Prediction of China’s Carbon Peak Attainment Pathway from Both Production-Side and Consumption-Side Perspectives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript,” Simulation prediction of China's carbon peak attainment 2 pathway from both the production-side and consumption-side 3 perspectives”, is good however, there are some modifications to be done to be considered for the publication.

Focusing on the demand and consumption side of the problem, is a good thinking. But the focus is not addressing the major question, that is the need and what are the problems that might come if it can’t be met.

Proper English editing is required. There are many spelling and grammatical errors in the manuscript.

The manuscript should clearly mention, what kind of simulation was carried out in this study and also about the tool is anything used.

The same results provided in figure 3 and figure 4 were repeated in a comparison manner in figure 5.

Likewise figure 6 and 7 seems like an extension of table 2.

Adding more results or explanations might be good in this study. Explanations in terms of benefits of following the three scenarios mentioned in this study and also their limitations.

The conclusion part can be updated with the main findings. Consider giving them in a point by point basis to give a clear and easy understanding to the readers.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 Thank you very much for your professional suggestions, which has been of great help to me. I have made the following modifications according to your suggestions.

1.Fixed spelling and grammar problems. 

2.Corresponding results or explanations are added in many places. 

3.Some modifications have been made to the structure of the paper. 

In addition, please allow me to explain third and fourth comment you mentioned. Figure 5 is mainly a comparative analysis of carbon dioxide emission trends from different angles in the same scene, which may enable us to see the differences more directly and make better analysis.

Please see the revised manuscript for more details.Thank you again for your suggustions and wish you all the best 

Reviewer 2 Report

see separate review file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your professional suggustions, which has helped me a lot. As you said, this article uses static forecasting. At the beginning of the paper research, I considered dynamic prediction, but the dynamic prediction is very difficult, and it will be affected by many factors. So I finally chose static prediction, which is also a defect of the paper. Thanks again for your suggestion. In my next paper research, I will try my best to consider the response of the economic system and adopt dynamic prediction to improve the level of the paper. As for your suggestions, the paper has been revised as follows:

1.The writing details have been modified according to your suggestions.

2.Corresponding results or explanations are added in many places.

3.The article structure has been adjusted.

In addition，I need to do some explain. Processing export means an export mode in which foreign countries import raw materials, spare parts, components, packaging materials, auxiliary materials, etc., after processing and assembly in their own countries, the finished products are shipped abroad for sale.

And I would not divide the economy into four sectors, but the sources of carbon dioxide into four sectors according to China's energy balance sheet. I am very sorry for the misunderstanding.

   Please see the revised manuscript for more details. Thank you again for your suggustions and wish you all the best

Reviewer 3 Report

The subject matter of the article is interesting and worth describing. However, the method of implementation requires a major adjustment. In the Introduction, the authors presented an introduction to the subject. The Introduction section is severely deficient. It does not contain all the necessary elements. The main goal has not been defined, but there are no specific goals either.

Nor is it explicitly stated what the contribution to science is.

Research hypotheses or research questions should be given in the Introduction section. At the end, a brief summary of the content of each section should also be provided.

The work layout is not quite correct. I have already listed the elements that may be included in Section 1 Introduction. Section 2 is acceptable (2. Review of the Literature). The following sections have incorrect titles. According to the guidelines, there should be sections Materials and methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion.

The next section should be called Materials and methods. Meanwhile, in the article, the authors called it 3. Research Methodology and Data. The word methodology is incorrectly used. Methodology is the study of methods. It seems that the author does not want to study the methods, but to present the methods used in the research. The word methodology should be corrected to Methods.

Section 3 should be in the right order, i.e. Materials first, then Methods. This section should contain more detailed information on the scope of the research and the stages of the research. A diagram can be prepared to help readers understand the steps of the research.

In my opinion section 4 should be a subsection of section 3 Materials and methods.

Section 5 title should be different (Results). This section presents the results of the research. Readers have already received the final graphs presenting carbon dioxide emissions. Some numerical data from the subsequent calculation steps are missing.

The article is missing a separate Discussion section. I understand discussion as referring to other research after presenting your research results. In my opinion, conducting research without a clear comparison and reference to other studies makes it impossible to properly assess the results obtained. Such references appeared in other parts. Some of it is in section 2. You can move some text to the Discussion section. More references to studies by other authors should be used.

The title of section 6. Conclusion and Policy Implications may be changed to Conclusions and recommendations. In this section, you must certainly refer to the hypotheses or research questions that have been put forward. Can the hypotheses be tested positively or negatively? Conclusions can be scored. Conclusions should be a synthesis. Future research directions and recommendations that can be made on the basis of the research results should also be indicated.

The bibliography is poor. Only 24 literature items were used. This is definitely not enough for a high-IF journal article. In addition, reference was made almost exclusively to Chinese authors.

Other notes:

Figures 1 and 2. Words are truncated. Need to improve.

Figures 1 and 2 hardly differ. Figure 2 additionally includes Ipmort and export trade.

Table 2. Not all parameters have units, e.g. Energy consumption per capita?

The word Analysis should not be used in the headings of sections or subsections. Analysis is a research method. Titles should be substantive and indicate dependencies. Here are some examples of misuse of the word analysis:

5. Simulation results and analysis

5.1. Analysis of carbon emission trends by perspective

5.1.2. Analysis of carbon emission trends on the consumption side

5.2. Analysis of carbon emission trends by scenario

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your professional suggust, which has helped me a lot. Under your suggestion, I have made the following modifications:

1. Revised introduction and conclusion.

2. Adjusted the structure of the article.

3. Some references are added.

Please see the revised manuscript for more details.  Thank you again for your advice. I have learned a lot from it, which is very helpful for my future research and writing. I wish you all the best.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made many good changes to the manuscript.

 

However, I am not very clear about the simulation part. Has there been any simulation method or tool used? If so include the details.

If not please change the word simulation from the title, maybe consider using investigation or analysis. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your suggestion, which is very reasonable. The title has been modified according to your suggestion .

Please see the revised manuscript for more details. Thank you again for your suggustion and wish you all the best.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors reacted quite generally to the comments. They wrote that they corrected it, but without giving details. This answer is very weak. In my opinion, only minor aspects have been improved, while the most serious remarks have not been taken into account. My comments from the previous review still apply.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you very much for your advice. Please see the attachmet to check my reply

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

I accept the article after corrections.