A Method for Allocation of Carbon Emission Quotas to Provincial-Level Industries in China Based on DEA
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is overall written and it is timely and relevant. However, some issues require attention.
No references of 2022 are cited in the paper.
In the literature review the authors should mention the protocol used to conduct the literature review. There is software that allows conducting comprehensive protocols and can also help highlighting the research gaps in the literature (see e.g. VOsviewer). Just stating what each author has done without any articulation is not the ideal way. In order to better systematize the literature review, there should be Tables for each subsection of the literature review with different fields summarizing the main information available on these studies, also highlighting the type of methodologies used to better justify the authors’ methodology choice and how it brings novelties into the analysis. Then, just a brief discussion of the main topics addressed in the literature should be considered highlighting the main gaps and how this work fills in these gaps.
Authors should enhance the way they present the results.
The results obtained should be contrasted with the available literature.
Conclusions should be further developed – What are the main limitations? What is the main value added of this study? What can be done as a future work development?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Introduction:
The is no mention that China never signed Kyoto Protocol, and this paper is misleading in this matter. The introduction makes China feel deeply engaged in sustainability, which is not true.
Line 32 where exactly was the conference held?
Line 44 when China introduced a quota-based domestic carbon market?
Line 53 It is good that the Authors indicated another source than the domestic statistical office. However, the reference is in another style than suggested by the journal.
The aim of the research is not presented.
The presented model or method is not related to the subject of this paper and provides the introduction. The described method is related to the decision-making units (DMUs) and sub-decision-making units (SDMUs). Can you please present similar works from European or American scientific authors involving the DEA method?
I cannot indicate errors in your equations only because you place a group under a single number.
There are too many Chinese authors' references, and this paper is written in more propaganda language than scientific.
The conclusion section is too short; it should be extended by the practical implications of this paper's research and theoretical contribution and should provide an answer to how to replicate your method in other countries.
This paper presents no limitations of the used method, the description of the method and the source of the data are also missing. The description of the research procedure should allow other scientists to reproduce the same results obtained in this study.
What is the business impact or scientific impact of your work? Who is asking for your research results? How are the presented results going to influence the Chinese government or provincial governments to achieve a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions?
Where is a visible set of all used in this study data and variables? Where is your Supplementary File S1? The data should be available online in English.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors addressed all my comments and as such the paper can be published.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Paper after major changes is now acceptable for publication after technical corrections.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
