The Linkage Mechanism between Environment-Related Rules and Environment-Related Efficiency of Industries in China: An Analysis Based on the Adaptive Semi-Parametric Panel Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, thank you for the opportunity to read your paper. First of all, I must state that the authors of this study undoubtedly provide an interesting analysis. I read the article with enthusiasm; I have some recommendations anyway.
The article is really interesting and relevant for the journal topics mainly due to the adaptive semi-parameter model used for verifying the effects of environment-related rule on environment-related efficiency, and the threshold regression model used to determine the industry threshold effect of environment-related rule on environment-related efficiency.
The paper has many strengths and some opportunities for improvement requiring only a few revisions.
As the structure should be as follows: goal - methods - tools - results - discussion (optional), I miss the definition of the goal at the beginning of the abstract,
In my opinion, the author could at least reinforce the introduction and literature in the light of current findings. I would expect the authors to place much more emphasis on an introduction that is too general. For example, several challenges need to be addressed with regard to the sustainability of other areas of society (https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11010022; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010226), with respect sustainability in general https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X18303459).
Introduction. I did not find a goal - it must definitely be precise. This goal should be much more justified. Then, the research gaps should be indicated, which will be filled by the conducted analysis.
I suggest adding additional study limits (e.g. data availability and quality) and, if possible, specifying further research directions.
Some language checks might be necessary. In conclusion, I just want to point out, the author works with the title chapter, which could evoke the impression that the article was originally prepared as a chapter in a book publication, I recommend clarifying the terminology.
Other than that, the paper provided a good reading.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, according to your request, I have added references, stated the variable selection of the model, and added the discussion of the conclusion.
Kind regards,
Di Wang
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Strongly suggest adjusting the title of the article. It is a case study dealing with China. Since there are other options to tackle this research problem, e.g. via comparative case study (more on this in the next point), it is in my opinion very important that the title reflects its content, not to mislead the reader.
2. The article has relatively small number of references, only 20. This is to some extent understandable, since the article is heavily focused towards use of one method and is focused on China. While this can be ab strength of the article, it is nevertheless important to acknowledge for the reader the this approach odes not exist in a vacuum. Other approaches exist as well. I therefore recommend that the author takes into account at the following literature, which adds value in two important aspects. First, it shows another methodology (DEXi, multi-attribute decision making), which can allow us to answer similar research question. Secondly, it demonstrates us how to engage in comparative case studies on the topic.
The literature is:
- MILEVA BOSHKOSKA, Biljana, RONČEVIĆ, Borut, DŽAJIĆ URŠIČ, Erika. Modeling and evaluation of the possibilities of forming a regional industrial symbiosis networks. Social sciences, ISSN 2076-0760, 2018, vol. 7, iss. 1.
- FRIC, Urška, RONČEVIĆ, Borut, DŽAJIĆ URŠIČ, Erika. Role of computer software tools in industrial symbiotic networks and the examination of sociocultural factors. Environmental progress & sustainable energy, ISSN 1944-7442, 2020, vol. 39, no. 2.
- DŽAJIĆ URŠIČ, Erika. Morphogenesis of Industrial Symbiotic Networks. Berlin: Peter Lang, cop. 2020.
Additionally, I would strongly suggest the author to at least briefly mention other possible approaches. The level of engagement with existing scholarship is too low.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, according to your request, I have added literature review and references. In addition, I have elaborated the semi parametric model, please review it.
Kind regards,
Di Wang
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The introduction is without references. To correct.2. The authors mentioned chapters instead of items. To correct.
3. The cut made refers to the years 2007 to 2015. Suggest updating all the work.
4. After resubmitting to publication.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, the introduction and chapters have been revised. Thank you!
Kind regards,
Di Wang
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I ask the authors to send a file containing the suggestions made by the reviewers with the changes made.
Please send a file with the final revision because the way the revision was sent made it impossible to read many parts because they were overlapped.
Author Response
To review 1
Firstly, the chapter statement of the article is modified. Secondly, the goal of the article is added to the introduction. In addition, the language is checked.
To review2
I have changed the title and outlined the reasons for choosing the model.
To review3
Since most of the introduction is based on the existing policy analysis, appropriate references are added accordingly. Due to the availability of data, we are unable to update the data results. Please forgive me.
To Editor
Already uploaded the new manuscript which use some color highlight the part where I have made changes.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
With the changes made by my fellow reviewers and analyzing the last version sent, I understand that the article can be forwarded for publication.
