

Are Tables 1 to 3 from your work or from the literature? It must be referenced if not your work.

Major correction

There is no place the authors explained the step by step process the method was applied to achieve the presented results.

Is it by simulation, experiment or prediction using equations? All that are presented are general statements on the method. Without presenting explicit procedure, the research will not be reproduceable and therefore, not good research if so. There should a stepwise procedure on how the parameters were applied in the equations or method to achieve the results presented in Tables 4 and 5 and others plotted.

Minor Correction

Line 128 and 138: The equation number should be properly fixed.

Line 146: Objects NOT objcts.

Line 156: …has a value, not has an value

Line 204: Do you mean research data sources?

Table 4: Reformat for clarity

Lines 277 – 283: Sentence too cumbersome to understand! Not coherent. Articulate your                                 grammar and allow it flow for easy comprehension. You can divide the sentence into two or three or find a linking word to join them.

Lines 284 -288: Consider dividing the sentence into two at least, and used a linking word to                             connect them.

Line 232 should be captioned “Results and Discussion

Line 312 should be captioned “Conclusion” only.

Line 313 – 317: What do you mean by, …this paper constructs? Sentence too lengthy. It made                              understanding of the message cumbersome. Consider dividing the sentence into three.

Lines 324 – 326: What type of adjustment are you talking about? (Positive or negative?). Do you mean, …to replace the old energy sources with the new or modern ones?                             Clarify and make it make it more understandable for readers of all cadres.

Lines 330 – 334: According to the carbon neutrality capacity levels, restriction indices, time  and region differences; it is necessary to change the mode of industrial development,                           promote the low-carbon transformation of traditional industries, develop modern                          services, and accelerate the transformation of old and new driving forces in the                          economy of the Yellow River Basin.

You must state the implication of the results you achieved in your research and how your results help in solving present and future carbon neutrality challenge.

The conclusion must compare the results with the existing literature to support the present findings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The submitted manuscript is acceptable in its current form. 

Author Response

Thanks for your response

Reviewer 4 Report

- The research paper has a fairly interesting premise and the RQ is clear. The introduction could have been more elaborate and introduced the RQ more thoroughly though.

- Although the introduction provides a good summary of the topic set out to explore, a literature review section would have been beneficial for describing the research that has already been conducted so far in  more detail and examine any remaining gaps.

- The methods are suitable and well justified, however limitations of the study should be addressed.

- The findings are a little thin and remain on the descriptive side. I would have liked more emphasis on the contributions of the paper.

- The references and citations should be rigorously added.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have substantially done the recommended corrections.

Reviewer 4 Report

-