Exploring the Demand-Pull Effect on Green Innovation and Its Spatial Spillover Effects: Evidence from 261 Chinese Prefecture-Level Cities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors Hypotheses for testing the significance of regression model coefficients should be clearly written and explained. So, in order to check the significance of the values of the regression coefficients obtained from the evaluation by the Least Squares method, hypotheses must first be established. In Table 3 and in the note written under the corresponding subsequent tables (Notes: *, **, *** indicate that t statistic is significant at 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively. Standard errors are in brackets.) it is shown that , the numbers written in parentheses are the standard errors of the found values of the coefficients. Note that as Hypothesis H0: ?i=0 - the main hypothesis, H1: ?i≠0 -alternative hypothesis If it is accepted, then the standard error should be smaller than the found value of the coefficient so that the actual value of Student's t is greater than the critical value in order to reject the main hypothesis (that the coefficient is zero) and the found value of the coefficient at 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively can be considered significant. In the article, we see the opposite and a misunderstanding arises. 2) To check the adequacy of the regression model, the Gauss-Markov conditions imposed on the residuals should be tested (autoregression, stationarity, homescedasticity, etc.) so that the hypothesis of normal distribution, where ???~???(0, ?2) and ε??~???(0, ?2) should be true and the values of the coefficients found by LS should be considered unbiased and effective.Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript.
Please see the attachment for details.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Before considering this paper for publication in Sustainability, several areas require improvement:
1. Clarity of Research Aim: The introduction does not clearly elucidate the study's objectives. While the author briefly mentions the paper's aim in lines 102-104, it doesn't accurately reflect the research's goals. Furthermore, different objectives are presented in lines 242-244. It's imperative to rectify and explicitly expound on the purpose of this research. This clarification should be consistently reflected throughout the entire paper.
2. Equation Consistency: In equation (1), there is a discrepancy between the variables defined in the equation and the explanation provided in lines 251-256. This discrepancy must be addressed and rectified, or a proper explanation should be provided to reconcile the differences.
3. Transparency of Data Sources: The text lacks clarity regarding the sources of data. While some institutional names are mentioned, there are no accompanying links or specific modes of identification. It is crucial to provide transparent and accessible information about the data sources.
4. Baseline Regression: In the discussion of the baseline regression, the author mentions differences in estimates across columns 1, 2, and 3. However, there is confusion regarding the use of time and city-fixed effects in column 3. The author should clarify and ensure consistency in the application of these fixed effects throughout the paper.
5. Methodology Explanation: On line 360, the author refers to using OLS, but it is unclear whether they mean a pooled model or fixed effects. Table 3 indicates that all three columns employ fixed effects. It is important to clearly specify the methodology chosen and provide a scientific rationale for its selection.
6. Data Pre-Testing: The paper lacks evidence of pre-testing the data, such as unit root tests or cointegration panel assessments. Conducting appropriate data tests before the baseline study is essential and should be explained.
7. Methodological Justification: The author should elucidate the scientific reasons behind choosing the methods employed in the paper, especially OLS. A robust rationale for method selection enhances the paper's credibility.
8. Conclusion and Future Research: In the conclusion, it would be beneficial for the author to acknowledge the limitations of the study and suggest potential areas for future research based on the findings. This addition will provide a more comprehensive closure to the paper.
These revisions will significantly enhance the paper's quality and readiness for publication in Sustainability.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe authors should diligently identify and rectify remaining grammatical errors requiring minor adjustments. Thorough proofreading and editing are necessary to address these issues.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript.
Please see the attachment for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe literature review needs a lot of improvement. More than three hundred papers can be found in the field (I used Web of Science), 11 are reviews and several have been published by this journal... and you cite none of the Sustainability papers. The statement "Given the relatively limited number of literatures directly related to the research con-139 tent of this paper" has to be supported by more evidence.
By improving this, the paper should change in general, to engage in those relevant papers, especially those published by Sustainability.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript.
Please see the attachment for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has diligently provided detailed appendices, which is commendable. However, the purposes and objectives of this data have not been adequately explained. Necessary revisions are as follows:
1. The author's study, based on panel data from 261 prefecture-level cities in China from 2008 to 2020, has a broad scope and objective. However, in comparison, there is insufficient reference to pertinent literature, and some references lack exemplary representativeness. Please rectify this.
2. Some references are not cited in the main text, while others are mentioned in the main text but not included in the reference list. This issue should be addressed.
3. Spatial spillover effects are one of the most important concepts in geography when exploring spatial economics. However, the explanation and analysis of the relationship between green innovation in cities and spatial spillover effects in this paper are notably inadequate. Please make appropriate amendments.
4. The explanation of the research methodology is inadequate. The issue here lies in the lack of rigorous testing and confirmation between the proposed indicators and research hypotheses.
5. The main objectives of this paper, which can provide learning opportunities for specialized readers, should be explicitly elucidated.
6. The conclusion is excessively long and does not align with the expected results posited by the research hypotheses. The conclusion must be clearly stated and correspond to the claims made in this paper.
7. The conclusion and discussion recommendations should be presented in separate sections.
8. A dialogue between the research findings and the central claims of the study should take place before the conclusion.
9. For an SSCI journal, this paper's length is excessive. It is strongly recommended that the author significantly shorten the article.
10. The author's understanding of the research problem seems somewhat disconnected from the design and analysis of the research framework, making it challenging to establish an effective connection. This paper highlights significant structural issues that need to be thoroughly addressed. Please rectify this.
11. This article has been subjected to a plagiarism check using the "Turnitin" system, which revealed a similarity score of 21%, excluding the reference list and citations. According to the standards of SSCI journals, this level of similarity is considered excessively high. Therefore, it is recommended to make appropriate revisions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript.
Please see the attachment for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in current form.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageno
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your time and valuable feedback. We are delighted to hear that you recommend the acceptance of our paper. Your suggestions have been immensely helpful in improving the manuscript, and we have subsequently refined and proofread the paper again.
Once again, we appreciate your support and invaluable insights.
Warm regards,
The authors.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the effort invested in the correction of the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI suggest an additional proofreading for minor details.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept the paper in its present form; the authors addressed the recommendations made.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your time and valuable feedback. We are delighted to hear that you recommend the acceptance of our paper. Your suggestions have been immensely helpful in improving the manuscript, and we have subsequently refined and proofread the paper again.
Once again, we appreciate your support and invaluable insights.
Warm regards,
The authors.
