Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have read the paper title Environmental Pollution, Terrorism, Mortality Rate in China,
India, Russian and Turkey”. The title of the study is pretty novel and cover the interesting area of these regions. However, the following observation should be focused and addressed properly to make the draft more qualitative.

1.    The abstract should be checked for English and flow of professional abstract case. As abstract is the face of the paper.

2.    Whole abstract to be checked for grammatical mistakes, to become very comprehensive.

3.    The authors should have restructured entire Introduction section to deliver a better deduction process from general theoretical phenomena → specific theoretical phenomenon → theoretical gaps → aim → objectives → research questions. A flow as such would make it easier for readers to understand why this study is theoretically necessary to conduct, and what questions this study intends to answer to fill in the theoretical gap. The introduction is well written however, the provision of some studies is advised, which will equip the introduction landscape and to make clear the need of this research.

4.    Introduction part have few references; it is suggested to make introduction more improved in term of references point of view. And try to imitate the latest reference from 2018 to 2021.

5.    The literature is lacking relevant relationship of variables, need more relevant studies.   Here are some of the literature from that is relevant discipline that will help strengthen the argument. Take help form the below papers.

·       http://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S281729

·       https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15105-9

·       doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.854590

6.    Methodology is well written and in current form it highly meets the standards but the author makes it complex and seem to be little confusing, however, look for areas and should be clear and to be included which will make it more eye catching.

7.    Justification of the model and why it is used, also its importance.

8.    Discussions and interpretations are well supported and validated with past findings however a revision of this part is advised to make proper flow in its written style.
The interpretation to be re-visited to capture the weakness and flow in the interpretation.

9.    Figures seems to be attractive. As it is designed based on data so the authors are requested to add the data in appendix while submitting the revision.

10.  Revisit the managerial implication and provide relational for future studies.

11. Check the style of the references in in-text as per the journal required requirements.

12. Conclusion is very short try to explore that better depict as per standard.

13. Add managerial implications.

14. Check all incited references and list of references.

 

Note: The editor in chief may decide whether the paper is accepting for publication or not. However, my opinion is that after these major incorporations the paper may be accepted for publication with the condition of proof reading by a professional or a reputed English professor. 

Author Response

Dear Reviwer

Thanks for your comments and contributions.

Please find the resubmit paper which has your suggestions. Many thanks..

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

This study is very interesting; however, it needs significant revision and modification in terms of structure.

Incorporate the following Comments and Suggestions, then resubmit

1.      Write Novality of your study

2.      Please write a historical perspective of your study in the literature review section. Critical analysis of literature review is necessary

3.      Specify the theoretical model of this study

4.      Results of some sections are presented mechanically. Cross Connection is necessary (Is your finding is similar or contradicts other studies? If so why ?)

5.      Did you test Non-Linearity of your data ? If yes, use some nonlinear test for analysis

6.      Create a policy suggestion section of the study for better readership.

7.      Write the Limitations of your study.

8.      Please write sources in each and every Figure and Table of the research paper

9.      This manuscript requires proper proofreading and grammar checking.

 

 

Specific Comments

Your work has ignored the following Recent articles in the literature in the connection with advanced Non-Linear Techniques and Cross-section dependency Tests. Therefore, I strongly recommend reading and citing the following references for using advanced and updated Non linear techniques and Cross-section dependency Tests.

1.       Hamid I. , Shabbir A., Murshed M., Jena P. K. ,  Sha N. , Alam M.N.  (2021) Decarbonization pathways: the roles of foreign direct investments, governance, democracy, economic growth, and renewable energy transition, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29:49816–49831

2.      Mujtaba, A., Jena, P. K. , FV Bekun & Sahoo P.(2022). Symmetric and Asymmetric Impact of Economic Growth , Capital Formation, Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy Consumption on Environment in OECD Counries. Renewable and  Sustainable Energy Reviews, 160, 112300, 1-13.

3.      Jena P. K, Mujtaba A., Joshi DPP, Satrovic E. & Adeleye B N(2022). Exploring the Nature of EKC Hypothesis in Asia’s Top Emitters: Role of Human Capital, Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy Consumption, Environmental Science and Pollution Research,1-20,  10.1007/s11356-022-21551-w.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviwer

Thanks for your comments and contributions.

Please find the revised paper that has your suggestions and resubmit according to your comments.

     

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors presented a work on the topic Environmental Pollution, Terrorism, Mortality Rate in China, India, Russian and Turkey.

The purpose and problem of the work should be presented in the typescript. I do not make any comments regarding the methodology and results. The summary should be corrected, with particular indication of whether the aim of the work has been achieved and what was the novelty of the research.

The lack of this information makes it difficult to check the typescript.

Author Response

  Dear Reviwer

Thanks for your comments and contributions.

Please find the resubmitted paper as explained and added your suggestions.

Best regards

   

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate the authors' contribution. In my opinion, the proofreading is sufficient to accept the article for publication.