Research on China’s Carbon Emission Efficiency and Its Regional Differences
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed my comments, hence it can be considered for publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much,i hope you can communicate more in the future.
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript focuses on carbon emission efficiency and its regional differences in China. The studies on the carbon issues are always popular and attractive recently. This manuscript has been carefully reviewed by suggesting a major revision before the possible publication in Sustainability. The comments are given as follows:
1. The definition of carbon (dioxide) emission/ carbon emission efficiency should be clearer, more direct, and friendly to reader with interdisciplinary background.
2. Have the authors done a literature review on the spatial scale of carbon emissions? As far as I know, there have been a lot of these studies, which cannot be found here.
3. In Model construction and data description section, I recommend that Variables should be introduced before Data.
4. In index system, the authors choose total population rather than employed population, why?
5. What is the relations between Output indexes and External envionment variables? And, why GDP data can be treated as both output and environmental variables? Confused. Try to explain them.
6. Why the environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis is mentioned, what is the logic of this?
7. What are those mentioned “random factors”, give more details about them.
8. The English writing is still in a relatively bad quality. For example, “Based on the achievements of the above scholars, it is found that scholars have done a lot of research on carbon emission.” I have no idea what we can get from this kind of expression. More mistakes can be found in the result description part. Being more readable is one of the important criteria whether the manuscript can be accepted at the end.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
(1) keep at most four decimal places for the numbers in the text;
(2) Rewrite the conclusion part by adding more quantitive descriptions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Greetings to authors
This is an interesting topic, and definitely worth investigating. However, it should be significantly improved prior to publication. Hence, I have to reject your manuscript at this stage. I have provided a number of suggestions below. Hopefully, they can be useful for you to improve the paper.
Abstract
Please double-check the English as there are several mistakes in this section, e.g., line 14 “, to studied the carbon…”. Should be “to study…”.
Where you are reporting the results, please make a general conclusion first, and then provide details on your results. For instance, you may say the findings suggested an even or uneven distribution of carbon emission efficiency in China. This should be then followed by details on your results.
Introduction
Lines 28-30: please double-check this statement. As far as I know, the treaty was negotiated in 2015 between 196 countries, and it was only signed and came into effect in 2016. Please cite a reference directly related to this agreement and not a research paper. Please have a look at “United Nations Climate Change” (URL: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement).
A general note applicable to the entire manuscript; there are many grammar errors, e.g., “China surpassed the United States to became …”. This manuscript must be entirely proofread by a native editor prior to re-submission.
Lines 37-40: unclear! Please revise.
Lines 41-45: please provide evidence (i.e. reference) for these statements.
In my opinion, this section has failed to provide proper justification for performing this research. Please note that the novelty of your paper shall be judged in accordance with the retrospective research. Has there been any study similar to yours before in China?
Also, it is always encouraged to identify the target community of your research and state who shall be benefiting from this study.
- Literature review
In my opinion, this section has not added any value to your research, instead, it made me even more confused about the contribution of your study! Reading through the introduction, I felt that the novelty of your work lies in analysing carbon emissions in China and not mentioning anything about your methodological approach. To me, this is a contextual contribution. However, the lit review section claims that your method approach is the novel part of your study and not mentioning anything about China! So, I left wondering what your contribution actually is!
3.2.1. Data source
Please provide the references used for data retrieval. Also, why this time span? What is your justification?
- Results
Lines 201-203: what are the units for these calculated values?
Lines 207-209: how these ranges of high, medium, and low for carbon emission efficiency have been divided?
Lines 215-218: how exactly has this conclusion been reached? You have not discussed the economic development of these provinces just yet!
Lines 230-234: generally, the discussion is fairly poor. In these sentences, it is mentioned that the decline in carbon emissions “maybe China introduced 233 a series of policies to improve the efficiency of fossil energy…”. But what policies exactly? Where is your reference/evidence? How are these policies contributing to the reduction of carbon emissions? When have these policies been established? And etc. I am not convinced with how the results are presented and discussed. The same issue applies to the entire section. No rationalization, no cross-comparison or cross-validation of achieved results with other studies. Merely reported what software has been produced.
In the end, what are your recommendations for mitigating carbon emissions? We all know that carbon emissions are increasingly contributing to the exacerbation of our built and natural environments which is largely due to the increasing population. However, what we need is customised solutions for tackling this predicament!
Also, what implications does your study have to offer to the wider community, e.g., other countries? What can be taught from this research by other societies?
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The paper is interesting, and rationale is given, however, I would suggest that you reflect more on the originality and importance of your paper. In so doing, I would suggest you provide some statistics and also some discussion on the contemporary condition of environment of China. It might be a good idea to bring the environmental degradation needs into the discussion which has also been an aspect China has been emphasizing before getting into the office.
2. Contribution of the study should be explained with more details (Based on theory and methodology both).
3. The literature review is quite inclusive and comprehensive which is a good thing. Might be a good idea to relate the studies with your study and how you are adding to them. In simple and short, add some more studies during the year of 2021 and 2022. Following are the recommended studies for improving your introduction and literature section.
https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/10.1504/IJGE.2021.120871
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/09721509211039392
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960148120315536
4. Would be a good idea to explain data and methodology in detail.
5. The empirical results must be compared with existing studies.
6. Based on the suggestion in point 1, I hope you would be able to extend the conclusion section by bring in the discussion and policy implications of your research for the contemporary condition of China.
7. A good round of proof reading would be helpful to remove any typing and grammatical errors.
