The Impact of the Financial Industry and Globalization on Environmental Quality
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
PLEASE REWRITE THE PAPER WITH CLARITY ON THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:
1. Explain WHAT IS GLOBALIZATION (THE PAPER HAS A WRONG DEFINITION!), FINANCIAL DEVELOPMENT, and FDI IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RESEARCH OBJECTIVE.
2. CLEARLY EXPLAIN THE RESEARCH GAPS, NOT CLEAR AT ALL. JUST REPLICATING THE STUDY (WHICH IS WELL-RESEARCHED) ON MENA COUNTRIES IS NOT A RESEARCH GAP. STRONG AND CONVINCING ARGUMENTS MUST BE MADE, WHICH ARE TOTALLY MISSING.
3, THE INTRODUCTION SECTION IS COMPLETELY IN SHAMBLES. JUST PUTTING TOGETHER LITERATURE AND THEN SUDDENLY INTRODUCING THE RESEARCH OBJECTIVES IS NOT THE WAY AN INTRODUCTION IS WRITTEN. IN ANY RESEARCH PAPER OR THESIS, THE INTRODUCTION IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART, IF YOU FAIL THAT THEN THE WHOLE PAPER OR THESIS IS USELESS, HOWEVER STRONG THE ANALYSIS TOOLS YOU APPLY. THIS IS THE PROBLEM OF THIS PAPER.
Author Response
Ref: Manuscript ID: sustainability-2062022
Original Article Title: “The Impact of Financial Industry and Globalization on Envi-ronmental Quality
”
To: Ms. Ms. Janice Jia
Re: Response to Editor and reviewers Comments
Dear Editor,
Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments.
We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments (below) (response to reviewers), (b) an updated manuscript with red highlighting indicating changes.
Best regards,
MUSHTAQ AHMAD
Reviewer#1
Thank you for your efforts in conducting this study during very difficult pandemic, however I have a number of suggestions/questions that should be resolved before granting publication of this research which are as follows:
Thank you. We are encouraged by your above comments. We believe we have addressed your remaining concerns through this round of revision. Please see the revised manuscript and our itemized responses to your comments below.
Reviewer#1, Concern # 1: Explain WHAT IS GLOBALIZATION (THE PAPER HAS A WRONG DEFINITION!), FINANCIAL DEVELOPMENT, and FDI IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
Author response: The authors thank for the reviewer’s comment. As per the reviewer’s comment it is incorporated please find it (R1 Q1).
Reviewer#1, Concern # 2: CLEARLY EXPLAIN THE RESEARCH GAPS, NOT CLEAR AT ALL. JUST REPLICATING THE STUDY (WHICH IS WELL-RESEARCHED) ON MENA COUNTRIES IS NOT A RESEARCH GAP. STRONG AND CONVINCING ARGUMENTS MUST BE MADE, WHICH ARE TOTALLY MISSING.
Author response: The authors thank for the reviewer’s comment. As per the reviewer’s comment it is incorporated please find it (R1 Q2).
Reviewer#1, Concern # 3: THE INTRODUCTION SECTION IS COMPLETELY IN SHAMBLES. JUST PUTTING TOGETHER LITERATURE AND THEN SUDDENLY INTRODUCING THE RESEARCH OBJECTIVES IS NOT THE WAY AN INTRODUCTION IS WRITTEN. IN ANY RESEARCH PAPER OR THESIS, THE INTRODUCTION IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART, IF YOU FAIL THAT THEN THE WHOLE PAPER OR THESIS IS USELESS, HOWEVER STRONG THE ANALYSIS TOOLS YOU APPLY. THIS IS THE PROBLEM OF THIS PAPER.
Author response: The authors appreciate the reviewer on this important comment regarding the introduction section it is been modified.
We are very thankful for the above encouraging comments and invaluable suggestions. We hope these replies and actions address all the comments which were issues by the reviewer.
Thank you
Reviewer 2 Report
1.The authors chosen panel regression try to explain the impact of Financial Industry and Globalization on Environmental Quality. It chosen methodology is comprehension.
2.In this study, just including the data which from 1971 to 2015, which was not skip some major impact in six MENA countries (like covid19 and so on), it is may let some bias for conclusions in this study. And the data of this study is too “dated”. Have to renew all of data of research.
3.It is suggested that the author should ask the MDPI editing center to revise the paper and format it again.
Author Response
Ref: Manuscript ID: sustainability-2062022
Original Article Title: “The Impact of Financial Industry and Globalization on Environmental Quality
”
To: Ms. Janice Jia
Re: Response to Editor and reviewers Comments
Dear Editor,
Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments.
We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments (below) (response to reviewers), (b) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting indicating changes.
Best regards,
MUSHTAQ AHMAD.
Reviewer#2
Thank you for your efforts in conducting this study during very difficult pandemic, however I have a number of suggestions/questions that should be resolved before granting publication of this research which are as follows:
Thank you. We are encouraged by your above comments. We believe we have addressed your remaining concerns through this round of revision. Please see the revised manuscript and our itemized responses to your comments below.
Reviewer#2, Concern # 1: The authors chosen panel regression try to explain the impact of Financial Industry and Globalization on Environmental Quality. It chosen methodology is comprehension.
Author response: Thank you, we explained the impact of financial industry and globalization on environmental quality.
Reviewer#2, Concern # 2: In this study, just including the data which from 1971 to 2015, which was not skip some major impact in six MENA countries (like covid19 and so on), it is may let some bias for conclusions in this study. And the data of this study is too “dated”. Have to renew all of data of research.
Author response: The authors thank for the reviewer’s comment. As per the reviewer’s comment
(R2 Q1)We are concerned with factors such as FDI inflows, financial development, Globalization, CO2 discharges, population, and economic growth by GDP; on the other hand, the rest of the important areas are different kinds of the EKS theory. With the availability of data issue, we are concerned with the population from the MENA region for the period of 1971-2015 and we have considered Israel and Saudi Arabia in terms of higher wage level countries, Iran and Jordan with middle-level wages and lower-wage countries such as Egypt and Tunisia which took place between 1971-2015, this is due to the deficiency of the available information.
As well as working on another paper it will include FINANCIAL Crises (2008) for FDI and covid19 epidemic.
Reviewer#2, Concern # 3: It is suggested that the author should ask the MDPI editing center to revise the paper and format it again.
Author response: The authors appreciate the reviewer on this important comment regarding to editing it has been done by the native speaker. Please find the following certificate.
We are very thankful for the above encouraging comments and invaluable suggestions. We hope these replies and actions address all the comments which were issues by the reviewer.
Thank you
Reviewer 3 Report
The Impact of Financial Industry and Globalization on Environmental Quality
Line 16: what are some different regressors? Why are only six MENA countries chosen?
Line 18: There are many studies about the combined role of Globalization and Financial Development. You can search on google scholar.
Line 22: what is the motivation to use the FGLS method?
Line 42-47: These lines should move to the literature review section.
What is the reasoning behind choosing MENA counties?
Line 71-88: EKC hypothesis is well established in the literature, so it is not required to explain what EKC is. An important thing to explain is how you applied EKC in the study.
Line 119: with the data range 1971-2015, how could it be the latest study? You referred to this see this relevant study. 10.1002/sd.2192
The literature review section is a summary of different studies. It should be explained what has been done previously and where is the literature gap which authors want to cover in this study.
Line 272: what is the mechanism and justification for choosing these variables in the Empirical Model?
The results and discussion section are weak. It should be improved by adding the economic justification of the results.
The conclusion and policy implications should be based on the findings.
Author Response
Ref: Manuscript ID: sustainability-2062022
Original Article Title: “The Impact of Financial Industry and Globalization on Envi-ronmental Quality
”
To: Ms. Janice Jia
Re: Response to Editor and reviewers Comments
Dear Editor,
Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments.
We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments (below) (response to reviewers), (b) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting indicating changes.
Best regards,
MUSHTAQ AHMAD.
Reviewer#3
Thank you for your efforts in conducting this study during very difficult pandemic, however I have a number of suggestions/questions that should be resolved before granting publication of this research which are as follows:
Thank you. We are encouraged by your above comments. We believe we have addressed your remaining concerns through this round of revision. Please see the revised manuscript and our itemized responses to your comments below.
Reviewer#3, Concern # 1: Line 16: what are some different regressors? Why are only six MENA countries chosen?
Author response: We updated the manuscript by
So that is the reason; this study considers the MENA region. Many reasons can be discussed in selecting this region as these countries have more than 40 percent of the biosphere's natural gas. In contrast, 57% of the biosphere's oil reserves come from the regions’ greenhouse gases, about 85 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. The atmosphere is getting disturbed because of the financial grant on petroleum products [15]. Further, there is a huge deal of natural disasters in these countries in terms of carbon emissions. CO2 emissions are higher for most MENA countries than from other areas. Along these lines, it is critical to discover the linkage between CO2 emission and Globalization which includes the task of financial progress that is an important subject to highlight[16]. This study is the latest study to empirically explore the relationship between Globalization, the financial development sector and environmental degradation in six selected MENA countries between 1971 and 2015 based on the EKC hypothesis. Please find R3 Q1
Reviewer#3, Concern # 2: Line 18: There are many studies about the combined role of Globalization and Financial Development. You can search on Google scholar.
Author response: The authors thank for the reviewer’s comment. As per the reviewer’s comment (R3 Q2) however, hardly a few studies investigated that financial development can get the significant level and make the process strong. In this view, modernization fails to decrease the level of environmental discharge. Because of this reason, we added financial development to this study.
Reviewer#3, Concern # 3: Line 22: what is the motivation to use the FGLS method?
Author response: The authors appreciate the reviewer on this important comment regarding
To this comment it is the most appropriate analytical methods for solving heteroskedastic and automatic data coordination associated with feasible generalized least squares (FGLS). Please find R3 Q3
Reviewer#3, Concern # 4: Line 42-47: These lines should move to the literature review section
Author response: The authors thank the reviewer these lines are moved to the literature review section.
Reviewer#3, Concern # 5: What is the reasoning behind choosing MENA counties?
Author response: The authors thank the reviewer comment
(R3 Q5) So that is the reason; this study considers the MENA region. Many reasons can be discussed in selecting this region as these countries have more than 40 percent of the biosphere's natural gas. In contrast, 57% of the biosphere's oil reserves come from the regions’ greenhouse gases, about 85 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. The atmosphere is getting disturbed because of the financial grant on petroleum products [15]. Further, there is a huge deal of natural disasters in these countries in terms of carbon emissions. CO2 emissions are higher for most MENA countries than from other areas. Along these lines, it is critical to discover the linkage between CO2 emission and Globalization which includes the task of financial progress that is an important subject to highlight[16]. This study is the latest study to empirically explore the relationship between Globalization, the financial development sector and environmental degradation in six selected MENA countries between 1971 and 2015 based on the EKC hypothesis.
Reviewer#3, Concern # 6: Line 54: Line 71-88: EKC hypothesis is well established in the literature, so it is not required to explain what EKC is. An important thing to explain is how you applied EKC in the study.
Author response: The authors thank the reviewer,
(R3 Q6) this research study will arrange EKC in the chose MENA locale utilizing an appropriate econometric investigation.
Reviewer#3, Concern # 7: Line 119: with the data range 1971-2015, how could it be the latest study? You referred to this see this relevant study. 10.1002/sd.2192
Author response:
Reviewer#3, Concern # 8: The literature review section is a summary of different studies. It should be explained what has been done previously and where the literature gap is which authors want to cover in this study.
Author response: Thank you. Literature review is revised as per reviewer comment .
Author action: We updated the manuscript by …. (R3 Q8)
According to this study, the epicenter is population development. Population mass is a critical issue for developing social and personal skills for the purpose of decreasing discharges through them. It also decreases discharges by creating the novel awareness of society. Financial growth and Globalization with CO2 discharges are focused views to be underlined. Even then, these variables together have been neglected.
In previous literature, it is noted that "Sustainable economic growth needs to be the primary objective of every government, including developing Asian countries, to improve the social welfare of the people[1]. Therefore, to achieve the desired level of sustainable economic growth, environmental degradation needs to be controlled without lowering real growth and the well-being of society.
Reviewer#3, Concern # 9: Line 272: what is the mechanism and justification for choosing these variables in the Empirical Model?
Author response: The authors appreciate the reviewer on this important comment and justification is added to the manuscript. Please find (R3 Q9)
Reviewer#3, Concern # 10: The results and discussion section are weak. It should be improved by adding the economic justification of the results.
Author response: The authors appreciate the reviewer the result and discussion section is improved as per reviewer suggestion. Please find R3 Q10
Reviewer#3, Concern # 11: The conclusion and policy implications should be based on the findings.
Author response: The authors appreciate the reviewer on this important comment about the conclusion and policy implication we updated it in manuscript.
We are very thankful for the above encouraging comments and invaluable suggestions. We hope these replies and actions address all the comments which were issues by the reviewer.
Thank you
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
There are some improvements in the article, but it seems to be hurriedly done with no proper attention to the flow of the new appendments with the current text. There are a lot of hanging sentences and inaccurate abbreviations.
Authors need to get professional help with English editing
The conclusion has to be improved significantly with an OVERVIEW OF THE MAIN RESEARCH, THE MAIN FINDINGS, AND CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE PAPER TO INDUSTRY AND KNOWLEDGE, BESIDES POSSIBLE FUTURE DIRECTION.
Author Response
Ref: Manuscript ID: sustainability-2062020
Original Article Title: “The Impact of Financial Industry and Globalization on Environmental Quality”
To: Ms. Ms. Janice Jia
Re: Response to Editor and reviewers Comments
Dear Editor,
Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments.
We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments (below) (response to reviewers), (b) an updated manuscript with red highlighting indicating changes.
Best regards,
MUSHTAQ AHMAD
Reviewer#1
There are some improvements in the article, but it seems to be hurriedly done with no proper attention to the flow of the new appendments with the current text.
Thank you. We are encouraged by your above comments. We believe we have addressed your remaining concerns through this round of revision. Please see the revised manuscript and our itemized responses to your comments below.
Reviewer#1, Concern # 1: There are a lot of hanging sentences and inaccurate abbreviations.
Author response: Thank you we have checked and changed all the hanging sentences and inaccurate abbreviations.
Reviewer#1, Concern # 2: Authors need to get professional help with English editing.
Author response: The authors appreciate the reviewer on this important comment regarding to editing it has been done by the native speaker. Please find the following certificate.
Reviewer#1, Concern # 3: The conclusion has to be improved significantly with an overview of the main research, the main findings, and contributions of the paper to industry and knowledge, besides possible future direction.
Author response: The authors appreciate the reviewer on this important comment regarding the conclusion. We have made changes please find it in the manuscript.
We are very thankful for the above encouraging comments and invaluable suggestions. We hope these replies and actions address all the comments which were issues by the reviewer.
Thank you
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addresed all the comments execpt follwing so it should be addressed before publication.
with the data range 1971-2015, how could it be the latest study? You referred to this see this relevant study. 10.1002/sd.2192
Author Response
Ref: Manuscript ID: sustainability-2062020
Original Article Title: “The Impact of Financial Industry and Globalization on Environmental Quality
”
To: Ms. Janice Jia
Re: Response to Editor and reviewers Comments
Dear Editor,
Thank you for allowing a resubmission of our manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments.
We are uploading (a) our point-by-point response to the comments (below) (response to reviewers), (b) an updated manuscript with yellow highlighting indicating changes.
Best regards,
MUSHTAQ AHMAD.
Reviewer#3
The authors have addressed all the comments except following so it should be addressed before publication. with the data range 1971-2015, how could it be the latest study? You referred to this see this relevant study. 10.1002/sd.2192
Thank you. We are encouraged by your above comments. The paper you suggested for citations is irrelevant, therefore, we cannot cite it in this manuscript.
We are very thankful for the above encouraging comments and invaluable suggestions. We hope these replies and actions address all the comments which were issues by the reviewer.
Thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
