Can Green Financial Reform Policies Promote Enterprise Development? Empirical Evidence from China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
-- Please elaborate on the contribution of your study in Introduction Section.
-- As explained in Data section, you used a dataset provided by the Chinese government that presented data for enterprises in "five provinces and eight cities" in 2017. We are in 2023, and your data is old enough. That’s better you use another dataset for current years.
-- Please add a section, titled “Data Section” and present all information related to data and variables (information presented in sections 3.1 and 3.2 can be considered in Data Section). Add another section, titled “Methodology” and provide all information related to methodologies which applied in this study. Section 3.3 can be considered in the Methodology Section. Your models need to be explained in more detail, however.
-- There are other models can be considered for estimating your data. Why you used differential model? Please explain your reasons and advantages of using this model.
- References are not enough and Literature Review section must be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall Review: The research chosen and the application of the technique make the research interesting. Overall the research is well explained and presented and the work deserves appreciation. However, there may be some improvements in this work for the betterment of the study. The English language needs a minor improvement in making fonts, line spacing, sentences, paragraphs, and citations as per the MDPI style. The paragraphs should have a similar length in the complete research paper, which may enhance the quality of the work. There should be a higher number of citations throughout the research. The work does not reflect a dedicated contribution in the sense of structuring. However, suggested comments can help the researcher to improve the quality of the research paper for the mass reader.
(1) Title
· Authors have framed a very basic title.
· It is acceptable.
(2) Abstract and Keywords
· Abstract is well articulated representing a good snapshot of the research.
· Sentences need some improvement in vocabulary and grammar for the English language.
· Keywords are well chosen and suiting with the research.
(3) Introduction
· A good presentation of the work with the requirements.
· It must follow the MDPI style of font style, line spacing, and citations.
· Sentences that are written need to have a proper flow and connectivity, and need improvement.
· Paragraphs must be evenly distributed.
· It is not the literature review. So it should be the introductory presentation.
· Research gap and research question are well articulation.
· English grammar and punctuation need improvement.
(4) Literature review
· There must be 1 or 2 paragraphs before subsection 2.1.
· Subsection headings style must follow the MDPI style.
· It must follow the MDPI style of font style, line spacing, and citations.
· Sentences that are written needs to have a proper flow and connectivity, and need improvement.
· Paragraphs must be evenly distributed.
· All subsections should have a similar presentation in size.
· This segment is well explained with the clarity of explanations for sections and subsections.
· Hypotheses should be clearly mentioned.
· The section should provide more information and the source self or reference.
· It is not very impressive as presented.
· English grammar and punctuation need improvement.
(5) Research design
· There must be 1 or 2 paragraphs before subsection 3.1.
· Subsection headings style must follow the MDPI style.
· It must follow the MDPI style of font style, line spacing, and citations.
· Sentences that are written need to have a proper flow and connectivity and need improvement.
· Paragraphs must be evenly distributed.
· Equations are well justified.
· All subsections should have a similar presentation in size.
· Table 1 needs a source as self or reference.
· This segment is well explained with the clarity of explanations for sections and subsections.
· The section should provide more information and the source self or reference.
· It is not very impressive as presented.
· English grammar and punctuation need improvement.
· The research design needs more clarity.
· English grammar and punctuation need improvement.
(6) Empirical research
· There must be 1 or 2 paragraphs before subsection 4.1.
· Subsection headings style must follow the MDPI style.
· It must follow the MDPI style of font style, line spacing, and citations.
· Sentences that are written need to have a proper flow and connectivity, and need improvement.
· Paragraphs must be evenly distributed.
· Equations are well justified.
· All subsections should have a similar presentation in size.
· Table 2 needs a source as self or reference.
· Table 3 needs a source as self or reference.
· This segment is well explained with the clarity of explanations for sections and subsections.
· The section should provide more information and the source self or reference.
· It is not very impressive as presented.
· English grammar and punctuation need improvement.
· The section is not as catchy as it can be.
· English grammar and punctuation need improvement.
(7) Further examination
· There must be 1 or 2 paragraphs before subsection 5.1.
· Subsection headings style must follow the MDPI style.
· It must follow the MDPI style of font style, line spacing, and citations.
· Sentences that are written needs to have a proper flow and connectivity, and need improvement.
· Paragraphs must be evenly distributed.
· All subsections should have a similar presentation in size.
· Figure 1 needs source as self or reference.
· Figure 2 needs source as self or reference.
· Figure 3 needs a source as self or reference.
· Table 4 needs a source as self or reference.
· Table 5 needs a source as self or reference.
· Table 6 needs a source as self or reference.
· Table 7 needs a source as self or reference.
· Table 8 needs a source as self or reference.
· Table 9 needs a source as self or reference.
· Table 10 needs a source as self or reference.
· This segment is well explained with the clarity of explanations for sections and subsections.
· The section should provide more information and the source self or reference.
· It is not very impressive as presented.
· English grammar and punctuation need improvement.
· The section is not as catchy as it can be.
· English grammar and punctuation need improvement.
(8) Conclusions and policy recommendations
· There must be 1 or 2 paragraphs before subsection 5.1.
· Subsection headings style must follow the MDPI style.
· It must follow the MDPI style of font style, line spacing, and citations.
· Sentences that are written need to have a proper flow and connectivity and need improvement.
· Paragraphs must be evenly distributed.
· All subsections should have a similar presentation in size.
· The section should provide more information and the source self or reference.
· It is not very impressive as presented.
· English grammar and punctuation need improvement.
· The section is not as catchy as it can be.
· English grammar and punctuation need improvement.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The author(s) examined the impact of green financial reform policy on enterprise development by using the data of 33,539 Chinese enterprises from 2007 to 2021. The moderating effects of financing constraints, government subsidies, CSR also are investigated. This is an interesting study. I have the following questions/ suggestions.
(1) This research is largely framed in the context of China. What about the research findings of other countries? The literature review was inadequate. The research gap should be identified based on a more solid foundation.
The rationale underlying the model construction and indicator selection should be elaborated based on a wider and more in-depth literature review, especially reviewing the literature of other countries.
(2) What practical/professional and academic consequences will this study have for the future of scientific literature (theoretical contributions)?
Why is this study necessary? Again, the authors should make clear arguments to explain what the originality is and value of the proposed the impact of green financial reform policy on enterprise development in China. This should be stated in the final paragraphs of the introduction and conclusion sections.
In the first and second paragraphs of the introduction, the authors expressed an intention to understand the profile of green financial reform policy, enterprise development, financing constraints, government subsidies, CSR. This would be an irrelevant inference. Also, bear in mind that contexts matter a lot unless contextual factor is taken into consideration.
(3) Variables are not enough sufficiently supported or clearly explained. So I advise authors to propose some suitable hypotheses for models following some literature review, which can make readers very clear about the source and basis of your hypotheses.
(4) The methodological contribution is limited. The methods are similar to existing methods. I suggest authors provide explanations on what and why the PSM-DID methodology was applied different and valuable compared to existing methods. Why did not propose…….model. Please more interpretation.
(5) The discussion needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular and help us see the relevance of what the authors have proposed. The authors need to contextualize the findings in the literature and need to be explicit about the added value of your study towards that literature. Also, other studies should be cited to increase the theoretical background of each of the methods used. Findings should be contextualized in the literature and should be explicit about the added value of the study towards the literature. The contribution and implications of the article are yet to be specified. Please refer the style, DOI:10.3390/ijerph16132396 or 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132635
(6) Professional editing is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have performed the suggested corrections. The paper needs adjustments removing the unneedful sentences, and rechecking required with heading numbers.
Author Response
Comment: The authors have performed the suggested corrections. The paper needs adjustments removing the unneedful sentences, and rechecking required with heading numbers.
Response: We once again appreciate the comments made by the reviewer. We have removed the unneedful sentences, and heading numbers have been checked carefully. We hope the revised version will fulfil the requirements of the esteemed reviewer.
Reviewer 3 Report
The current version is suitable for publication
Author Response
Response to reviewer 3
Comment: The current version is suitable for publication
Response: Thank you so much.
