Has Central Environmental Protection Inspection Promoted High-Quality Economic Development?—A Case Study from China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The paper has been amended as per suggested in the previous review.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your help. This is my latest manuscript.
Best regards！
Yours sincerely！
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
All my remarks are respected. Thank you so much for the revised manuscript.
Please, check page 16- Chapter 6. Patents. Remove this chapter because of nothing to do with a patent's descriptions.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments. According to your suggestions, we have removed the Chapter 6. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
I want to thank the Authors for considering the reviewer's suggestions. The important issue is the discussion with reviewers and the comments' reference. I accept the revised manuscript.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your help. This is my latest manuscript.
Best regards！
Yours sincerely！
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The content in this paper is very good but the way you elaborating the discussion in this paper need to be improved (not too long but solid) and supported with more relevant references. Overall the idea discussed in this paper has a strong impact and novelty since it is focus on the impact of strong environmental policy that can promote towards positive economic development at the said region.
Reviewer 2 Report
The presented manuscript deals with the question if can the central environmental protection inspection, another major innovation in China's environmental regulation policy, significantly contributes to the high-quality development of the economy.
Abstract-the originality and novelty of the research activity are not well exposed and highlighted.
Page 14, Figure 2.- the requested quality is missing
Page 20-21, Conclusion- the future direction of research is missing.
Check the template for the manuscript. The authors totally ignore the instructions for publishing in this journal.
Reviewer 3 Report
The subject of the reviewed article falls within the scope of the special issue. The research area is China, and the manuscript is based only on that country's policy. I suggest to add - Has the Central Environmental Protection Inspection promoted high-quality economic development? - China, a case study.
Further observations:
all abbreviations used for the first time should be expanded to full name,
please avoid the personal form in the article (e.g., Abstract - we use, we construct, etc.) - by using the impersonal form,
subsection 2.1. - use a capital letter,
please avoid sentences that begin with "this" - I suggest you check the article carefully and correct the form of the sentences,
maybe Table 1 can be illustrated with a map showing the location of regions (the recipient of the article will locate the research object in China),
because the subject of the article is very hermetic (concerns one country), there is no item from outside the area in the literature review,
hence it is difficult to discuss the obtained results, observations, and conclusions.
The article is thematically related to one country, but its publication may be good material for other publications as part of the Literature review or the Discussion.
I hope the authors know the environmental conditions and policies in different countries. Perhaps the authors will correlate the results with other similar world publications in the next works.
