Carbon Derivatives-Directed International Supervision Laws and Regulations and Carbon Market Mechanism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

I appreciate the responsiveness of the authors to the recommendations made during the review process and the seriousness with which they responded to them by completing or modifying the paper, which contributed to improving the narrative quality and the scientific level of the research. As such, I consider that, under these conditions, the work can be accepted for publication.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you very much for your recognition of the article, we will take your affirmation as the driving force for continuous progress in the future.On the basis of the last revision, we further optimized the maniscript，improved the language expression and references.All revised contents have been highlighted by blue color in the revised manuscript.

Best wishes！

 

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer：

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft the manuscript "Carbon Derivatives-directed International Supervision Laws & Regulations and Carbon Market Mechanism" for publication in the Journal of Sustainability.We appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments and valuable improvements to our article.

We have incorporated all your suggestions . Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript.Please see the attachment below,for a point-by-point response to the reviewers ’ comments and concerns . 

Best wishes!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

This revised manuscript has been improved sufficiently to be accepted.

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

The paper provides conceptual/theoretical thoughts that might be interesting.

The paper's contribution to the literature is unclear. 

The paper is largely descriptive but does not really include any analysis. In this sense, it is neither analytical nor reflective.

Moreover, the paper lacks critical discussion of carbon derivatives markets.

The results are vague and do not really provide any applicable implications for research or industry.

Reviewer 2 Report

The author made an attempt in providing a thorough research on the legal issues of the carbon derivatives market and seems to reach some interesting and promising insights. The paper is to a good extent an x-ray of the legal framework and not a well-structured economic analysis of the phenomena that the author dealt with. The main component of the work is the description and, in some places, the comparison of some factual situations and not the methodologically grounded analysis of some phenomena with relevant societal impact.

Meanwhile, the following issues needs to be addressed:

1.     The author should highlight the novelty of the research.

2.     It is not very clear which are the main objectives of this research? The author should emphasize the research gap which is adressing and specify more clear the purpose of this manuscript.

3.     From social sciences research perspective, subchapters 2.1 and 2.2 look more like a literature review and not a description of methods.

4.     There are some sentences in the manuscript are not very clear and concise.

5.     The research results are not clearly stated.

6.     The conclusion section needs to be re-written in accordance to the objectives and results of the study.