Impact of Digital Finance on Green Technology Innovation: The Mediating Effect of Financial Constraints
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Congratulations on your work. I have a few suggestions that I hope would improve the readability of your research. I suggest to expand the discussion about the results obtained (maybe in a separate section) and anchor your results within the existing body of knowledge, at the same time emphasizing the novelty and contribution of your study. Also, I suggest to include a few more recently published articles in your literature review section.
Best of luck!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your detailed comments and suggestions on our paper. We have carefully considered and fully addressed the comments raised by the reviewers in this revision. Our point-to-point response to your comments is presented as follows.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments:
Point 1: Expand the discussion about the results obtained (maybe in a separate section) and anchor your results within the existing body of knowledge, emphasize the novelty and contribution of your study.
Response 1:
(Please see line 294, page 12)
Based on your suggestion, we’ve added a discussion sub-section to our paper.
Point 2: Include a few more recently published articles in your literature review section.
Response 2:
Based on your suggestion, some recently published articles have been added to the paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
Please consider the following comments
1- add China and the A-sh model to the keywords
2- The introduction better to start with green technology not with degradation as it is the main concept of the article.
3- A main question is required in the abstract, also the notion of emission
3- Results are not given, a section is required
4- Based on the data what is your discussion for the main findings of this research?
5- If this is on a critical subject then if no recommendations are given, this means no benefit is made to the public good.
6 please add policy recommendations
7- Reference list is discrimination as it is impossible to only cite people from your country, thus enrich the list of references as many other scholars write on this topic.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your detailed comments and suggestions on our paper. We have carefully considered and fully addressed the comments raised by the reviewers in this revision. Our point-to-point response to your comments is presented as follows.
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments:
Point 1: add China and the A-sh model to the keywords
Response 1:
(Please see line 22, page 1)
Based on your comment, the suggested keyword has been added.
Point 2: The introduction better to start with green technology not with degradation as it is the main concept of the article.
Response 2:
(Please see line 27, page 1)
The introduction has been revised to start with green technology based on your suggestion.
Point 3: Results are not given, a section is required.
Response 3:
(Please line 323-330, page 12)
Based on your suggestion, the paper offers the results in section 6.
Point 4: Based on the data what is your discussion for the main findings of this research?
Response 4:
(Please see line 294, page 12)
Based on your suggestion, we’ve added a discussion sub-section to our paper.
Point 5: If this is on a critical subject then if no recommendations are given, this means no benefit is made to the public good.
Response 5:
(Please see line 331-342, page 12-13)
Based on your suggestion, recommendations are given in section 6.
Point 6: Please add policy recommendations.
Response 6:
(Please see line 343, page 13)
Based on your suggestion, policy recommendations have been given in section 6.
Point 7: Reference list is discrimination as it is impossible to only cite people from your country, thus enrich the list of references as many other scholars write on this topic.
Response 7:
Based on your suggestion, this now contains literature from domestic and other countries’ scholars.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for the chance to review your paper. However, I found many critical issues in the research article which have to be addressed to be fully considered for publication. For this time, your paper does not fully meet the scientific standards. I present some of my suggestions.
References – your papers do not include enough relevant references (I appreciate mostly up-to-date references). The papers are based on the review of only 38 references which is, in my opinion, insufficient for scientific papers which have to contextualise papers with respect to previous studies. The authors must have a complete theoretical background to develop and support the hypothesis.
Introduction – I would recommend better establishing the exact problem of the study. The authors should explain the core idea of the research, and why this topic is relevant and important.
Discussion – In this part, the authors should compare their results with previous studies in a critical way, but this part is missing in the paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your detailed comments and suggestions on our paper. We have carefully considered and fully addressed the comments raised by the reviewers in this revision. Our point-to-point response to your comments is presented as follows.
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments:
Point 1: References – your papers do not include enough relevant references (I appreciate mostly up-to-date references). The papers are based on the review of only 38 references which is, in my opinion, insufficient for scientific papers which have to contextualise papers with respect to previous studies. The authors must have a complete theoretical background to develop and support the hypothesis.
Response 1:
(Please see line 119, page 3)
Based on your suggestion, the paper adds the theoretical analysis to support the hypothesis.
Point 2: Introduction – I would recommend better establishing the exact problem of the study. The authors should explain the core idea of the research, and why this topic is relevant and important.
Response 2:
(Please see line 24, page 1)
Based on your suggestion, we revised the structure of the introduction. First of all, the introduction starts with the concept of green technology innovation. Secondly, the paper introduces the role of digital finance. Finally, the paper connects digital finance and green technology innovation.
Point 3: Discussion – In this part, the authors should compare their results with previous studies in a critical way, but this part is missing in the paper.
Response 3:
(Please see line 294, page 12)
Based on your suggestion, the paper adds the discussion part.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, please compare your research results with more previous studies.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your detailed comments and suggestions on our paper. We have carefully considered and fully addressed the comments raised by the reviewers in this revision. Our point-to-point response to your comments is presented as follows.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments:
Point 1: Please compare your research results with more previous studies.
Response 1:
(Please see Line 120-127 (Page 3), Line 301 (Page 11), Line 308-346 (page 12-13).
Based on your suggestion, by combining previous studies with this paper, we’ve added more analysis in the discussion part.
Best Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
