Research on the Influence of Spatial Structure on Carbon Emission Synergy of Urban Agglomeration—Based on the Development Process of Yangtze River Delta Urban Agglomeration in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Good imrovement
Ok
Author Response
None
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Authors have put a lots of interest to upgrade this manuscript. The revised version looks sound to be processed for further.
However, only concern is still confusing me that the general structure of the the paper i.e. Introduction, Materials and methods, results and discussion, etc.
The second portion is presented but not as materials and methods. It is advised to authors to correct this part as per journal guidelines.
Thanks.
Author Response
Dear professor，
Thank you very much for your comments on the paper. We have adjusted the sub-title of the article based on your and another reviewer's feedback, forming a structure of "introduction- literature review - methodology - result and analysis - conclusion".
Best regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
This study examines the impact of the Yangtze River Delta enterprise network's spatial structure on carbon emission intensity and coordinated emission reduction effect. The paper is well organized, and it can be published after minor revisions.
(1) The arrangement of this paper should be focused at the end of the first section.
(2) The theoretical model should be addressed before the empirical study analysis.
(3) The diagrams in firgure 3 are not clear, it will be better if the clear figures can be provided.
Author Response
Dear professor，
Thank you very much for your comments on the paper. We have made revisions and improvements to the manuscript based on your comments. The following are individual responses to your review suggestions.
Comment 1: The arrangement of this paper should be focused at the end of the first section.
Reply and action: We have adjusted the first section and reemphasized the arrangement of this paper at the end.
Comment 2: The theoretical model should be addressed before the empirical study analysis.
Reply and action: We have adjusted the sub-title of the article based on your and another reviewer's feedback, forming a structure of "introduction - literature review - methodology - result and analysis - conclusion".
Comment 3: The diagrams in firgure 3 are not clear, it will be better if the clear figures can be provided..
Reply and action: The clarity and size of Figure 3 meet the requirements for magazine publication, but when converting from Word to PDF format, the image will be compressed and the clarity will be reduced.
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
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 manuscript titled “Research on the influence of spatial structure on carbon emission synergy of urban agglomeration -- based on the development process of Yangtze River Delta urban agglomeration in China” is a study based on the evaluation of dynamic evolution process of urban agglomeration network structure and its influence on carbon emission intensity and coordinated emission reduction for duration 2001 to 2019 and to discusses the spatial structure construction method and industrial development control strategy based on coordinated emission reduction of urban agglomerations. Few points are required to be addressed in this manuscript before process it further.
1. Is it a research or review article or a review? As per guidelines and general body of this article, it’s a research paper. Hence, authors should follow general structure of a research article. The material and methods section heading is missing. Instead, research status and assumptions as well as empirical analysis are provided in heads 2 and 3. Although, the given heads are not incorrect, but are not being fit as per research article.
2. Check figure 1. It is too small in size. add carefully with appropriate size.
3. The results of figure 2 at page number 8 are not up to the mark. It is just general statements. Requested authors to present them all scientifically in detail.
4. The heading 3.4 Results and discussion as sub heading is incorrect. Results and discussion should be main heading as head 4. Moreover, conclusion and discussion heading is also misleading. When it is already presented in head 3.4, why repeating again?
5. In discussion, no comparison of present results with previous studies. If somewhere happened, not even a single reference cited here. How authors can consider this section as discussion. Required complete major revision with detailed discussion of present results with previously published studies.
6. In table 2. Fixed effect analysis of influencing factors of carbon emission, please add one line about level of significance and which types of symbols denotes significance similar or dissimilar). Same is the cane in Table 3.
Thanks.
Author Response
Thanks for the valuable comments, we have carefully read and altered each part accordingly. The detailed alterations can be found in the paper.
Comment 1. Is it a research or review article or a review? As per guidelines and general body of this article, it’s a research paper. Hence, authors should follow general structure of a research article. The material and methods section heading is missing. Instead, research status and assumptions as well as empirical analysis are provided in heads 2 and 3. Although, the given heads are not incorrect, but are not being fit as per research article.
Reply and action： We optimized the titles of the paper according to the opinions of the reviewers. Plus, sub title 3.2 method and material has already existed within the paper.
Comment 2. Check figure 1. It is too small in size. add carefully with appropriate size.
Reply and action：We have replaced figure 1. with appropriate size.
Comment 3. The results of figure 2 at page number 8 are not up to the mark. It is just general statements. Requested authors to present them all scientifically in detail.
Reply and action： We have explained picture 2 in a more detailed and scientific way, alteration has been made on page 9 and 10，line 379-392.
Comment 4. The heading 3.4 Results and discussion as sub heading is incorrect. Results and discussion should be main heading as head 4. Moreover, conclusion and discussion heading is also misleading. When it is already presented in head 3.4, why repeating again?
Reply and action： We changed the title to reduce the possibility of ambiguity. Alteration has been made on page14.
Comment 5. In discussion, no comparison of present results with previous studies. If somewhere happened, not even a single reference cited here. How authors can consider this section as discussion. Required complete major revision with detailed discussion of present results with previously published studies.
Reply and action： We refer to the opinions of reviewers to enhance the discussion of key results, and compared the results with previous studies. Alteration has been made on page12 and 13.
Comment 6. In table 2. Fixed effect analysis of influencing factors of carbon emission, please add one line about level of significance and which types of symbols denotes significance similar or dissimilar). Same is the cane in Table 3.
Reply and action：We added description of the symbols below the tables; alteration has been made on Table 2 and Table 3.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments to authors_sustainability-2316019
Page 2 Line 48: The number 17 should be the citation. Author should revise and use the correct citation format. Similarly, from Line 48, some of the citation formats are incorrect.
Page 1-2: In my opinion, introduction need to answer following question. First, why this topic is important? Second, what is the author’s motivation for writing this paper? Third, what research has been done in the past? Forth, how do the authors intend to write this article? Fifth, the structure of the manuscript. It is suggested that authors should revise the introduction.
Page 3 Line 82: How does the enterprise-related network be equated with the urban agglomeration? It is suggested that the authors should explain H1-3 in more detail.
Page 5 Line 236: Why do the authors choose Shanghai? Please explain the reasons.
Page 5 Equation (3): Why do the authors add X2 in the equation? Do the authors want to test for a nonlinear relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variables? Is it supported by past studies?
Page 10 Line 387: Can the author explain in detail how a city can strongly control another city?
Page 10 Table 3: Dencity should be Density.
Page 11 Line 421: How do authors get the result of 0.4? In this case, should we strengthen urban agglomeration? How to determine where is the threshold of 0.4 in reality?
Author Response
Thanks for the valuable comments, we have carefully read and altered each part accordingly. The detailed alterations can be found in the paper.
Comment 1. Page 2 Line 48: The number 17 should be the citation. Author should revise and use the correct citation format. Similarly, from Line 48, some of the citation formats are incorrect.
Reply and action： We corrected the citation format of the whole paper
Comment 2. Page 1-2: In my opinion, introduction need to answer following question. First, why this topic is important? Second, what is the author’s motivation for writing this paper? Third, what research has been done in the past? Forth, how do the authors intend to write this article? Fifth, the structure of the manuscript. It is suggested that authors should revise the introduction.
Reply and action：We revised the introduction with reference to the opinions of the reviewers. Alteration has been made on page 1 and page 2.
Comment 3. Page 3 Line 82: How does the enterprise-related network be equated with the urban agglomeration? It is suggested that the authors should explain H1-3 in more detail.
Reply and action：Alteration has been made on page 2, line 86-92.
Comment 4.Page 5 Line 236: Why do the authors choose Shanghai? Please explain the reasons.
Alteration has been made on Page5, Line211-216
Comment 4. Page 5 Equation (3): Why do the authors add X2 in the equation? Do the authors want to test for a nonlinear relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variables? Is it supported by past studies?
Reply and action：The higher the network density, the more conducive it is to collaborative development. If the network density is too high, there will be an increase in redundant lines in the network, which will also reduce the flow efficiency of elements to a certain extent and increase related costs. Therefore, network density must be maintained within a reasonable range to achieve efficient and optimized resource allocation. This view is supported by relevant studies, such as references 43 and 44.
Comment 5. Page 10 Table 3: Dencity should be Density.
Reply and action：We corrected the word.
Comment 6.Page 11 Line 421: How do authors get the result of 0.4? In this case, should we strengthen urban agglomeration? How to determine where is the threshold of 0.4 in reality?
Reply and action：In order to verify the accuracy of inverted U-shaped curve, utest of STATA was adopted to test the results. The test results passed, and showed the extreme point was obtained as 0.39.
We need to continue to strengthen urban agglomeration, but not only for the cities around Shanghai, but also to mobilize the initiative of the Peripheral cities within the urban agglomeration, reduce regional differences, and strengthen the supervision of urban industrial restructuring.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors present a research on “Research on the influence of spatial structure on carbon emission synergy of urban agglomeration -- based on the development process of Yangtze River Delta urban agglomeration in China” is interesting work and study begin from the urban agglomeration network is constructed on the basis of the related data of enterprises with actual connections between cities, and the overall network effect and individual centrality of urban agglomeration are calculated by using the social network analysis method.
Following observation:
1) In the article you have stated urban agglomeration analysis and its parameters to demonstrate the effectiveness of the carbon emission and ecological environment design. But with this analysis and data presented not addressing the problem.
2) Technical details of urban agglomeration and its method is less and not clear in current form in the paper.
3) In the abstract should be structured with background of urban agglomeration under the uncertain condition, followed by different valuation methods, and briefly explained results and conclusion for better clarity.
4) In the introduction section, different input and system operating conditions are not clearly stated.
5) The objective must map with methodology you have used to target the research objective.
6) Referencing style is poor, always follow standard process as shown in below doi.
7) All the equation is not cited if taken from other sources and some of the reference is also missing.
8) Figure 1 legend is not specified proper tools may be used to present the characteristics.
9) In figure 2 redraw with more clarity and what is the need is also missing in the manuscript.
10) Table 1 and table 2 how you have arrived the ranking of main and sub-criteria for influencing factors of carbon emission.
11) The proposed methodology is too narrow and may be elaborated with comparison with similar work.
12) The author may refer following works with elaborated methodology and analysis for system design and system integration.
a. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.06.013
b. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132430
13) The conclusion is delivered with limited content. For this manuscript, the conclusion should be provided with more details,
14) Add some quantitative research outcomes in the abstract section.
15) Grammar and spell check is required throughout the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor,
After going through the revised manuscript, it was observed that authors have incorporated most of the suggested corrections. However, the basic outline with respect to a research/review article have still not been followed. This manuscript can be processed for further publication process, if authors add basic heads or subheads, as per research/review articles of the journal.
Thanks.
Regards,
Author Response
None
Reviewer 2 Report
none.
Author Response
None
Reviewer 3 Report
Not updated version available
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
May be considered
