Can the Resource Curse for Well-Being Be Morphed into a Blessing? Investigating the Moderating Role of Environmental Quality, Governance, and Human Capital
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have read the article entitled " Endowments and Human Well-being: Investigating the Resource Curse in the UAE". The article is well detailed and the study title is average but interesting and is suitable to be published in Sustainability. But before publication I will suggest some major corrections in the article. Following are the main points to be incorporated.
1. The Abstract is not well written. I will suggest the authors to revise the abstract.
2. The Introduction and Literature review is poor. I would suggest the authors some recent studies to be used for improving the work.
https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20210199
https://doi.org/10.17221/252/2020-AGRICECON
3. Figures are not in a numbered sequence (Figure 1, 3, 4, 2, 5, 6). Furthermore, the x-axis values on the figures are placed in different styles. I would suggest the authors to revise the figures color schemes for clarity and the numbering along with the writing styles within figures.
4. The study objective is very weak; it should be improved.
5. Too many grammatical and typos mistakes. Kindly revise all the article carefully.
6. Discuss the significance of the methodologies used in the study.
7. Check the equations carefully, and revise all these equations by using Math Type.
8. Why Equations 3, 4, 5, and 6 are not described and not cited in the text?
9. Line # 375, Page # 10, The CUSUM Squared should be abbreviated in the brackets as (CUSUMSQ).
10. The significance representation of the t-statistics in Table #2 are incorrect. *** stands for 1% significance level, not *.
11. The tables numbering is also not in order. Why there is Table 4 after Table 2? Also, Table 4 is not interpreted properly. Redesign Table 4 and Table 5.
12. Provide proper justification for the CUSUM Squared trend breaking the upper confidence interval.
13. All the manuscript should be revised as per author guidelines of the journal.
14. Conclusion should be made clearer.
Author Response
The authors' reply to the reviewer's (1) comments is in the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is well organized and clearly written, on an interesting topic, and the authors did an excellent job of answering questions about whether natural resources are a blessing or a burden for human well-being, how institutional quality, human capital, and environmental efficiency influence the impact of natural resource endowments on human well-being, and why resource curse concept is needed revision. The paper begins with an excellent introduction (Section One) - it is clear and explains exactly what the paper is going to keep its focus - on the relationship between natural endowments and human well-being. Section Two provides a good background and very detailed information on UAE's economy. Section Three is also very well written and presents a review of existing studies, engages critically with the existing literature, analysis is well-developed, and establishes a clear conceptual framework. After presenting the concept, Section Four describes data and methods based on mathematical and empirical log-linear techniques. Section Five has good explaining content, relevant results, and valuable critical points. All points are supported by evidence and analysis. Finally, Section Six contains key findings and beautifully discusses the points of research. HOWEVER, case of the Caspian Sea resource-rich region (Russia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan) demonstrates that these countries invest in renewable energy sector, and diversify their national economics for minimization of their dependence on fuel prices on international level. The recent papers on this issue should be include in in Section Six “Concluding remarks and Implications” (Karatayev, M., & Hall, S. (2020). Establishing and comparing energy security trends in resource-rich exporting nations (Russia and the Caspian Sea region). Resources Policy, 68, 101746.; Karatayev, M., Lisiakiewicz, R., Gródek-Szostak, Z., Kotulewicz-Wisińska, K., & Nizamova, M. (2021). The promotion of renewable energy technologies in the former Soviet bloc: Why, how, and with what prospects?. Energy Reports, 7, 6983-6994.). Also, please ensure that UK spelling is used for words ending “-sation”; e.g. “utilization” instead of “utilisation”. All abbreviations are defined when first used.
Author Response
The authors' reply to the reviewer's (2) comments is in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1Authors require to improve manuscript and comments are follows: it would be more helpful for strengthen the manuscript.
1 . Author need to spend some time on introduction and need to be reworked. It is not clear what is the main problem and the reason for writing this article. The main reason for writing or makes a solution in the article. Novelty section is missing.
22. It is not clear what the research gap that the paper is addressing. What is the objective of this paper? Please clarify somewhere clearly all your contributions.
33. Methods need to be written more clearly.
44. Author need to include list of abbreviations; it will make easier for reader to read and understand.
55. The conclusion part is also needed to be revised; which questions are answered, what is the value/originality/contribution of the paper, how the proposed method answers the research questions that previous methods are not able to answer?
6. Please propose and suggest more possible future studies related to the current study.
7. The abstract is not deep enough and is not well prepared. Please try to re-write it better. The problem should be clearly stated and the gap which you are going to address need to be clarified. Simply explain your contributions and key findings.
Author Response
The authors' reply to the reviewer's (3) comments is in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The topic is interesting, and the author has done a great job in realizing the subject. However, there are few areas on the paper that is still lagging and should be addressed properly.
Abstract
1. The authors should motivate the choice of variables with theory and empirical backing on the subject
2. Keywords should be revised to match key element of title
3. Rewrite the title to be more catchy
4. Introduction
1. The objective of the paper presented need more clarifications to suit reader to understand the main idea of the paper especially for the study case is needed
2. Literature review
The literature is well written. However, there is need for more recent studies ranging from 2018-2022 to motivate the study properly. The entire study is too scanty and the related literature is not exhausted
Methodology
1. This section is generally well motivated, Kindly take note of the following minor additions
2. More benefit of the various techniques utilized should be stated
3. The authors should avoid much mathematical expressions or take some to appendix and make the study reader friendly for other practitioner other than academic with out compromise for study intend and quality.
Discussion
1. The discussion is well written, but the authors should like their findings to the previous studies in the literature.
2. There is need for professional proofreading or consult English native support
3. Conclusion
1. The sub-title should be conclusion and policy recommendation but not only conclusion
2. The policy which is the engine of the study is weak and small. I therefore encourage the authors to elaborate more on the policy recommendations to policy makers for the investigated bloc
3. The authors should add limitation of the study and future recommendation
Author Response
The authors' reply to the reviewer's (4) comments is in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The current version is better for publication.
Reviewer 4 Report
current version reads well and suitable for journal audience
