Comparative Study on the Influencing Factors of the Greenhouse Gas Budget in Typical Cities: Case Studies of Beijing and Shenzhen
, Chaofan Xian 2, Baolong Han 2, Tian Xie 2, Chengji Shu 2, Zhiwen Chen 2, Haoqi Wang 2, Haijun Wang 3,* and Fei Lu 2,4,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript focuses on comprehensively accounts for the greenhouse gas budgets in the two cities (Beijing and Shenzhen) from 2005 to 2020, and explained the factors affecting the greenhouse gas budgets clearly. The topic of the research work and manuscript is really interesting and provides information. Overall the paper is very interesting. I have some minor changes that authors maybe can consider. I have pointed out a few issues that need to be addressed in order to improve the quality of the manuscript.
In introduction
I’d suggest in introduction to add more about using this method in practice with examples
a sentence should be added about the choice of selected cities to the previous paragraph, by whom, why and what is the reason?
And;
Discussion;
The population growth rate in Shenzhen city is too high compared to Beijing, could this be a reason affecting the results? please discuss this situation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The submitted manuscript needs a lot of improvements:
1. The abstract needs to be rewritten as a scientific article. It's too technical and doesn't capture the readers' attention.
2. Introduction: It should also be rewritten; it is necessary to present the objectives of this investigation in a more detailed way.
3. Authors should introduce a "Literature Review" section. Featuring recent articles on the topic under review. As a rule, scientific papers have two pages in this section, which is needed in this research.
4. The methodology: It is well structured.
5. In the results section, preliminary tests, such as unit roots and multicollinearity between variables, must be presented. Furthermore, it would be interesting for the authors to show descriptive statistics and correlations between the variables. More information is needed on the estimates presented. The authors could show the estimates in a single table. The interpretation of the results is necessary with more care.
6. Conclusion: This section needs to be extended to present the impacts on society and economic policy.
The manuscript needs some improvements between each of the sections.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I have put the comments in the attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
I am not native English. I generally think the language is good and the paper is well written. There are some minor issues however as I mention in the review such as the use of the word "promotion" to describe the positive relationship between a driver and a response. I personally do not think this is correct - but will leave it to others with better english skills than me to decide. I think a quick run through by a native english would be helpful.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised paper is good. The paper can be accepted.
The grammar is good. It necessary some corrctions.
