Progress in the Research of Environmental Macroeconomics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall this is an interesting study and has the potential to be published. However, the authors should consider the following issues that need to be addressed.

1. There is a need to use abstract space wisely and highlight the primary lesson for policymakers and practitioners?
2. There is a need to explicitly describe the objective of the study in the introduction section.
3. There is a further need to describe the literature gap by adding a paragraph at the end of the introduction section.
4. In section 2: Please support the given argument with the help of existing literature, otherwise one can disagree with the statements given by the authors. 
5. Outline the limitation of this work in your conclusions. Also, a very useful part of scholarly work is to identify what you believe to be further areas of study on the topic. Or, in your understanding of the issues, what else is left to explore on the research question?
6. The entire manuscript requires thorough language editing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. This paper focused on environmental macroeconomics, climate economics and carbon neutrality review etc. Content is interesting, however, I have following reservations and comments.
2. Abstract need revisions. Remove background information, provide novelty of the issue and rationale of such a study.
3. Keywords are extravaganza, revisit them and try to adjust according to the findings and relevancy.
4. Page 3, line 110, end of world war is around 19480-50 which is also the initial period of industrial revolution in the western world. Correct please.
5. Authors mentioned Harlod Domar model, however, I was looking for Environmental Kuzent’s curve which is most relevant regarding environmental macroeconomic issue.
6. In the last paragraph of introduction section, authors should emphasize on the objective of this study and some hypothesis/questions that needed to be answered.
7. I would suggest to replace “climate economics” to economics of climate.”
8. Page 5, line 246, this is a complete section of economic growth and environment, I wonder how authors can ignore the classical EKC theory. They did not even mention it, however, this is incomplete without discussing EKC. Because EKC is basically coupling and decoupling of economic growth (GDP mainly) and environmental degradation/upgradation.
9. Discussion and conclusions cannot be combined together. Please divide them in separate sections and explain explicitly that what is discussion based on your review and what are the conclusions.
10. Then conclusion section should be divided into two main parts, first presenting the main findings based on your review analysis and second way forward (practical).
11. No table or figure provided at all. Does not seem like a journal paper, looks like a book chapter.
12. I did not understand methodology. That is description of the history instead of any methods.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 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
2. Keywords should be revised to match key element of title not title in itself

Introduction

1. The objective of the paper presented need more clarifications to suit reader to understand the main idea of the paper.

Literature review

 The literature is well written. However, there is need for more recent studies ranging from 2018-2021 to motivate the study properly. The entire study is too scanty and the related literature is not exhausted  

 

Methodology

1. The variables used in the model should be justified
2. More benefit of the various techniques utilized should be stated. And if possible, their equations should be added to the revised manuscript to enrich the quality.

Discussion

1. The discussion is well written, but the authors should like their findings to the previous studies in the literature.

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

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have made changes. I allow for acceptance as per editorial policy.