Financial Decentralization and Environmental Pollution Research—An Empirical Test Based on Data from 279 Cities in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author/s,

 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read your paper. The paper “Financial decentralization and Environmental Pollution Research — An empirical test based on data from 279 cities in 3 China” is interesting for journal readers. Kindly take note of the following specific comments to make it better.

# Abstract should have at least one sentence per each: context and background, motivation, hypothesis, methods, results, conclusions.

# The introduction should include problem context, literature review and the hypothesis based on the gap analysis of the previously published research.

# The literature review should be more up to date.

·         https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16720-2

·         https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16651-y

# Findings and Discussion shall be enhanced with the key findings of your study, key messages to be conveyed, usefulness of your outcomes for policy makers and practitioners.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

After reading the article, as if writing a report rather than a research article, the manuscript requires significant revisions!

It seems that this article is not complete enough and must be improved.

1. The timing of the use of footnotes needs to be considered.

2. Please indicate the citation format correctly, and please follow the literature format specified by the submitted paper.

3. There are only 15 references, and there are too few references. Most of the references are domestic or Chinese articles and books, and the articles are very lack reference support from world viewpoints.

4. Please check the logic of the Introduction. Please write it according to the scientific manuscript, not the report. The last paragraph should just declare the major work of the study.

5. Although in the articles in Chapters 3 and 4, there are definitions and explanations for formula calculations, there is still a lack of literature support to explain the use of this formula.

6. In 4.1.3. Model construction: In this article, the data from 269 cities...Is it 269 or 279 cities?

7. Please improve the conclusion. The major contribution should be declared with simple, accurate, and rigorous sentences.

 

8. Too much general content. You should compare your results with others for better research integrative value.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

The manuscript presents study on the relationship between environmental pollutants from financial decentralization based on data from 279 cities in China. The impact of the behavior of local governments on environmental pollution under the financial decentralization system was analysed. Using an appropriate model, the relationship between economic development and environmental pollution was assessed. The article also presents remedial measures to control environmental pollution by optimizing the structure of financial decentralization, including the construction of financial policies for environmental management.

Although there are some works concerning the issue described in the reviewed manuscript (for instance https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228661, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.901079, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2015.08.010, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228661), I recommend the manuscript for publication because presents interesting and original view on the issue of financial decentralization and environmental pollution in China. The manuscript has been properly prepared and may be published as it is.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

this was a very interesting and robust paper. Some parts I had even to read two times to get all the information and thoughts. I was also positively surprised by the clearly defined and well supported kind of criticism. Furthermore there are some hypotheses which probably could be made more general since they do definitely not apply only for China. So, I do not have any factual comments. In the attached reviewed pdf file I just marked some words or sentences where small clarifications or changes are necessary.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author/s,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read your revised paper. 

 

# Abstract should have at least one sentence per each: context and background, motivation, hypothesis, methods, results, conclusions. 

# The literature review should be more up to date.

·         https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16720-2

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The biggest disadvantage is still in the references, please refer to the "foreign" literature in the article that should be the latest!
For citations in the article, please follow the citations of this journal.
The reference format in the article, please follow the format of this journal. Please modify the format of all references.
There doesn't seem to be much rewriting of the conclusion. Too much general content! 
Please improve the conclusion. The contribution should be with simple, clear sentences. 
It is suggested to reply to the modified content, please reply in a point-to-point manner, not just a few simple sentences, please point out the point of modification.
ex.
Line 298-304
"In China's practice of environmental protection and pollution control..... (combined with the reality of China) [24]."

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf