Spatial Heterogeneity Effects of Green Finance on Absolute and Relative Poverty

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract must be structured: Purpose: (text...); Results and contributions: (text...); Methodology: (text...); Gap: (text...); Relevance: (text...); Impact: (text...).

Significant of the paper:

This paper does not contain enough new and significant knowledge. The purpose of the investigation is neither original nor relevant.

Literature:

The article is well related to the previous literature. However, the authors do not demonstrate extensive knowledge of these studies. Authors should do an additional task of researching recent work and incorporating innovative arguments into their research.

Methodology: 

The research method is adequate, built on previous work through surveys, although it presents a high degree of similarity. It is important for the authors to present something new to add to the investigation.

Results:

The research results are clearly presented, but are similar to those obtained in previous literature. The authors do not add any innovation.

Implications for research:  

Studying the Effects of Spatial Heterogeneity of Green Finance on Absolute and Relative Poverty is important for society and for business sustainability. However, authors will have to present something that adds to the existing literature.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with important subject -effects of Green Finance on Absolute and Relative Poverty in China. The paper needs revision due to pour literature review. There are many new important  studies dealing with similar issue. The theoretical background for selection of methods needs to be provided. The paper does not have discussion section. This is the most important for scientific papers. The results of this study should be discussed in the light of other studies performed in this field to highlight the input of this paper. The "suggestions" should be removed from conclusions. The policy implications need to be added instead. The limits of conducted study needs to be defined very clearly and the replicability of this study needs to be discussed. 

The paper needs major revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors revised their paper based on my comments. They also provided answers to my comments which fully satisfy me. I do not have more comments and think that paper can be published in current form.