The Impact of Environmental Regulation on Cultivated Land Use Eco-Efficiency: Evidence from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor, I have carefully read this carefully prepared article that you have forwarded to me. As a referee, I have tried to list some of the shortcomings of the article below. Before I start my words, I have to state that I have not found any deficiencies in the methodology and method section of the article, so I would like to thank the authors.

 

However, I think there are some shortcomings in the article. For this reason, by emphasizing these deficiencies, the article can be made more understandable. First of all, the abstract part of the article should be reconsidered. Thus, it would be useful to write a new summary in which the work done in the study is expressed very briefly.

 

In addition, the sub-heading of the definition of the problem discussed in the article should be opened and a definition of the problem should be made with clear expressions. Similarly, the aim of the study should be added to the article under a sub-title. In the purpose section of the study, it should be clearly stated which process steps and which target will be reached with this study. It can even be emphasized in the secondary or tertiary issues that are targeted in the continuation. Finally, adding a work flowchart or a methodological chart that addresses the work flow in the article will make the article more understandable.

 

The topics discussed in the discussion section are expressed as the inferences made by the author from the article. However, what is expected from a discussion section is to express common findings, if there are similar studies, or to explain if there are contradictory findings. In such a discussion section, the literature data given in the introduction part of the study should be used. As it stands, the discussion section of the study is not appropriate, what was stated in the discussion section should be reconsidered. If the authors do not wish to do so, the discussion section of your work should be removed.

 

It will be more useful to give the conclusion part after discussing it under the heading of results and suggestions. I would like to ask the authors to further emphasize some of the information that was little emphasized in the introduction and discussion sections of the study. As it is known, in the study area; the amount of agricultural land and the percentage value of this agricultural land in the total land assets should be given. It should be mentioned with the support of the literature that the existence of agricultural land is decreasing day by day due to the population growth rate, the pressure of the city to expand, wrong land use, soil pollution and similar reasons. After all, it is known that agricultural land emerged with the existence of the world, not by man. Considering this fact, it should be emphasized in the study how much care should be taken regarding the use of agricultural land. Because, as it is known from the literature, when choosing a solar power plant, a cemetery, and a wind power plant, it is desired that the land should not be agricultural land and that it should be barren land when possible. When the articles in which these site selection analyzes are made are examined, it should be pointed out that there are lands that are not suitable for this type of activities because the soil with agricultural characteristics is valuable enough to be used only for agricultural purposes. It is suggested that a separate paragraph be added to both the introduction and discussion sections with the case studies to be found in the literature related to what has been stated. As a result, it should be pointed out how valuable the cultivated land is, its role in the land existence and that it is a scarce resource for all humanity. Adequate resources should be accessed from the literature related to what is stated in this paragraph and should be added to the article, but most of the available resources in the article were obtained from authors of Far Eastern origin. New resources should be obtained from studies in different countries.

 

English of the article is good, not bad.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for taking the time to review this paper amidst your busy schedule. Your valuable and substantive review comments have played a crucial role in enhancing the quality of this paper. We have carefully read and considered each comment, and have made revisions and provided detailed explanations accordingly. Every modification made in the paper will be highlighted. Please refer to the following replies and the revised paper. If there are any further modifications required, we welcome your criticism and guidance.

Once again, I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation for your tremendous effort and dedication in reviewing this paper.

 

Point 1: I think there are some shortcomings in the article. For this reason, by emphasizing these deficiencies, the article can be made more understandable. First of all, the abstract part of the article should be reconsidered. Thus, it would be useful to write a new summary in which the work done in the study is expressed very briefly.

 

Response 1: Thank you greatly for your valuable editing suggestions. We believe that it is necessary to briefly introduce the research work in the abstract section. Therefore, we have rewritten the abstract section, which now consists of the following structure: 1. Research Background: explaining the research background and existing research gaps; 2. Research Objectives: stating the research objectives; 3. Research Methods: describing the research subjects, research methods, and highlighting the research work; 4. Research Results: presenting the main conclusions of the study. In the future, We will pay more attention to the writing of the abstract section to ensure its clarity.

 

Point 2: The sub-heading of the definition of the problem discussed in the article should be opened and a definition of the problem should be made with clear expressions. Similarly, the aim of the study should be added to the article under a sub-title. In the purpose section of the study, it should be clearly stated which process steps and which target will be reached with this study. It can even be emphasized in the secondary or tertiary issues that are targeted in the continuation. Finally, adding a work flowchart or a methodological chart that addresses the work flow in the article will make the article more understandable.

 

Response 2:Thank you greatly for your valuable editing suggestions. First of all, we apologize to the reviewer. Indeed, as pointed out by the reviewer, We did not clearly articulate the problem, define objectives, and outline the workflow. Based on your valuable advice, we have made the following modifications.

Firstly, in the introduction section, we have stated the research problem of this paper (see line 58-61 for details) . 

Secondly, we have added a subheading in the research methods section to explain the workflow and the research objectives we aimed to achieve, and we have also included figures to enhance the comprehensibility of the article.(see line 147-168 for details)

 

 

Point 3: The topics discussed in the discussion section are expressed as the inferences made by the author from the article. However, what is expected from a discussion section is to express common findings, if there are similar studies, or to explain if there are contradictory findings. In such a discussion section, the literature data given in the introduction part of the study should be used. As it stands, the discussion section of the study is not appropriate, what was stated in the discussion section should be reconsidered. If the authors do not wish to do so, the discussion section of your work should be removed.

 

Response 3: Thank you very much for pointing out this issue. We have made modifications to this, and the current structure of the discussion section in the revised research paper is as follows:firstly, briefly review the research findings and explain their importance in the field of study; secondly, analyze the consistency or differences between the results and existing literature, explaining the possible reasons for these consistencies or differences; finally, honestly discuss the limitations of the present study and propose future research directions.(see line 607-635 for details)

 

Point 4: It will be more useful to give the conclusion part after discussing it under the heading of results and suggestions. I would like to ask the authors to further emphasize some of the information that was little emphasized in the introduction and discussion sections of the study. As it is known, in the study area; the amount of agricultural land and the percentage value of this agricultural land in the total land assets should be given. It should be mentioned with the support of the literature that the existence of agricultural land is decreasing day by day due to the population growth rate, the pressure of the city to expand, wrong land use, soil pollution and similar reasons. After all, it is known that agricultural land emerged with the existence of the world, not by man. Considering this fact, it should be emphasized in the study how much care should be taken regarding the use of agricultural land. Because, as it is known from the literature, when choosing a solar power plant, a cemetery, and a wind power plant, it is desired that the land should not be agricultural land and that it should be barren land when possible. When the articles in which these site selection analyzes are made are examined, it should be pointed out that there are lands that are not suitable for this type of activities because the soil with agricultural characteristics is valuable enough to be used only for agricultural purposes. It is suggested that a separate paragraph be added to both the introduction and discussion sections with the case studies to be found in the literature related to what has been stated. As a result, it should be pointed out how valuable the cultivated land is, its role in the land existence and that it is a scarce resource for all humanity. Adequate resources should be accessed from the literature related to what is stated in this paragraph and should be added to the article, but most of the available resources in the article were obtained from authors of Far Eastern origin. New resources should be obtained from studies in different countries.

 

Response 4: Thank you very much for pointing out the issues.

First, regarding the previous statement in the introduction, where we simplistically attributed the decrease in agricultural land and pollution to the long-standing application of high-intensity, extensive agricultural management methods, we acknowledge that this was incorrect. Therefore, based on your valuable suggestion, we have added a separate paragraph in the introduction to emphasize the information you mentioned. Specifically, we have added agricultural land-related data in the introduction to illustrate the decreasing trend in agricultural land area over time. Additionally, we explain that the decrease in agricultural land is caused by various factors such as population growth rates, urban expansion pressure, incorrect land use, and soil pollution.(see line 35-48 for details)

Second, you mentioned that most of the available resources cited in the article are from authors in the Far East, and this made us realize the need to include new resources from different countries. In response to this, we have made some additions and modifications in the article.

    Once again, I would like to express my gratitude to you. In the future, I will always keep your suggestions in mind during the paper writing process to ensure the quality of my paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The overall assumptions of the paper are good, however, some revision before publication is needed. My suggestions are as follows:

The novelty of the research should be more precisely indicated. The aim of the research needs to be extended. Explain why you used the specific method and in the limitation chapter explain what would be the difference in the results if you used a different method. Please, clarify what are the innovative contributions of this study to science.

The characteristic of data in Table 2 should be described.

In Section 2. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypothesis, no hypotheses are introduced. Maybe research questions will be helpful?

in Figure 2 - Chinese letters/words must be changed into English

line 37: double "are"

line 209: double "coefficient"

line 353: It is written: "As can be seen from Table 2, environmental regulation (ER) has a significant negative impact on the CLUE..."- a mistake, there is no such information.

In the results is no references to research hypotheses/assumptions.

In the Discussion section, there should be more links to literature and existing studies.

The results of the research are not clear and precisely indicated - should be completed.

All the best with resubmission!

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for taking the time to review this paper amidst your busy schedule. Your valuable and substantive review comments have played a crucial role in enhancing the quality of this paper. We have carefully read and considered each comment, and have made revisions and provided detailed explanations accordingly. Every modification made in the paper will be highlighted. Please refer to the following replies and the revised paper. If there are any further modifications required, we welcome your criticism and guidance.

Once again, I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation for your tremendous effort and dedication in reviewing this paper.

 

Point 1: The novelty of the research should be more precisely indicated. The aim of the research needs to be extended. Explain why you used the specific method and in the limitation chapter explain what would be the difference in the results if you used a different method. Please, clarify what are the innovative contributions of this study to science. 

 

Response 1: Thank you very much for pointing out the issues. After carefully understanding your suggestions, we believe that the modifications we need to make include three aspects:

1.We need to provide a more accurate description of the novelty of the research and clarify the innovative contributions to science. Therefore, we have supplemented this part in the paper.(see line 140-146 for details)

2.We need to expand on the research objectives. We have provided a clearer explanation of the goals to be achieved in this study.(see line 147-156 for details)

3.Explain the reason for using specific methods. The reason you raised the question is probably because there was an error in our title before, which we have now corrected. You can see the reasons for choosing specific methods in the method introduction. For example, the choice of the Super-efficient Slack Based Model (SSBM) method can be found in lines 343-348. In addition, we adopt the basic model (see line 365-366 for details), intermediate model (see line 373-377 for details), and threshold model (see line 385-387 for details) to empirically investigate the impact of environmental regulations on the ecological efficiency of land use, as well as the underlying mechanisms and threshold effects.

 

Point 2: The characteristic of data in Table 2 should be described.

 

Response 2: Thank you greatly for your valuable suggestions. Based on your advice, a description of the data characteristics in Table 2 has been provided.(see line 402-412 for details)

 

Point 3: In Section 2. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypothesis, no hypotheses are introduced. Maybe research questions will be helpful?

 

Response 3: Thank you very much for pointing out this problem.We did not elaborate on the research hypothesis in the article, and we have supplemented it. (see line 210-212,245-246,271-273 for details)

 

Point 4: In Figure 2 - Chinese letters/words must be changed into English

 

Response 4: We appreciate your thorough review and pointing out this issue. In Figure 2, Chinese letters/words has been changed to English.

 

Point 5: line 37: double "are"

 

Response 5: Thank you very much for pointing out this problem. We have made modifications to the content in the introduction section, and the content you mentioned has also been rephrased.

 

Point 6: line 209: double "coefficient"

 

Response 6: Thank you very much for pointing out this problem.There were two "coefficient" in the paper, and I have deleted one of them. In the future, we will pay more attention to the correctness of sentence expression.(see line 285 for details)

 

Point 7: It is written: "As can be seen from Table 2, environmental regulation (ER) has a significant negative impact on the CLUE..."- a mistake, there is no such information.

 

Response 7: Thank you very much for carefully reviewing our paper and pointing out this problem. We highly value your feedback and sincerely apologize for the obvious error. Our intention is to demonstrate the negative impact of environmental regulations on ecological efficiency in land use through Table 3. We promptly rectify Table 2 and replace it with the correct Table 3. (see line 443 for details)We will pay closer attention to such details to ensure the accuracy of the paper. 

 

Point 8: In the results is no references to research hypotheses/assumptions.

 

Response 8: Thank you very much for carefully reviewing our paper and pointing out this problem. We have revised the results section to include references to the research hypotheses and assumptions, providing a clearer understanding of the study’s framework and context. (see line 453-455,538-542,596-601 for details)

 

Point 9: In the Discussion section, there should be more links to literature and existing studies.

 

Response 9: Thank you very much for pointing out this issue. In order to better connect the discussion section with existing literature, our approach to revising the discussion section is as follows:

Firstly, a brief review of the research results and an explanation of their importance in the research field.

Secondly, analyze the consistency or differences between the results and existing literature, and explain the possible reasons for these consistency or differences.(see line 606-636 for details) 

 

Point 10: The results of the research are not clear and precisely indicated - should be completed.

 

Response 10: We sincerely apologize for the unclear and inaccurate presentation of our research findings. We have carefully reviewed and revised the section on our research results.

1.We have reorganized the main conclusions into four points to ensure a clearer presentation of the results.

2.The inaccuracy in the research results mainly lies in the fourth point, where we mixed up the discussion of the moderating effect of agricultural technological innovation with agricultural industry structure. We have made supplementary explanations in this section to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the conclusion.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I have read your article with great interest. However, I feel it needs major revision before its final publishing. 

Major Observation on the Article

The slippery assumptions of the article are related to the following key variables. I don’t find any discussion about these critical aspects of agricultural productivity or CLUE. Please see the literature on the following aspects that "What socio-technical and Institutional Determinats explain the farm level economic divergence"

1. water governance and allocation differences between each geographic region. There is ample evidence available that how water governance and allocation differences influence CLUE.

2. soil quality variation between each region

3. Climatic variables variation in each region

4. Historical development of agriculture in each region and community traditional ecological knowledge in agricultural management influence on CLUE

5. Suitability of specific cash crops in one region and its influence on the farm income (Total output value of agriculture (100 million yuan) as well as the amount of the particular fertilizer and pesticides used for agriculture.

Ln 37 needs a revision “tools are considered as an effective means” article missing

Ln 49-51 “It is better you little bit introduce these methods working principle and then critique them based on their pros and cons of these methods.”

Ln 51-54 “Support this claim with a valid reference where these methods comparatively evaluated and it is found DEA-SBM is the best among all other methods.”

Ln 62-64 “Ecological civilization construction term is not clear please introduce in the initial paragraphs of the introduction. Ecological Civilization referred to the recent discourse China's President or something else?”

Ln 74 “irrational use of factors" ?? I think you want to say "irrational use of input variables?

Ln 76-77 “Cite those literatures and tell us how they explore and what you want to add value in it.”

Ln 80-90 here is a good literature summary provides but it needs more critical engagement with these cited sources to critically analyzed why studies are inconsistent about the effectiveness of environmental regulation. What factors influenced this inconsistency like any endogenous or exogenous conditions of the study area or something else and how your study is going to control such variables? Moreover, it is not clear whether all these studies cited actually comparable, if so, then tell us what is their comparability and then why the inconsistency in terms of results.

Figure 1 Make the Legends in English Language

Ln 432-433 “Significant positive or negative?”

Ln 520-530 “This is a part of the limitation section with separate headings”

 

Discussion is not engaging with the literature mentioned in the introduction section about the previous studies on this topic and how this research findings resonate with the previous research results.

Articles have an overall issue regarding the use of article and subject and verb agreement issues. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for taking the time to review this paper amidst your busy schedule. Your valuable and substantive review comments have played a crucial role in enhancing the quality of this paper. We have carefully read and considered each comment, and have made revisions and provided detailed explanations accordingly. Every modification made in the paper will be highlighted. Please refer to the following replies and the revised paper. If there are any further modifications required, we welcome your criticism and guidance.

Once again, I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation for your tremendous effort and dedication in reviewing this paper.

 

Point 1: The slippery assumptions of the article are related to the following key variables. I don’t find any discussion about these critical aspects of agricultural productivity or CLUE. Please see the literature on the following aspects that "What socio-technical and Institutional Determinats explain the farm level economic divergence"

1. water governance and allocation differences between each geographic region. There is ample evidence available that how water governance and allocation differences influence CLUE.
2. soil quality variation between each region
3. Climatic variables variation in each region
4. Historical development of agriculture in each region and community traditional ecological knowledge in agricultural management influence on CLUE
5. Suitability of specific cash crops in one region and its influence on the farm income (Total output value of agriculture (100 million yuan) as well as the amount of the particular fertilizer and pesticides used for agriculture.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestions and insights. We appreciate your interest in our research on the impact of environmental regulations on the ecological efficiency of land use. We acknowledge that the factors you have mentioned, such as water governance and allocation differences, soil quality variation, climatic variables, historical development of agriculture, and traditional ecological knowledge, are important determinants of farm-level. 

First, we apologize for not discussing and controlling the variables you provided in the text. This is a limitation of our study, and we will address this in the concluding section by explaining this limitation. Due to constraints in length and time, We did not provide a detailed analysis of these factors. However, We will consider incorporating this factor into future research to comprehensively assess its impact on the ecological efficiency of land use. (see line 640-643 for details)

In addition, you mentioned that there is sufficient evidence indicating that water resource management affects the ecological efficiency of land use. We have retrieved relevant papers for reading and have been greatly inspired. At the same time, we also recognize that water governance and allocation disparities are complex issues that may require separate investigation. In the future, we will fully reference these studies and conduct detailed analysis and research.

Once again, we thank you for your valuable feedback, and we will keep your suggestions in mind for our future research. If you have any further recommendations or questions, please do not hesitate to let us know.

 

Point 2: Ln 37 needs a revision “tools are considered as an effective means” article missing.

 

Response 2: Thank you very much for pointing out this issue. After the revision of the paper, the sentence you mentioned has been deleted by us. We have rewritten the first paragraph of the introduction.(see line 35-58 for details)

 

Point 3: Ln 49-51 “It is better you little bit introduce these methods working principle and then critique them based on their pros and cons of these methods.”

 

Response 3: Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We acknowledge that the introduction of these methods in the article may have been too brief, and therefore we have provide a more detailed explanation of the working principles of these methods. (see line 73-84 for details)

The reason we did not provide a detailed evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of these methods is twofold:

firstly, in the literature review, we aimed to summarize the commonly used methods for evaluating land use efficiency, and providing detailed explanations of the working principles and pros and cons of different methods may result in excessive length.

Secondly, we have already mentioned the drawbacks of the DEA method in the methodology section, so providing a detailed explanation of the pros and cons of the method here may lead to repetition of content.

We acknowledge that this is a shortcoming on our part and would appreciate any further suggestions you may have. Thank you very much for your support and understanding.

 

Point 4: Ln 51-54 “Support this claim with a valid reference where these methods comparatively evaluated and it is found DEA-SBM is the best among all other methods.”

 

Response 4: Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. According to your suggestions, we have added references to support this statement, and also elaborated on the reasons for the wide application of DEA-SBM. （see line 81-84 for details）

Point 5: Ln 62-64 “Ecological civilization construction term is not clear please introduce in the initial paragraphs of the introduction. Ecological Civilization referred to the recent discourse China's President or something else?

Response 5: The second paragraph in the introduction section is the content we have added back. This paragraph briefly introduces the construction of Ecological Civilization.（see line 49-56 for details）

 

Point 6: Ln 74 “irrational use of factors" ?? I think you want to say "irrational use of input variables?

 

Response 6: Thank you very much for your question. We really have a problem with expression here. We have made the requested modification by replacing "irrational use of factors" with "irrational use of input variables" （see line103 for details）

 

Point 7: Ln 76-77 “Cite those literatures and tell us how they explore and what you want to add value in it.”

Response 7: Thank you very much for your feedback and suggestions. We apologize for not clearly explaining in the text how we explored these literature sources, and we have made the necessary changes. Firstly, we have provided a clearer description of the research content and conclusions from different authors. （see line107-127 for details）Secondly, we have also expressed the potential contributions we can make based on these studies.（see line140-141 for details） We acknowledge this as a shortcoming on our part and would appreciate any further advice you may have.

 

Point 8: Ln 80-90 here is a good literature summary provides but it needs more critical engagement with these cited sources to critically analyzed why studies are inconsistent about the effectiveness of environmental regulation. What factors influenced this inconsistency like any endogenous or exogenous conditions of the study area or something else and how your study is going to control such variables? Moreover, it is not clear whether all these studies cited actually comparable, if so, then tell us what is their comparability and then why the inconsistency in terms of results.

 

Response 8: We greatly appreciate your feedback and for pointing out the issues. Your suggestions have made us realize that the statement here may not be clear, so we have made modifications and additions to better highlight the comparability features of the cited literature.After the revisions, we aim to convey two aspects.

Firstly, there is currently a lack of direct research on the relationship between environmental regulations and ecological efficiency of land use. Secondly, the existing literature mainly focuses on the empirical analysis of factors affecting land use efficiency, with environmental regulations being one of the factors. Therefore, the referenced literature mentioned here is all about the analysis of factors influencing land use efficiency and is comparable.(see line 107-127 for details）

Furthermore, regarding the inconsistency of the results, we have provided a detailed explanation and discussion in the relevant section.

 

Point 9: Figure 1 Make the Legends in English Language

 

Response 9: Thank you very much for pointing out the problem. We have changed the Chinese words in Figure 1 you mentioned to English. Because we have added a research flowchart in the paper, and now Figure 2 corresponds to the original Figure 1.（see in Figure 2）

 

Point 10: Ln 432-433 “Significant positive or negative?”

 

Response 10: Thank you very much for your question. We believe you may be referring to the mediating effect of agricultural industry structure on environmental regulation and ecological efficiency of land use, which was not explicitly stated in our previous statement. Therefore, we have modified the original sentence to more clearly express the significant positive mediating role of agricultural industry structure between environmental regulation and ecological efficiency of land use.(see line 514-521 for details）

 

Point 11: Ln 520-530 “This is a part of the limitation section with separate headings”

 

Response 11: Thank you very much for your advice. We appreciate your suggestion to adjust the content here using separate headings to ensure clarity. After careful consideration, we have decided to make modifications by using paragraph breaks. However, we understand that our modifications may not have met your expectations, and we would appreciate further suggestions from you.(see line 606-637 for details）

 

Point 12: Discussion is not engaging with the literature mentioned in the introduction section about the previous studies on this topic and how this research findings resonate with the previous research results.

 

Response 12: Thank you very much for pointing out this issue. We have made modifications to this, and the current structure of the discussion section in the revised research paper is as follows:firstly, briefly review the research findings and explain their importance in the field of study; secondly, analyze the consistency or differences between the results and existing literature, explaining the possible reasons for these consistencies or differences; finally, honestly discuss the limitations of the present study and propose future research directions.(see line 607-635 for details)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thanks for considering my comments valuable. There are some minor edits required like ln 36 instead of continuous population growth, exponential population growth is deemed more fit.

Ln 37-41 where is the source cited in the text and bibliography? If you are using any second published source then cite that source properly. like as cited in ABC (...) 

 

There are some issues with "a", "an", and "the" article's use. Also author struggles to convey the intended meaning in writing. I suggest reviewing from any native English language speaker. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable comments and suggestions. Your expertise and patient review work are highly appreciated, and we sincerely thank you for your contribution.

 

We have carefully read your comments and made revisions based on your suggestions. We are grateful for your guidance and believe that your feedback will help improve the quality of our paper. In the revised manuscript, we have also included a brief cover letter detailing our responses to the review comments and the modifications we have made. We hope these revisions address the issues you raised and enhance the overall quality of the paper.

 

Once again, thank you for your valuable feedback. Your expertise has played a crucial role in our research. We greatly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.We look forward to your further response.

 

Best regards!

 

Point 1: There are some minor edits required like ln 36 instead of continuous population growth, exponential population growth is deemed more fit.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. We agree with your suggestion to change "continuous population growth" to "exponential population growth" in line 36. We have incorporated this change in the revised version of my paper. Please refer to the fourth line of the introduction for detailed content. We appreciate your valuable input in improving the quality of my work.

 

Point 2: Ln 37-41 where is the source cited in the text and bibliography? If you are using any second

published source then cite that source properly. like as cited in ABC (...) 

 

Response 2: Thank you greatly for your valuable editing suggestions. As you mentioned, the data in the article is sourced from published papers, and we have made the necessary modifications based on your suggestions. Please refer to the eighth line of the introduction for detailed content. In the future, we will pay more attention to the issues regarding the introduction in our paper writing, always keeping your valuable suggestions in mind.

 

Point 3: There are some issues with "a", "an", and "the" article's use. Also author struggles to convey the intended meaning in writing. I suggest reviewing from any native English language speaker. 

 

Response 3: Thank you very much for pointing out this issue. We have identified some issues regarding the use of "a", "an", and "the" in our paper writing.

In order to address this problem more effectively, we first carefully reviewed the paper. The problem you mentioned mainly occurred in the theoretical analysis section, where we did not include "the" before the word "CLUE" to ensure consistency throughout the text. In response to this, we made modifications and additions.

Secondly, following your suggestion, we invited native English speakers to review the article and provide feedback for revisions. We made the necessary modifications and improvements based on their suggestions.

In future paper writing, we will pay more attention to the issues you mentioned to ensure the quality of our paper.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx