The Impact of Ownership Structure on Technological Innovation and Energy Intensity: Evidence from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

1.       The authors have reduced the reference lumps, but it can be further reduced for instance how could author quote four references for just one sentence that went through first three lines of the Introduction section.

2.       Still Structure of the manuscript is missing in the manuscript.

3.       Section 5 needs to be divided. Recommendations and limitations of the work can be discussed just before the conclusion section.

4.       Section 3, Methodology section can be further enhanced.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your recognition of our paper and giving us the opportunity to revise it. In a revision, we read more carefully and extensively about broader papers. Specifically, We have carefully revised all the questions you raise. We have added discussion and interpretation of empirical results, added new research methods, improved English language. The following modifications and explanations have been made:

 

Point 1.The authors have reduced the reference lumps, but it can be further reduced for instance how could author quote four references for just one sentence that went through first three lines of the Introduction section.

Reply: We reduce the references in the third row. On the first page, part of the first paragraph of the introduction was also revised.

 

Point 2.Still Structure of the manuscript is missing in the manuscript.

Reply: We supplement the structure of our paper. Firstly, the three types of ownership are included in Equation (1) for regression, and the three types of ownership are grouped in pairs for regression. The results obtained are all significant. The details are shown in Section 4.2.1. Secondly, we add the endogeneity treatment part. We lag all the explanatory variables by one period for regression, and use the reduced-tail regression method to test the results. The details are shown in Section 4.2.3 and 4.2.4.

 

Point 3.Section 5 needs to be divided. Recommendations and limitations of the work can be discussed just before the conclusion section.

Reply: We divide the content of Section 5 into two parts, Section 5 presents recommendations and limitations, and Section 6 is conclusion.

 

Point 4.Section 3, Methodology section can be further enhanced.

Reply: We add new methods, and the results are presented in table 5(b), table7 and table 8. First, the three types of ownership are included in Formula (1) for regression, and the three types of ownership are grouped in pairs for regression. The regression results are all significant. The second is regression with all explanatory variables lagged by one period. The third is the Regression with reduced tails.

 

Finally, thank you again for your valuable and specific suggestions to help us improve the quality of the paper. We hope this revision can meet your expectations.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear Authors, Please carefully check and solve all observations as formulated (below) and sent to the editors of the Sustainability journal to which you submitted your manuscript:

 

<<Dear Editors,

This paper (id sustainability-2356777, entitled “The impact of ownership structure on technological innovation and energy intensity: Evidence from china”) systematically investigates the impact of industrial department ownership structure on energy intensity, and studies the function of technological innovation in this relationship from the perspective of ownership heterogeneity by using empirical models including ordinary least squares, two-way fixed effects and random effects. . Based on their findings the authors propose suggestions to reduce energy intensity, which can provide reference for the government to formulate more effective energy policies and realize sustainable development.

 

After reading this paper, I think I found some issues the authors should deal with. Let’s start with the format ones and then continue with those related to the content:

• The paper must follow the instructions of the Sustainability journal;

• The authors must avoid ending some sections/subsections with formulas, figures, tables, or other components (e.g.,Figure 2 just before section 3, and no explanatory text after). The authors are required to check the entire manuscript for similar issues;

• The authors must additionally ensure that both figures have the required resolution (Halftones should have a minimum resolution of 300 dpi & Combination artwork should have a minimum resolution of 600 dpi, according to the Journal’s instructions at the link above);

• There is a considerable number of tables (7) in this manuscript. Some of them which are considered by the authors not essential for understanding the main flow of ideas in the manuscript must be moved to the Appendix section. If this section is not existing, the authors must create one; 

• The List of Abbreviations at the end of the manuscript is needed;

• The authors should provide more explanations and precise details about the standard view of the accuracy values (>=70% and <80%-fair models; >=80% and <90%-good models; >=90%-very good/excellent models) and their application here. They should provide more references to scientific papers where this topic is considered and the accuracy intervals are precisely defined (not just a single and vague explanation  - section 4.2.2);

• The authors are also required to check and report if the influences in the models are still significant if choosing some other regression types than the ordinary least squares (OLS);

• They should also report the accuracy of each model obtained at the end of the corresponding tables (just below the line dedicated to report the R-squared);

• Not all variables presented in Tables 2 (Descriptive Statistics) are introduced and properly explained in Table 1 (Description);

• The final list of 48 references seems reasonable;

• Still, the section dedicated to the interpretation of the results (Discussions) is missing;

• The authors must understand that replicability as a fundamental principle in science (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-021-09610-2  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20504 ) starts with data and it is not a fad but a necessity. Therefore, they should insert in the Data Availability Statement section at the end of the manuscript all precise links to all data providers’ / own datasets used to obtain their results;

• Following this scientific principle above, the authors should provide full details about the software (including the precise name of the provider and version number of all the tools/apps) they used to test their approach and obtain the results presented in this manuscript;

• I think the Limitations should be a distinct section just before Conclusions.

Thank you for the opportunity to read and check this research article!>>

In terms of English language and style issues, Grammarly (https://app.grammarly.com) on default settings (American English, Set Goals: Audience=Knowledgeable, Formality=Neutral, Domain=General) detected only for the text block resulting from the concatenation of Title+Abstract+Conclusions, Recommendations and Limitations: 34 correctness issues / critical alerts and also 31 more complex ones / advanced suggestions. Consequently, the resulting Grammarly overall/total score as reported by this online tool was just 62 (still not Fair i.e. >=70, and much further from Good i.e >=80, or Very Good/Excellent i.e. >=90) out of 100 (max) for this three-component sample above. Moreover, since the authors do not appear to be native English speakers, I suggest a comprehensive revision of the English language and style for the entire article using Grammarly or another specialized tool (full English language and style report required after performing all necessary corrections);

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your recognition of our paper and giving us the opportunity to revise it. In a revision, we read more carefully and extensively about broader literatures. Specifically, We have carefully revised all the questions you raise. We have added discussion and interpretation of empirical results, added new research methods, improved English language. We asked our colleagues who are proficient in English to help us revise our English language. The following modifications and explanations have been made:

Point 1.After reading this paper, I think I found some issues the authors should deal with. Let’s start with the format ones and then continue with those related to the content:

The paper must follow the instructions of the Sustainability journal;

The authors must avoid ending some sections/subsections with formulas, figures, tables, or other components (e.g., Figure 2 just before section 3, and no explanatory text after). The authors are required to check the entire manuscript for similar issues;

Response 1: In response to your suggestions, we have checked the whole manuscript, and we have added an explanation about Figure 2 before the section 3 on page five.

Point 2.The authors must additionally ensure that both figures have the required resolution (Halftones should have a minimum resolution of 300 dpi & Combination artwork should have a minimum resolution of 600 dpi, according to the Journal’s instructions at the link above);

Response 2: We checked the images, and the dpi of each figure meet the requirements.

Point 3.There is a considerable number of tables (7) in this manuscript. Some of them which are considered by the authors not essential for understanding the main flow of ideas in the manuscript must be moved to the Appendix section. If this section is not existing, the authors must create one;

Response 3: We have added the appendix section by placing Table 8 and Table10 in the appendix section

Point 4.The List of Abbreviations at the end of the manuscript is needed;

Response 4: We have added a list of Abbreviations in the conclusion of the paper, which can be found in Table 10 in the appendix

Point 5.The authors should provide more explanations and precise details about the standard view of the accuracy values (>=70% and <80%-fair models; >=80% and <90%-good models; >=90%-very good/excellent models) and their application here. They should provide more references to scientific papers where this topic is considered and the accuracy intervals are precisely defined (not just a single and vague explanation - section 4.2.2);

Response 5: The software we use does not measure the accuracy values of each model, so it is not easy to supplement this content. We add theoretical references to support the models which we employed in the paper and explain the rationality of the interpretation of our empirical findings and themes. In the third paragraph of Part 4.1, the second paragraph of Part 4.2.1, and the second paragraph of Part 4.2.2.

Point 6.The authors are also required to check and report if the influences in the models are still significant if choosing some other regression types than the ordinary least squares (OLS);

Response 6: We examined all the models. In the baseline regression, the OLS, FE and RE models we use are all significant, and we added explanations about the results. See paragraph 3 of Part 4.1 for details.

Point 7.They should also report the accuracy of each model obtained at the end of the corresponding tables (just below the line dedicated to report the R-squared);

Response 7: The software we use does not measure the accuracy values of each model, so it is not easy to supplement this content. We add theoretical references to support the models which we employed in the paper and explain the rationality of the interpretation of our empirical findings and themes. In the third paragraph of Part 4.1, the second paragraph of Part 4.2.1, and the second paragraph of Part 4.2.2. We report the goodness of fit of the model in each table.

Point 8.Not all variables presented in Tables 2 (Descriptive Statistics) are introduced and properly explained in Table 1 (Description);

Response 8: we revised the introduction of the variables in this manuscript, and the results are shown in Table 1.

Point 9.The final list of 48 references seems reasonable;

Still, the section dedicated to the interpretation of the results (Discussions) is missing;

Response 9: We supplement the relevant content for the section that explains and discusses the results. We supplement the literatures, literature 33,34 and 50. The details are in the third and fifth paragraphs of Part 4.1, the second paragraph of Part 4.2.1, and the second paragraph of Part 4.2.2.

Point 10.The authors must understand that replicability as a fundamental principle in science (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-021-09610-2  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20504 ) starts with data and it is not a fad but a necessity. Therefore, they should insert in the Data Availability Statement section at the end of the manuscript all precise links to all data providers’ / own datasets used to obtain their results;

Response 10: Our article is replicable and the data are available. We inserted a link at the bottom of Figure 1 to indicate the source of the data. Data source: Author’s calculation, https://data.stats.gov.cn/easyquery.htm?cn=C01, https://data.cnki.net/yearbook, accessed on 20 November 2022.

Point 11.Following this scientific principle above, the authors should provide full details about the software (including the precise name of the provider and version number of all the tools/apps) they used to test their approach and obtain the results presented in this manuscript;

Response 11: The software we use is Stata. Full details of the software we use are as follows：

StataCorp LLC

4905 Lakeway Drive

College Station,TX 77845

• STATA-PC
• 979-696-4600
• 979-696-4601(fax）

www.stata.com

Stata/SE16.0 for Windows(64-bit x86-64)

Revision 02Jul2019

Copyright 1985-2019 Stata Corp LLC

Point 12.I think the Limitations should be a distinct section just before Conclusions.

Response 12: We divide the content of Section 5 into two parts, Section 5 presents recommendations and limitations, and Section 6 is conclusion.

Point 12. In terms of English language and style issues, Grammarly (https://app.grammarly.com) on default settings (American English, Set Goals: Audience=Knowledgeable, Formality=Neutral, Domain=General) detected only for the text block resulting from the concatenation of Title+Abstract+Conclusions, Recommendations and Limitations: 34 correctness issues / critical alerts and also 31 more complex ones / advanced suggestions. Consequently, the resulting Grammarly overall/total score as reported by this online tool was just 62 (still not Fair i.e. >=70, and much further from Good i.e >=80, or Very Good/Excellent i.e. >=90) out of 100 (max) for this three-component sample above. Moreover, since the authors do not appear to be native English speakers, I suggest a comprehensive revision of the English language and style for the entire article using Grammarly or another specialized tool (full English language and style report required after performing all necessary corrections).

Response 13: We seek the help of a colleague who was proficient in English, and he helps us to make a comprehensive revision of the English language and style of the manuscript. I hope the revised manuscript can meet your requirements.

Finally, thank you again for your valuable and specific suggestions to help us improve the quality of the paper. We hope this revision can meet your expectations.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear Authors,

You performed some improvements in your manuscript.

I think your paper is now closer to the state of being published.

I wish you all the best!

Minimum-to-Moderate changes needed (most probably, before the proof-reading format).

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

In order to substantiate the authors' statement on the influence of the ownership structure on energy intensity, a comparison with other countries is required. The influence of subsidy programs, national targets or other parameters can significantly override the analysis shown. Furthermore, in my opinion, the topic does not fit into the journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

1.       The formatting of the manuscript needs to be in align with the journal requirements.

2.       The conclusion section needs to be rewritten by highlighting the results in numerical manner.

3.       The comparative study is missing in the manuscript.

4.       Methodology/Analysis needs to be explained using flow chart.

5.       There are many reference lumps present in the manuscript. The importance of each reference needs to be explained in detail in literature review section.

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to congratulate the author; the paper is interesting, and it analyses a very important topic especially thanks to its technical impact Technical and social point of views.

 

The paper is interesting but needs some improvements, I suggest some improvement to be published.

 

Suggestions

 

- I suggest a more detailed title to improve the impact of the scope;

 

- Please give more information about the results in the abstract and reduce the information about methodology.

 

- Please avoid the acronyms from abstract title and keywords;

 

- The conducted literature survey in the introduction is not thorough. Please update and expand your literature survey by referring to the most recent and relevant references that introduce the problem not only for China. Please for the first part of introduction include general study to underline the importance of energy question for RES by using (https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/9/3462 ; https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89494 , https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/70874 ; doi:10.3390/en13184603).

 

- The author provides to English review.

 

- Please add the nomenclature.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for your submission. I believe your paper is an informative paper that can be published after a major revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf