Research on the Impact of Global Economic Policy Uncertainty on Manufacturing: Evidence from China, the United States, and the European Union
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a well written manuscript with an excellent explanation of the method. Reasonable recommendations are presented. There are only minor grammar and style issues present.
The research question is clear and the motivation behind it is well articulated. The study proposes to examine the Research on the impact of global economic policy uncertainty on manufacturing: Evidence from China, the United States, and the European Union. Addressing this topic is quite timely and will add an interesting dimension to the literature.
Theoretical underpinnings were thoroughly addressed. There was elaboration on the historical application of concepts, and measurement and potential shortcomings were presented. The core concepts of global policy uncertainty on manufacturing industry are well defined. Literature cited for both concepts seem adequate. The topics are appropriately addressed and the potential connection between the two is thoroughly integrated.
Results of the analysis are quite complete and, because of the detailed explanation of the technique, can be understood with appropriate effort.
Author Response
Referee 1 Response：
Thank you for spending valuable time providing quite useful comments on our work. Your comments have helped us to further improve the manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to reviewer’s suggestions. Please find our revisions as follows:
Comment: This is a well written manuscript with an excellent explanation of the method. Reasonable recommendations are presented. There are only minor grammar and style issues present.
The research question is clear and the motivation behind it is well articulated. The study proposes to examine the Research on the impact of global economic policy uncertainty on manufacturing: Evidence from China, the United States, and the European Union. Addressing this topic is quite timely and will add an interesting dimension to the literature.
Theoretical underpinnings were thoroughly addressed. There was elaboration on the historical application of concepts, and measurement and potential shortcomings were presented. The core concepts of global policy uncertainty on manufacturing industry are well defined. Literature cited for both concepts seem adequate. The topics are appropriately addressed and the potential connection between the two is thoroughly integrated.
Results of the analysis are quite complete and, because of the detailed explanation of the technique, can be understood with appropriate effort.
Response: Thank you very much for your recognition of this research. In my future research studies, I will read as much English literature as possible to adjust the style issues of Chinese thinking in English paper writing and emphasize the standardization of writing. Thank you again for your recognition of our work.
At last: Thank the referee for providing all these detailed errors and we have gone through them and revised them in the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Following are the comments to improve it and send back to me.
The abstract needed to be revised as follows, objectives, method, results, and contribution.
The past studies are not up-to-date and comprehensive enough needed to be updated with the most recent papers related to the models used.
The manuscript has not addressed the research gaps in past studies to fill them and show the study contributions in the models used.
The establishment of the models and showing their contribution to the knowledge gaps based on the past studies gaps filling to show the study contributions should be written.
The results generated should be explained based on the study issues and the findings of the past studies should be written based on the comparison of the past studies' findings.
It should be recommendations based on the study findings and policy implications based on the study’s most significant findings.
The study limitations and suggestions for further studies should be added.
Should be improved.
Author Response
Referee 2 Response：
Thank you for spending valuable time providing quite useful comments on our work. Your comments have helped us to further improve the manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to reviewer’s suggestions. Please find our revisions as follows:
Comment 1: The abstract needed to be revised as follows, objectives, method, results, and contribution.
Response: We have combined your suggestions with those of other reviewers and have revised the abstract in the order of purpose, method, results, and contribution.
Comment 2: The past studies are not up-to-date and comprehensive enough needed to be updated with the most recent papers related to the models used.
Response: We have added a new paragraph on research methods in the literature review section, which includes recent literature on the TVP-VAR model (from line 213-216)
Comment 3: The manuscript has not addressed the research gaps in past studies to fill them and show the study contributions in the models used.
The establishment of the models and showing their contribution to the knowledge gaps based on the past studies gaps filling to show the study contributions should be written.
Response: Following these two recommendations, we outline the research methods on GEPU and MPI in the reference section and analyze how inadequate the research methods on PMI are in the existing literature (from line 206-230). We then discuss the TVP-VAR model's contribution to the research on PMI and GEPU from line 230-237 and in the “Materials and Methods” section from line 307-314.
Comment 4: The results generated should be explained based on the study issues and the findings of the past studies should be written based on the comparison of the past studies' findings.
Response: We will refine the research questions of this article through the newly added “2.2 Hypotheses” section, and then explain results in “6.1 discussion” section from line 526-547 and “the comparison of the past studies' findings” can be seen from line 548-564.
Comment 5: It should be recommendations based on the study findings and policy implications based on the study’s most significant findings.
Response: We have revised our recommendations from line 578–592 and policy implications from line 567-573 in “6.1 discussion” as a result of your suggestion.
Comment 6: The study limitations and suggestions for further studies should be added.
Response: We added the limitation in line 573-577 of this article and added suggestions for future research in line 601-614.
At last: Thank the referee for providing all these detailed errors and we have gone through them and revised them in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
I have been invited to your review your paper. Attached you will find a set of recommendations.
Good luck and best regards,
Anonymous reviewer
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Referee 3 Response：
Thank you for spending valuable time providing quite useful comments on our work. Your comments have helped us to further improve the manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to reviewer’s suggestions. Please find our revisions as follows:
Comment: I have been invited to your review your paper. Attached you will find a set of recommendations.
Response: Thank you for your careful review. We have carefully read your modification suggestions and found that you have provided suggestions for our non-standard citation; We have reorganized the original manuscript and found that we missed several footnotes when modifying the format according to the journal template, which caused your confusion. In this revision, we have added footnote content according to your request, as well as more than 30 new references to support our viewpoint; At the same time, we have replied to you one by one in the PDF document where you raised the question.
Most importantly, based on your joint suggestions with other reviewers, we have rewritten the “6 Discussion and Conclusion” section, clearly highlighting the results of this study, similarities and differences with previous studies, implications, recommendations, limitations, and further research. Thank you again for making me deeply understand the importance of standardized writing.
At last: Thank the referee for providing all these detailed errors and we have gone through them and revised them in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The research study aims to analyze the impact of global economic policy uncertainty on manufacturing, considering evidence from China, United States, and European Union. I suggest following the comments provided here in order to improve the manuscript.
1. The Abstract has to include main findings, as well as results obtained from the case study analysis; in other words, the Abstract has to be enriched with “purpose” and the “results” parts.
2. The same for the Introduction section, please point out how this study is different from other ones. My suggestion is to highlight the novelty and answer the question: why a new paper is needed in this topic, and what is the specific novel result of the study. Please focus on these two points.
3. Improve the description and the introduction of indexes and other variables in the text. In this way, it will be possible to better understand Figures and tables.
4. Improve figures, e.g., Figure 1: Where is the caption? In my opinion, I suggest another way to show partial years.
5. In general, Figures/Tables should stand alone and therefore, their respective captions should effectively describe them. Please improve the captions in general. Abbreviations in caption and figures should be defined regardless of the fact that they have been defined in the text too.
6. The title “discussion and conclusions” includes different fonts.
7. The conclusions section could be improved. To this end, it is recommended to create the following sections within the conclusions: theoretical implications, practical implications and limitations and future lines.
8. Finally, what are the future prospects for this study?
Author Response
Referee 4 Response：
Thank you for spending valuable time providing quite useful comments on our work. Your comments have helped us to further improve the manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to reviewer’s suggestions. Please find our revisions as follows:
Comment 1: The Abstract include main findings, as well as results obtained from the case study analysis; in other words, the Abstract enriched with “purpose” and the “results” parts.
Response: We took into your account and the other reviewers' comments and have modified the abstract section according to the objective, method, results, and contribution.
Comment 2: The same for the Introduction section, please point out how this study is different from other ones. My suggestion is to highlight the novelty and answer the question: why a new paper is needed in this topic, and what is the specific novel result of the study. Please focus on these two points.
Response: Considering your and other reviewer's suggestions comprehensively, we have restructured the article and stated the research objectives, contributions and novelty of the paper in the last paragraph of Introduction. Specifically, we have stated the research objectives in line 114-116 and our contributions and novelty in line 116-128.
Comment 3: Improve the description and the introduction of indexes and other variables in the text. In this way, it will be possible to better understand Figures and tables.
Response: Because we have explained the concepts of manufacturing PMI in the first paragraph, and the concept of GEPU in the second paragraph, therefore, we have not devoted too much space to them in the “3.2 data” section. For ease of understanding, we have explained the abbreviated indicators for each graph below each graph.
Comment 4: Improve figures, e.g., Figure 1: Where is the caption? In my opinion, I suggest another way to show partial years.
Response: Based on your suggestions we have improved the figures, for example, we have simplified the timeline in Figure 1 and marked the points in time when the European debt crisis, US-China trade, New Crown pneumonia and the Russian-Ukrainian conflict broke out
Comment 5: In general, Figures/Tables should stand alone and therefore, their respective captions should effectively describe them. Please improve the captions in general. Abbreviations in caption and figures should be defined regardless of the fact that they have been defined in the text too.
Response: We have made changes to Figure1-Figure6 as you suggested: the abbreviations in the title have been changed to full names; all indicators appearing in the figure are described by means of notes under the figure.
Comment 6: The title “discussion and conclusions” includes different fonts.
Response: We changed "discussion and conclusions" to the same font
Comment 7: The conclusions section could be improved. To this end, it is recommended to create the following sections within the conclusions: theoretical implications, practical implications and limitations and future line.
Response: We have revised conclusion as you suggest, dividing it into “discussion and conclusion”. we then explained the theoretical implications of the paper in line 567-569; the practical implications of the paper in line 569-573; the limitations of the paper in line 573-577 and the Future line in line 600-607.
Comment 8: Finally, what are the future prospect for this study?
Response: We added the future prospect for this study at the end of our conclusions.
At last: Thank the referee for providing all these detailed errors and we have gone through them and revised them in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The study contribution has not been explained as requested.
Author Response
Referee 2 Response：
Thank you for spending valuable time providing quite useful comments on our work. Your comments have helped us to further improve the manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to reviewer’s suggestions. Please find our revisions as follows:
Comment 1: The study contribution has not been explained as requested.
“The manuscript has not addressed the research gaps in past studies to fill them and show the study contributions in the models used.”
“The establishment of the models and showing their contribution to the knowledge gaps based on the past studies gaps filling to show the study contributions should be written.”
Response: We have carefully considered your suggestions on “research gaps and model contributions”, and once again provide our thoughts and modifications in the following paragraph:
Although the above research clearly proves that EPU, GEPU affect the stability of stock returns [32], exacerbate exchange rate fluctuations [32-34], inhibit investment and output [35], and affect carbon emission intensity [41-44], but the above-mentioned re-search methods on EPU, GEPU are mostly based on linear models such as VAR model and its evolution form [31-33,40-43], quantile regression [34], least square method [35], etc. These methods are relatively simple, moreover, it is impossible to capture the dynamic time-varying characteristics of EPU or GEPU shocks, and it’s impossible to further analyze the time-point shocks caused by crucial events in EPU and GEPU. Among the above research methods on PMI, Granger causality can only test the overall causality among variables, and cannot reflect its dynamic correlation [52]; the state space equation and KALMAN filter algorithm are limited to the correlation study of two variables; the DDC MVGRACH model has relatively low accuracy in long-term prediction of variables [51]; the VAR model can better predict multiple variables, but the conclusions drawn lack completeness and accuracy due to its failure to consider the changes in model coefficients with different periods; although the above methods can to some extent reflect the dynamic interaction between variables, they cannot reflect the dynamic correlation between variables in different periods and the marginal im-pact effects at different time points. With the deepening of the research, the dynamic and time-varying impact of emergencies in EPU and GEPU on the economy has gradually attracted the attention of scholars. Zhang [54] used TVP-VAR model to empirically analyze the impact of GPR emergencies such as the 911 incident and the US financial crisis on tourism, but did not involve the impact of COVID-19 or the Russia-Ukraine conflict on tourism; Gu [55] also uses the TVP-VAR model, but its selected research scope is up to September 2020, so it can not deeply analyze the impact of COVID-19 on international oil prices, and does not involve the Russia-Ukraine conflict that has an important impact on the global economy. Therefore, this study will draw on the gaps and deficiencies of the above research methods, and for the first time try to put the impact of global economic policy uncertainty on manufacturing PMI within a unified analysis framework, pay more attention to the dynamic time-varying characteristics of GEPU, and use the TVP-VAR model to analyze the time-varying impact of GEPU on manufacturing PMI in China, the US, and the EU; comparative analysis of the im-pact of the US financial crisis, European debt crisis, especially the China–US trade war, COVID-19, Russia-Ukraine conflict and other major global events on manufacturing; it also helps to compare and analyze the risk resilience of manufacturing in these three economic systems, providing relevant empirical references for industrial investors and policy makers. (This paragraph can be found on lines 221-255)
In the second round of modifications, we have strengthened the gaps and deficiencies in existing research, and strengthened the contribution of the model to the research gaps and can be referred from lines 221-255. We hope that this modification can meet your requirements.
At the same time, we have made additional modifications to the contribution of this study in the "Introduction" section, please refer to lines 111-126.
At last: Thank the referee for providing all these detailed errors and we have gone through them and revised them in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for the revised version of your paper and your addressing of my previous comments.
Best regards,
Anonymous author
Minor review would be beneficial
Author Response
Thank you very much for your recognition,best wishes to you.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have successfully addressed all my concerns in the revised manuscript. Hence I recommend the acceptance of this paper.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your recognition,best wishes to you.
