Incorporating Green Bonds into Portfolio Investments: Recent Trends and Further Research

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is contributing to the current scholarly world however it has some deficiencies to be taken care

First the paper need to clearly highlight the main aspects of the exisiting research on theme of Green Bond, this issue need to be further sorted out. The themes need to be coherent

Second after presenting the diagrams from vosviewer the results need to be further analyzed rather than just presenting them.

What is the difference between your bibliometric analysis and other literature review and scientometric studies done in this area of green bonds. Some of the similar studies are cited in your article as well. Express your contribution clearly.

 

At many places the authors need to work upon english language as statements are too long and losing relevance

Author Response

Incorporating of green bonds into portfolio investments: recent trends and further research

(Manuscript ID: sustainability- 2503712)

 

Authors’ comments to Reviewer 1

 

We thank you sincerely for your comments and advice on how to improve our paper. Your suggestions have helped us greatly in revising the paper. We attach the revised version and hope that it merits acceptance for publication in Sustainability.

 

Your positive comments have truly inspired us to improve the manuscript. We have accepted the vast majority of your suggestions. Below, we discuss the points raised in your report in detail and explain how we have revised the paper in light of these observations. We feel that addressing your concerns has helped to strengthen the paper.

 

1. The paper needs to clearly highlight the main aspects of the existing research on theme of Green Bond, this issue need to be further sorted out. The themes need to be coherent.

Thank you very much for your illuminating comment. We believe we have significantly improved. All sections were reviewed and supplemented, if necessary. Thus, the paper is complemented to deepen the main aspects of existing research on green bonds into investment portfolios.

 

2. After presenting the diagrams from vosviewer the results need to be further analyzed rather than just presenting them.

 

Thank you for your valuable comment. Further analysis is carried out.

 

 

3. What is the difference between your bibliometric analysis and other literature review and scientometric studies done in this area of green bonds. Some of the similar studies are cited in your article as well. Express your contribution clearly.

 

Thank you for your valuable comment. This issue is improved. Mainly, the clarification of the contributions of this study is made in the introduction and discussion section.

 

4. At many places the authors need to work upon english language as statements are too long and losing relevance.

 

Thank you for your valuable comment. The English language was thoroughly checked and improved.

 

Again, thank you very much for your constructive comments. The paper has benefited significantly from your helpful suggestions. We recognize the importance of your contributions in a footnote at the ending of the paper. We hope that you find this new version to be suitable for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Abstract: In the abstract section, specific policy recommendation should be mentioned.

2. Introduction: (i)The novelty of the study is not sufficiently clarified, the paper did highlight the contribution of the paper in the literature, but it is quite weak. It is important to identify the weakness of previous papers and show the argument and contribution of the paper.

(ii) The objectives of the papers should be properly given. I suggest, the objectives should be given point wise.

3. Literature Review: The literature review is a bit weak. So, I suggest you to review more papers and you should cover the literature till 2023.

4. Methods:  (i)The study should provide justification for using the methods used in the study, and how it is better than others from the literature.

(ii) The study needs to describe the theoretical relationship between the dependent and independent variables.

5. Results and Discussion. In the discussion section, the results should be compared with the existing studies; how your results are different from other studies in the field.

6. Conclusion, policy recommendations and future study directions should be written as separate headings.

7. English grammar, commas, spellings and all other related language issues should be checked properly.

 

English grammar, commas, spellings and all other related language issues should be checked properly.

Author Response

Incorporating of green bonds into portfolio investments: recent trends and further research

(Manuscript ID: sustainability- 2503712)

 

Authors’ comments to Reviewer 2

 

We thank you sincerely for your comments and advice on how to improve our paper. Your suggestions have helped us greatly in revising the paper. We attach the revised version and hope that it merits acceptance for publication in Sustainability.

 

Your positive comments have truly inspired us to improve the manuscript. We have accepted the vast majority of your suggestions. Below, we discuss the points raised in your report in detail and explain how we have revised the paper in light of these observations. We feel that addressing your concerns has helped to strengthen the paper.

 

1. Abstract: In the abstract section, specific policy recommendation should be mentioned.

Thank you very much for your illuminating comment. This issue was improved.

 

 

2. Introduction: (i)The novelty of the study is not sufficiently clarified, the paper did highlight the contribution of the paper in the literature, but it is quite weak. It is important to identify the weakness of previous papers and show the argument and contribution of the paper. (ii) The objectives of the papers should be properly given. I suggest, the objectives should be given point wise.

 

Thank you for your valuable comment. This issue is improved in the Introduction section.

 

 

3. Literature Review: The literature review is a bit weak. So, I suggest you to review more papers and you should cover the literature till 2023.

 

Thank you for your valuable comment. The literature was checked and improved with references till 2023.

 

4. Methods: (i) The study should provide justification for using the methods used in the study, and how it is better than others from the literature.

 

Thank you for your valuable comment. The Materials and Methods section explains why the ToS, Vosviewer, and Bibliometrix tools were used. In addition, the relationship between green bonds and the formation of investment portfolios is clearly described.

 

5. Results and Discussion. In the discussion section, the results should be compared with the existing studies; how your results are different from other studies in the field.

 

Thank you for your valuable comment. The Discussion section was improved.

 

 

6. Conclusion, policy recommendations, and future study directions should be written as separate headings.

 

Thank you for your valuable comment. These issues were written in separate headings.

 

 

7. English grammar, commas, spellings, and all other related language issues should be checked properly. Comments on the Quality of English Language English grammar, commas, spellings and all other related language issues should be checked properly.

 

Thank you for your valuable comment. The English language was thoroughly checked and improved.

 

 

Again, thank you very much for your constructive comments. The paper has benefited significantly from your helpful suggestions. We recognize the importance of your contributions in a footnote at the ending of the paper. We hope that you find this new version to be suitable for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The author used VOSviewer and Bibliometrix software to conduct a large number of literature reviews on 102 papers in the keywords "green bond*" and "investment portfolio". The content of the article is quite long, and the following comments are made:

1. To put it simply, it is only the accumulation of materials, which may be related to the fact that there are only 102 articles in the author's selected topics, which may be too small, or it may be the lack of arrangement and flow of ideas and arguments.

  (Compared to the author's selection of topics related to this publication: 217 studies

   in the 9th article and 319 in the 11th article in the reference list)

2. The software automatically generates all the graphs and tables, that lack the author's unique analysis angle and insight.

3. The source of external importance of this topic research is not described, and the source of internal importance is not explained enough.

 

4. Lack of questioning and research discussion, so that the main sentence and sub-sentence of the research question, as well as the discussion and conclusion of the cited content, cannot be produced.

no comments.

Author Response

Incorporating of green bonds into portfolio investments: recent trends and further research

(Manuscript ID: sustainability- 2503712)

 

Authors’ comments to Reviewer 3

 

We thank you sincerely for your comments and advice on how to improve our paper. Your suggestions have helped us greatly in revising the paper. We attach the revised version and hope that it merits acceptance for publication in Sustainability.

 

Your positive comments have truly inspired us to improve the manuscript. We have accepted the vast majority of your suggestions. Below, we discuss the points raised in your report in detail and explain how we have revised the paper in light of these observations. We feel that addressing your concerns has helped to strengthen the paper.

 

1. To put it simply, it is only the accumulation of materials, which may be related to the fact that there are only 102 articles in the author's selected topics, which may be too small, or it may be the lack of arrangement and flow of ideas and arguments.

Thank you very much for your comment. This issue was improved in detail. All studies were checked again. This is a growing field of research, and studies are scarce. All these were organized in a structured way.

 

 

2. The software automatically generates all the graphs and tables, that lack the author's unique analysis angle and insight.

 

Thank you for your valuable comment. This issue was improved.

 

 

3. The source of external importance of this topic research is not described, and the source of internal importance is not explained enough.

 

Thank you for your valuable comment. This issued was included.

 

4. Lack of questioning and research discussion, so that the main sentence and sub-sentence of the research question, as well as the discussion and conclusion of the cited content, cannot be produced.

 

Thank you for your valuable comment. The research questions were added in the Introduction section, and the discussion and conclusions sections were improved.

 

Again, thank you very much for your constructive comments. The paper has benefited significantly from your helpful suggestions. We recognize the importance of your contributions in a footnote at the ending of the paper. We hope that you find this new version to be suitable for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors made a comprehensive scientific analysis using scientific mapping methods (a very interesting method, but rarely used in scientific studies)
Both the methods used and the subject of research (green bonds and trends in their use) are not only interesting, but also current issues. Therefore, I do not make any comments to the method and selection of the subject of the analysis. However, I have one remark/reservation: the work does not pose hypotheses or research questions. I suggest filling this gap. This will definitely enrich the scientific value of the article and facilitate its - in my opinion - high evaluation.  

 

There are minor typos in the text, I think they will be removed at the editorial stage

 

Author Response

Incorporating of green bonds into portfolio investments: recent trends and further research

(Manuscript ID: sustainability- 2503712)

 

Authors’ comments to Reviewer 4

 

We thank you sincerely for your comments and advice on how to improve our paper. Your suggestions have helped us greatly in revising the paper. We attach the revised version and hope that it merits acceptance for publication in Sustainability.

 

Your positive comments have truly inspired us to improve the manuscript.

 

We have accepted the vast majority of your suggestions. Below, we discuss the points raised in your report in detail and explain how we have revised the paper in light of these observations. We feel that addressing your concerns has helped to strengthen the paper.

 

1. I have one remark/reservation: the work does not pose hypotheses or research questions. I suggest filling this gap. This will definitely enrich the scientific value of the article and facilitate its - in my opinion - high evaluation.

Thank you very much for your illuminating comment. We believe we have significantly improved. Please check the introduction section.

 

 

2. Comments on the Quality of English Language There are minor typos in the text, I think they will be removed at the editorial stage

 

Thank you for your valuable comment. Likewise, the paper was checked.

 

Again, thank you very much for your constructive comments. The paper has benefited significantly from your helpful suggestions. We recognize the importance of your contributions in a footnote at the ending of the paper. We hope that you find this new version to be suitable for publication.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all suggestions. So I accept the manuscript and recommend it for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

No comments.

No comments.