Econometric Assessment of Institutional Quality in Mitigating Global Climate-Change Risk

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper studies on the econometric assessment of institutional quality in mitigating global climate change risk, which sounds interesting. However, authors need to consider the following questions carefully.

1. In the introduction, the authors always take China as an example, which should be explained accordingly.
2. At the same time, the introduction part is too long, and some repeated statements should be deleted.
3. There are many abbreviations, some of which are not explained when they first appear.
4. In the literature review section, comments should be added to draw out the research content of this paper.
5. In Section 3.2, the construction of the model should be explained in detail. Why is this equation established?
6. The "Discussion" part is too brief, and the analysis and explanation are not in-depth enough.
7. In the conclusion part, the shortcomings of this study and the direction of future research should be stated.

Author Response

Thank you very much for valuable comments. The compliance is provided in attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

First of all, I would like to thank the authors for sharing their work. I have enjoyed reading it very much. I think that the work done fits the structure of the magazine in its general scope. It is even a work that, going into more detail, could also fit in other areas, but I consider that it fits perfectly in the editorial profile.

I will try to provide a series of recommendations that could help to improve the proposed work, not only in technical aspects, but also in more generic aspects:

 

- Firstly, and as an overall consideration of the work, I believe that the objective set out in the work is very ambitious and unattainable, making it difficult for the authors to contribute novelties of academic relevance with respect to the objectives set out. In my opinion, the research, although well planned and structured, does not provide much innovation in the academic field.

 

- Abstract. It is, in my opinion, correctly developed and describes in summary form what the authors want to propose. Continuing with what was commented in the previous point, I still see the same problem. The results and conclusions presented are, in my opinion, too global and predictable, something that should not be the case in research articles.

 

- Introduction & Literature Review. The paper has the appropriate structure for an academic research article, which is to be welcomed. I believe that a more in-depth academic review should be added in the contextual framework. Thirty-one references are provided in this section, which I consider insufficient, taking into account that this is a subject with a very broad academic background, even with different opinions when it comes to assessing the action plans to be undertaken. Authors should take this aspect into account before entering into the specific details of their research. Similarly, by using a very broad field of study (Carbon Emission and Climate Change line 140, Institutional Quality and Climate Change line 153, Renewable Energy and Climate Change line 168, Economic Growth and Climate Change line 183, and Population Density and Climate Change line 202), the literature review of each of these topics is very limited and merely descriptive. At this point it would be necessary to reference or take into account the results of the different scientific contributions (all collected in academic publications) in each of the points regarding climate impact. Perhaps it would be necessary to compile a global table with these data.

- Methodology. In my opinion, this section is the least developed in the work. I think it is necessary to include a previous point referring to the methodology used to explain the proposed model. It would be necessary to explain why this methodology is advisable and to introduce similar studies in which this type of statistical system is related to similar objectives. In other words, the authors should be able to convince all readers that the use of this specific methodology is adequate for the objective set out in the work, that it presents solvent and verifiable results (beyond descriptive conclusions) and that it is a step forward in the academic world. In lines 253-260 the conceptualization of the model is explained; it is absolutely essential that the authors explain its relevance and need for adaptation in comparison with other methodologies.

I still think that the academic references provided at this point are also scarce. I believe that the approaches made should be accompanied by sources that support them and justify the methodology. The authors limit the justification of the method to its object of study. I believe that it is scarce and that more work should be done on this section before beginning the methodological development.

- Results, Discussion and Conclusion. I reiterate what was pointed out in the previous point. It is essential to introduce a specific section of results that are not only based on statistical aspects, but that can be extrapolated to the reality to be treated. In lines 285-290, the authors point out that "Estimation of descriptive statistics is the first step to start any empirical investigation. It provides information about the variables mean, standard, median, maximum and minimum values, etc. Values of Kurtosis and Skewness shows that most variables are non-normal. All the mean values of data except the mean value of CO2 are greater than their standard deviation, which means that these variables are under-disbursed and CO2 emission is over-disbursed": It is essential that the authors are able to demonstrate that the tables 2-5 in the results section actually correspond to the specific case study proposed, providing academic references to prove it. In other words, they must clearly demonstrate that the proposed theoretical model is applicable to such a complex reality as climate change. I believe that this is the main difficulty of the work. The same as in the "Discussion" section, since it is very poorly developed and does not really reflect the possible limitations of the work in terms of all that has been exposed. Finally, I suggest the authors to be more profound in their conclusions and recommendations, avoiding very logical or generic comments such as "This study proposes that countries listed in GCR should focus on the quality of institutions and encourage the use of renewable energy. Improvement in the quality of institutions will mitigate the effect of CO2 emissions on climate change" (lines 353-355).

I encourage the authors in their task and hope to continue to enjoy reading the revised work. Best regards

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for valuable comments. The compliance is provided in attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have revised and refined my suggestions.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments

Reviewer 2 Report

I am grateful to the authors for reviewing the work and for having taken into consideration some of the recommendations made. Thirteen new references related to the topic have been introduced. Although I believe that the bibliographic references section is still scarce, the part referring to "Introduction" and "Literature Review" has been improved. In section 2 (lines 160 - 248) the aim is to "summarize" the entire literature review of very diverse aspects, each of which has been widely discussed in the academic field. As I pointed out in the previous review, I believe that the authors should relate all these points to the ultimate meaning of their work, and not leave them as mere descriptive comments. 

I still think that the methodological part should be substantially improved to justify their contribution in a model such as the one proposed. The authors' paper is called "Econometric Assessment of Institutional Quality in Mitigating Global Climate Change Risk", so the econometric part (methodology and results) should be the main focus of the paper. As the authors point out, "linear panel data model with moderation is utilized" (line 285) and, subsequently, "Finally, the cross-sectional time-series FGLS method is used to find the empirical results of the study" (lines 321-322). Following this approach, the econometric development should be much deeper and more technical. Not only from the development point of view, but it is essential that the authors demonstrate the validity of this methodology in the objectives to be solved. In other words, it is essential that -either through a literature review of similar studies, or through the authors' own study- it be demonstrated that this econometric development has application in a climate study. The explanation provided by the authors in this regard (lines 314 - 327) does not seem sufficient to me.

I encourage the authors in the task.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestions

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank the authors for improving the work. I see that a bibliography has been added but I still find the same questions that I raised in the previous review about methodology and results. I leave it to the editor to consider whether these shortcomings do not prevent publication of the paper.

Best regards and good luck in the process.