Industrial Carbon Emission Efficiency of Cities in the Pearl River Basin: Spatiotemporal Dynamics and Driving Forces

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The Strengths of this research work are:

-          The problem is well-motivated and well-defined.

-          The literature review is good.

-          The references are appropriate.

-          The figures are appropriate.

Weaknesses of this research work are:

-          The introduction must be improved.

-          The related work section must be enhanced.

-          Experimental evaluation must be improved.

-          Some improvements are needed in the description of the method.

In this research, the SBM model is used to measure the ICEE in the PRB. The spatial effect of ICEE was analyzed by LISA time path and space-time transition, and its influencing factors were studied by the geographic detectors and geographically weighted regression model. The following points should be incorporated to improve the papers.

·         Some sentences are too long. Generally, it is better to write short sentences with one idea per sentence.

·         The introduction should clearly explain the key limitations of prior work that are relevant to this paper.

·         The authors should explain clearly what the differences are between the prior work and the solution presented in this paper.

·         The authors should first give an overview of their solution before explaining the details.

·         It is necessary to discuss the complexity of the proposed solution.

·         The experiments should be updated to include some comparison with newer studies.

·         Some text must be added to discuss the future work or research opportunities.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have a few suggestions for the authors:

1. The title should be shorter and more powerful to raise readers interest

2. Avoid abbreviations in the abstract. The abstract should be kept clean and include the objective of the research, the methodology used, the findings and the novelty of the research. All the other explanations should be kept for the paper body

3. At the end of introduction you use the perspective of first person (we). Try to avoid this perspective in the paper and instead use phrases like the present research or something similar to keep the paper objective. 

4. Figure 2,3 and 6 have a low quality. A better resolution is needed especially for no. 6

5. Conclusions and Discussions are two separate aspects in a scientific paper. So I advise to separate them 

6. The discussions should be focused on your findings and comparing them with other results in the literature

7. the conclusions should have mentions for the following: Theoretical and practical implications for your research, limitations of your research and future research directions. 

 

5. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx