The Dynamic Relationship between Carbon Emissions, Financial Development, and Renewable Energy: A Study of the N-5 Asian Countries
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article discusses the relationship between carbon emissions, financial development, and renewable energy in N-5 Asian countries. It explores the long-term and short-term effects of financial development, globalization, and institutional quality on carbon emissions and renewable energy adoption. The study suggests that renewable energy has a long-term impact on carbon emissions, while financial development and renewable energy, when moderated by globalization and institutional quality, have both long-term and short-term effects on carbon emissions. The article emphasizes the importance of implementing appropriate policies to promote renewable energy and reduce carbon dioxide emissions for sustainable development.
Manuscript is hard to read and understand due to poor language and poor editing. Introduction is too long and contains to many general, well known informations.
Results seem to be sound but presentation is subpar. Authors mainly repeat values from tables using frequently phase sig value which is rather poor abbreviation of significance value, and should be named P value, which is properly done sometimes in this paper.
Concluding remarks are also too long and author have placed too much emphasis on politics ant too small on economics.
I have find several errors in abstract only, I think extensive proof reading is necessary before publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer，
Thank you very much for taking time out to review our article and for your kind attitude towards it. Your valuable suggestions regarding the revision of an article have helped to improve and refine the quality of the article. After receiving your review comments, we have carefully studied the review, and have repeatedly edited and improved the article. All the comments and suggestions are fully acknowledged and accepted by the author.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review Report of Paper ID: sustainability-2565541-peer-review-v1.pdf
I wish to commend the authors for painstakingly putting up this manuscript. However, the following are my observations that may further improve the quality of the manuscript.
Title:
The title of the article is inappropriate based on the scenarios presented in the paper. It was found from the main body of the work that no country was used as case study hence, this title is inappropriate. Suggestion:
N/A
Abstract:
The abstract is expected to concisely present the quantitative results obtained in this work.
Introduction:
1. The introduction provided a solid and relevant backgrounds on the subject matter. However, except for minor editorial issue, the introduction is good to go.
Literature Review:
Minor editorial issues were observed please check the highlighted copy and correct accordingly.
Methodology:
The methodology is fairly okay however, the following corrections should be addressed.
i. Table 1 is missing in the manuscript.
ii. Equation editor should be used to write the equations and numbering should follow the journal style
iii. There are few editorial issue and grammatical issue.
Result:
There is lack of synergy Results and discussions and the Material and discussion. Hence attention should be given to the following:
i. The tables in subsections 4.1 – 4.4 should be edited using table tool and not cut and paste. The tables should be numbered and titled.
ii. What is the threshold value in line 334?
iii. What type of relationship, negative or positive? Line 351
iv. Model 1, 2, & 3 are presented in this subsection, what are they? No background was presented regarding them in the methodology subsection.
v. The implications of the results should be discussed.
vi. There are few editorial issue and grammatical issue.
Conclusion:
i. The second sentence in this section lines 415 – 417.
ii. It has been asserted that a framework was used, I wish to ask that where is the framework? Because all I can see here is analysis.
iii. The conclusion can be improved upon by itemizing the highlights of this work.
References:
i. The number of cited references was listed and listed references were cited
Plagiarism:
19% plagiarism was detected which is considered to be high. This should be improved upon.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The authors have the mastery of the use of English language. The manuscript only require few editorial corrections.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer，
Thank you very much for taking time out to review our article and for your kind attitude towards it. Your valuable suggestions regarding the revision of an article have helped to improve and refine the quality of the article. After receiving your review comments, we have carefully studied the review, and have repeatedly edited and improved the article. All the comments and suggestions are fully acknowledged and accepted by the author.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled “The dynamic relationship between carbon emissions, financial development, and renewable energy. A study of the N-5 Asian countries” is reviewed. There are, however, some issues the authors need to deal with;
· Even in the abstract, the authors used abbreviations without defining them. One by one this issue must be fixed in the text
· Moreover, the authors should add an abbreviations table to the beginning of the text to increase the readability of the text.
· The authors donot need to report the used software in the abstract.
· The authors should underline the main novelty of the study in the introduction section. The effect of financial development and renewable energy on co2 emissions has already been explored in the literature.
· The source of Figure 1 should be reported.
· Is this study explores the linkage between carbon emissions, financial development, and renewable energy ? or the effect of financial development, Globalisation Institution Quality and renewable energy on co2 emissions
· In table 4.4, the authors used moderating role of globalization and institutional quality, the authors should underline the theory behind using these factors as a moderator.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer，
Thank you very much for taking time out to review our article and for your kind attitude towards it. Your valuable suggestions regarding the revision of an article have helped to improve and refine the quality of the article. After receiving your review comments, we have carefully studied the review, and have repeatedly edited and improved the article. All the comments and suggestions are fully acknowledged and accepted by the author.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The topic of this study is relevant for the field as it tries to identify the dynamic relationships between several critical features of today’s realities (carbon emission, globalization, and renewable energy).
The manuscript includes relevant literature. However, recent studies are approaching the topic that would be an excellent addition to the study’s literature coverage, such as:
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118018
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2022.100977
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.05.084
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27221-9
The literature review includes a paragraph on “human capital (HC).” However, HC is not one of the variables included in the empirical analysis. Please provide an explanation of the relevance of this for the research. At the same time, the literature section dedicated to renewable energy could be improved and extended.
Please extend the discussion of the main results. Presenting the findings in the context of previous research is highly recommended. A rigorous discussion of the results should indicate the implications of the various variables' relationships as well as the meaning of these relationships. It is not enough to state that a variable impacts another but to explain the phenomena. This would give relevance to the research and increase the level of interest in it.
Please carefully overview the manuscript to shape the write-up of it and give it a proper styling (lines 414-418: the first three phrases of the concluding remarks are hard to follow).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer，
Thank you very much for taking time out to review our article and for your kind attitude towards it. Your valuable suggestions regarding the revision of an article have helped to improve and refine the quality of the article. After receiving your review comments, we have carefully studied the review, and have repeatedly edited and improved the article. All the comments and suggestions are fully acknowledged and accepted by the author.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised study can be accepted
Reviewer 4 Report
The revised version of the manuscript considered the suggestions and comments and has been improved accordingly.
I believe that the study will generate interest among readers. Therefore, I am endorsing it for publication.
