Research on the Impact Factors of Green Economy of China—From the Perspective of System and Foreign Direct Investment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Table 2: it is not in the text

Page 4, line 170-173. Please, explain why the technology gap ... is proportional to t.diffusion rate

page 11, lines 426 ... why after the introduction of z, FDI inhibits ...?

 

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions and please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I suggest to clarify the keywords "System", "Regulating effect", which are too common.

line26-47 and the "Introduction" part dominated by a set of declarative statements that talk about everything but lack clarity and problem definition. It is recommended to focus on identifying the problem and demonstrating its level of investigation in the literature. The introduction is too long and should be shortened. 

Please review the instructions to the authors and align the article according to the requirements provided. The text presented would be good at highlighting or otherwise structuring the main statements, the main results, because the text is difficult to read, dominated by long sentences.

Despite the fact that the text also mentions data for 2019 and 2020, the analysis is based on data from 2007-2016, which is five years ago, although the study emphasizes the pandemic and post-pandemic period. 

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions and please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

After reading the manuscript “Economic recovery and green development in the post epidemic Era – Research on the impact of system and FDI on green total factor productivity”, I highlight next major remarks:

• The connection between the topic examined and the coronavirus pandemic is weak because the data of the study cover from 2007 to 2016. Moreover, the research is focused on the Chinese context. As a result, the title of the manuscript should be reformulation to consider both points.
• As the Section 1 also encompasses literature review, it should be strengthened to firstly characterize accurately the concepts of “green total factor productivity” and “economic green recovery” to be later correlated with “foreign direct investment”. Contributions mentioned in lines 64 to 142 merely enumerate distinct studies rather than identifying gaps that underpin the development of the study. Hence, literature review should span a larger number of studies and be focused on determining gaps in knowledge. Theoretical and practical implications of the research should be summarized in the first section that aims at “selling” the work to readers. Section 2 is descriptive in nature, maybe some few arguments could serve to improve the previous section.
• A general overview of the entire methodology to allow for the replicability of the study is necessary. This approach also would help to associate all statistical methods and tests used. Grounds to support the econometric model were not revealed. Lines 257-262 are confusing and consequently, some variables presented on equations 1 to 3 were not defined. Reasons to constrain the study from 2007 to 2016 were not disclosed beyond data availability. Criteria to define the indexes of Table A1 and control variables are unknown. What is the System (z) referred in line 347?
• The 12 models deemed in Section 4 should have been previously introduced in the methodology rather than the scarce details given herein. It is very unclear the liaison between statistical results presented and arguments discussed, i.e. the verification of the “pollution paradise” hypothesis (lines 414-415).
• Section 5 is based on author´s views instead of scientific soundness. Hence, it is arbitrary and should be fully removed.
• The long section 6 consists of a summary of the study, but key conclusions and implications derived from findings are lacking. It should be fully reformulated by also outlining limitations encountered and future lines of research.
• Miscellaneous comments. Appendix 1 is unnecessary, it should be incorporated into the body of the article. Format and style of Table A1 seem unsuitable to present indices. All equations / mathematical expressions must be numbered. The literature review which comprises 34 references is scant. Poor visualization of Figure 1. Edition of table 1 is necessary. Sources of figures and tables must be provided. English grammar and style should be significantly enhanced. Abbreviations must be fully described at first appearance. With the purpose of creating a degree of continuity with the editorial line of the journal, the number of references to articles published on Sustainability should be increased. None were nowadays found.

 

Diverse statistical methods substantiate a research whose theoretical background and methodology were not accurately determined and properly correlated to those tests. As a consequence, the results provided do not enable to soundly examine the proposed topic. The structure of the manuscript is highly confusing and entangled. Sections should be rewritten to address the specific content required to introduction, literature review, methods and results by avoiding the overlapping between them. Contributions in the field should be clearly highlighted. On the whole, a resubmission is recommended to handle all remarks.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions and please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

After reading the new version of the manuscript “Economic recovery and green development in the post epidemic Era – Research on the impact of system and FDI on green total factor productivity”, I highlight next major remarks still unaddressed:

• The title of the manuscript is misleading since the connection between the topic examined and the coronavirus pandemic is weak. Actually, the study only covers data from 2007 to 2016. Furthermore, the work is based on the Chinese context.
• The concept of “green economy” was not defined. Despite the descriptive Section 2, linkage between “green economy” and “foreign direct investment” was not accurately determined either. Literature review did not emphasize gaps that substantiate the need and relevancy of the analysis.
• A general overview of the entire methodology was not yet provided. Grounds to support the econometric model were not revealed. Regional characteristics that do not change with time and random interferences were not disclosed. The selection of control variables upon on literature review is unclear.
• Grounds to set the 12 models deemed in Section 4 were not displayed. It is very vague the liaison between statistical results presented and arguments discussed. In this vein, the correlation between those findings and the post-pandemic scenario outlined in Section 5 lacks scientific soundness.
• Miscellaneous comments. Figure 2 corresponds more to a table than a box. Indeed, is it necessary? Sources of figures and tables must be provided, i.e. Figure 1. Abbreviations must be fully described at first appearance, i.e. FDI was used in the title of the paper.

Although diverse statistical methods were employed, the main flaw of the study is the unclear correlation between a set of data from 2007 to 2016 and the post-epidemic scenario that involves economic recovery and green development. Theoretical and methodological background should be highly enhanced.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

• No changes were found in Sections 5 and 6. Both should be enhanced.
• Any reference to post-epidemic era should be removed because they are arbitrary since data from 2007 to 2016 are not correlated at all to the current pandemic. Findings and conclusions are thus unliked to coronavirus.
• All figures and tables are lacking in the submitted version.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx