China and Special Drawing Rights—Towards a Better International Monetary System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is neither a research paper, nor a review one, but rather an opinion piece/commentary. There are many interesting things debated but they are mostly supported by grey or old literature, especially in the notes whose cited sources must be included in the reference list (that is poorly edited). In fact, it is closely related to one previously published by the authors: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cwe.12248. The style is pretty informal.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments.
In response, we have substantially revised the paper to make it clear that it is a commentary/opinion piece rather than a research paper. In particular, we have,
Tried to make the argument clearer
Included more up to date literature with a broader perspective. (The 'grey or old' may be a bit harsh, but nonetheless we have included more recent papers better covering the spectrum of views).
Transferred the footnotes to the references list.
Standardised the presentation of the reference list
Made the language more formal, where necessary
Distinguished the value-added by the present paper from that of our earlier one.
We attach a marked-up version for your further consideration.
With thanks and regards,
The authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
In article I do not see appropriate abstract and introduction with correct aim, hypothesis, methodology.
The results should be described in more detail -specially with add value in this article
The conclusions should clearly indicate what results from this study. I would suggest extending the conclusions with a scientific discussion.
I would also suggest to extend the literature review.
The Author also suggested recommendations for the economic authorities in China, however, these recommendations could be extended.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments.
In response, we have substantially revised the paper to make it clear that it is a commentary/opinion piece grounded in research rather than a research paper per se. We apologise for any confusion we may have caused. Since it is a commentary and not research, some of your points on the research design, methodology, and results may not be strictly applicable. Nonetheless, we have tried to respond to the spirit of your comments. We have substantially revised the paper; in particular, we have,
Tried to make the abstract, introduction, and flow of argument in the main body clearer (albeit as a commentary)
Extended the literature review to Include more recent papers with a more balanced perspective.
Transferred the footnotes to the references list.
Standardised the presentation of the reference list
Made the language more formal, where appropriate
Distinguished the value-added by the present paper from that of our earlier one.
We have not extended the recommendations to the economic authorities in China in order to contain length and avoid duplication of what we have said elsewhere. We believe the main value-add of our paper is the central idea of experimentation with SDRs, the reasons for it, and the paucity of other options if the chance it not taken. Implementation will depend on many contingent factors and, we feel, does not need greater detail here.
We attach a marked-up version for your further consideration.
With thanks and regards,
The authors
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I think now is much more better. In my opinion it could be published.
