Low-Carbon Community Regeneration in China: A Case Study in Dadong
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. In my opinion, the abstract should be rewritten in the following order: A brief background, then a short description of methods adopted, major findings, novelty, and the expected benefit/scope of the study. The abstract is not well-focused.
2. As the authors has tried to utilize regression analysis, Following OLS estimate, check for BLUE (Best, Linear, Unbiased Estimator) must be carried out to identify & finally decide on the degree of co-relation among the indicators or variables.
3. In the regression model, the adjusted R2 (adjusted for the number of predictors in the model) tends to optimistically estimate the fit of the linear regression. Hence, adjusted R2 should be used to comment on the goodness of the fit of the final regression model used in this study. It’s missing in this research.
4. Care should be taken to ameliorate the quality of the manuscript’s language (i.e., check for Grammatical errors and spelling mistakes). Probably help can be taken from natives.
5. Proper coherence is missing. All the paragraphs should fit together well so that they form a clear idea.
6. The research gap is missing. I can’t find any specific research question and associated research hypothesis that the authors are intending to achieve. There should be some clear, specific research questions and a central argument for the research.
7. The literature review is not representing a clear structure and seems to present case studies. At the same time, more time could be spent on covering the core concepts covered. The reasoning for the case study could have been presented more clearly. Most of the literature cited is rather a narrative of the facts from grey and white literature. Authors’ can follow a systemic approach or meta-analysis to bolster the literature review section.
8. The conclusion should wrap up the core findings of the study with a clear indication of the further scope of the research.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
My comments-corrections are in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All of my suggestions have been adressed by the authors. No further comments.
