Fiscal Decentralization, Local Government Behavior, and Macroeconomic Effects of Environmental Policy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper has good publishing potential because the research topic is interesting and applicable to policy. But unfortunately, still, it is not in the condition that it could be accepted for publication after revisions. The authors are suggested to improve it and submit it again.

·         Research paper needs more references to support all the claims.

·         Authors can reduce the empirical presentation. They should minimize the mathematical presentation and describe only necessary equations in the framework section.

·         Authors should further elaborate the need for project.  

·         Summarize the literature review in a table, with columns specifying: authors, source, year, the model used, objective, and results.

·         Discussion section should be added separately after the results.

·         Include the way forwards and shortcomings in the end of article.  

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate you for the insightful and constructive comments on our paper. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article „Fiscal decentralization, local government behavior and macroeconomic effects of environmental policy” presents a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) of environment policy for multi-level governments and studies the impact of fiscal decentralization on the environmental policy in China. The topic of the article is mainly related to economics sciences.

The title of the article corresponds to its content. The abstract and keywords also match the content of the article. The abstract outlines the contribution of the paper (the research design, the methods and procedures employed, the main outcomes and results). This part of the article includes key findings and is an appropriate length.

The purpose of the article is clearly stated. The introduction is effective, clear and well organized. This section introduce and put into perspective what follows. A gap in knowledge is identified. However, in the Introduction section (lines 98-108), the authors have presented their conclusions. In my opinion, conclusions should not be drawn in this section of the article.

The scope and manner of using the literature on the subject is objectionable. The scope of the cited literature should be expanded, especially since only 3 articles are from the years 2017-2021.

The general structure of the reviewed article is correct. The order of the individual subsections and the content presented in them are also correct. The research methods used by the authors are appropriate.

I rate positively the publication content (placing the problem in the right context) and the formal correctness (formulas, algorithms). But the authors did not formulate research questions or hypotheses, which decreases the scientific value of the article.

Stages of description, analysis and interpretation are properly carried out. Illustrative material is logically related to the article. The figures and tables are appropriate and properly show the data. However, I suggest that the table formats should be reconsidered and changed. Currently, most tables are unnecessarily stretched. In my opinion, rearranging the tables would improve legibility and aesthetics.

Conclusion clearly presents the research findings and recommendations. The conclusions are supported by research results. The assumptions formulated for the purpose of work have been implemented. The formulated conclusions are important, although the article does not directly bring new knowledge to science. But the conclusion section should be developed and indicate advantages, limitations and possible applications. The conclusions have not been compared with the publications of other authors.

The language of the article corresponds to the correctness criteria used in scientific statements. The language is clear. But I do not feel an expert in assessing the language quality of the article. However, I would suggest avoiding phrases like "we think", "we argue", etc. In my opinion, it is better to use impersonal style in scientific articles. Editorially, the article needs to be improved. All blank lines must be deleted (lines: 11, 27, 32, 116, etc., 303, 313, 315, 321, etc.). The bibliography has not been prepared in accordance with the publisher's guidelines. Some carelessness in the preparation of the list of references is evident. I suggest having the manuscript proof read and edited before submitting.

The article meets the requirements of this type of publication. The research methods used may be of interest to other researchers and with appropriate modification can be used for further research. A major problem is the lack of reference to the subject of the journal. Therefore the article is only indirectly included in the Sustainability.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate you for the insightful and constructive comments on our paper. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I have a few suggestions:

1. The title is too general and vague, it does not present the essence of the original research of the authors. Make it more compelling and in accordance with what it is original in your paper in order to distinguish it from other papers. 

2. Abstract. The word With is in bold, it should be regular. Avoid abbreviations in the abstract. The abstract should include the methodology and the results of the research. Please restructure it and keep general ideas for the introduction. The abstract should present the main objectives of the research, the method, the findings and what is the novelty of your research. 

3. The authors should add a Literature review section. The introduction introduces the reader into the topic but it is not the same with a Literature review section. You should move part of the introduction and add more references for the Literature review section. 

4. I would keep the general headings for a scientific paper in order to ensure comparability. So, I suggest the authors to add Methodology, Results, Discussions as headings and keep their former headings as sub-headings. It is just a suggestion, not mandatory but ensures a universal format for research papers. 

5. After introducing the abbreviations, use only them not the entire structure. You keep repeating the meaning of the abbreviation. For example, in conclusion, line 416. 

6. In Conclusions, you should better highlight the limitations of your study and also future research directions. 

7. More references should be added, especially from 2020-2022 and you should add them in the added Literature review section (and maybe in the Conclusion or the Discussion section if you add it). Also, even if it is about formatting, it seems that you do not respect the guidelines for formatting the references. 

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate you for the insightful and constructive comments on our paper. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have incorporated my all comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors of the article „Fiscal decentralization, local government behavior and macroeconomic effects of environmental policy” have made the following changes to the content of the article as recommended in my review, including:

- conclusions have been removed from the Introduction section,

- literature review has been supplemented by newer articles,

- the whole article was checked and improved,

- tables have been reformatted,

- the Conclusion section was developed and indicated advantages and limitations,

- all blank lines have been removed and list of references has been reformated.

The authors did not decide to formulate research questions or hypotheses. Moreover, the authors did not change the style of the text as impersonal, although they accepted my comment in the reply to the review (point 6). The changes made have increased the scientific value of the article. In summary, the article meets the minimum requirements for this type of publication. In my opinion the paper will not attract a wide readership and be of interest only to a limited number of people. A major problem is still the lack of reference to the subject of the journal. Therefore the article is only indirectly included in the Sustainability.

Reviewer 3 Report

I am satisfied by all the changes done to improve the paper. Congrats for your work.