Climate Finance: Mapping Air Pollution and Finance Market in Time Series

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think point 2 is not needed in the paper. It would be enough to redirect the reader to appropriate literature. There should be more description about how the authors got the data about pollution in chosen cities (par 4). I would suggest to merge the methodology with the data description. The results might be included as a separate sub-chapter. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review Report: Climate Finance: Mapping Air Pollution and Finance Market in Time Series

1. Summary

This paper examines investigate the relationship between air pollution and stock prices of the selected manufacturer in China. The paper is not well written and needs some improvements to be published.

2. Main Comments and Suggestions

The introduction is incomplete. The Authors need to present more clearly what is the idea and formulate the research questions or hypotheses.

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

No. The article does not provide the theoretical framework. The Authors do not present the results of the literature review.  

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods clearly stated?

The article lacks hypotheses development or clearly formulated research questions.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced, and compelling?

No. The arguments are not convincing, especially since we do not know what the hypotheses are related to.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

No, the results are not clearly presented. The Authors divided the presentation of the results into four sections according to the analyzed cities. However, the presentation of the results was made mainly in the form of a tabular presentation of the data, but there are no more precise explanations as to how the obtained results should be understood.  

Is the article adequately referenced?

No. The literature review is fragmentary. There is no clear literature review in the Introduction or as the separate section.

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

No. The conclusions are limited to a description of the methodology and a very brief description of the results. There are no clear conclusions, no indications of what the article brings to science, no references to the results in the literature. The Authors also did not indicate any limitations or possibilities for further research directions.

In the current version, the paper remains very underdeveloped, and does not make a scientific contribution.

3. Minor Comments and Suggestions

Lines 34 “There is a limited number of researches regarding climate finance today (..)”

I cannot agree with this statement. In Google Scholar, the phrase "climate finance" gives over 3 million results (books and articles).

Hope the above comments will help the Authors to further develop the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Congratulations, you have done good job

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Abstract

The abstract should mention the theoretical and practical contributions.

Methodology

Although well detailed, further literature support is required to enhance robustness.

Data and Results

As well as the methodology, results discussion should be further supported by literature

Conclusions

This part of the paper is not very robust on the approach. Please enhance this part by further reflecting the assumptions early discussed, detailed theoretical and practical contributions, and clues for future research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

thank you for all the clarifications and corrections introduced in the paper. I have no more comments. Good luck with your future research!