Digitalization Level and Green-Oriented Transition Development of Highly Energy-Intensive Enterprises Based on Carbon Reduction Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors decided to investigate a burning topical problem that also has global impacts, not just regionally in China. Many agendas of international organizations and countries deal with the consequences of pollution caused by carbon-fueled industries. The research problem is well presented in the article, the objectives are clearly defined and the hypotheses are substantiated with relevant literature. Methodologically, the article is well and appropriately set up, and the analysis is qualitatively performed. As a smaller weakness, it might be mentioned that the conclusions could be better connected with the existing literature.
While the article is written in solid English, some sections clearly need additional proofreading. For example in lines 123-133, spaces between punctuation and text are missing or the punctuation is in the wrong place (models.And then,in Section 4,this). In line 136, there is a period in the middle of the sentence (and the digital revolution. is considered to). Similar errors should be corrected throughout the text.
While the article is written in solid English, some sections clearly need additional proofreading. For example in lines 123-133, spaces between punctuation and text are missing or the punctuation is in the wrong place (models.And then,in Section 4,this). In line 136, there is a period in the middle of the sentence (and the digital revolution. is considered to). Similar errors should be corrected throughout the text.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions. Your comments are of great help to our research work.
Attached is our reply to the reviewer's suggestion, please review it.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I really appreciated your work; the topic is interesting, and I think overall it is good work. However, you must re-read the text for English editing. You must also check the format of references for Sustainability. There are many typos and punctuation errors throughout the paper but at a minor level.
Best Regards,
The paper's overall quality is good in terms of research but as I mentioned to the authors there are many typos and minor English editing needs.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions. Your comments are of great help to our research work.
Attached is our reply to the reviewer's suggestion, please review it.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The scientific article explores the relationship between digitalization level and carbon reduction in high energy-intensive enterprises against the backdrop of the digital economy and the pressing need for carbon reduction.
While the abstract provides a general overview of the paper's purpose, it needs more information on the research methodology and specific findings. This could be improved by including more details about the research design, data collection, and key results in the abstract.
The current set of keywords should be expanded to reflect the study's broad scope. Including related terms such as "sustainable development," "green technology," "low-carbon economy," "energy efficiency," "digital transformation," "industry 4.0," and "emissions reduction,", will attract a broader range of interested readers.
The first downside is the empty page 10, possibly due to editing issues or a missing table or figure. This should be addressed to ensure the paper's completeness and avoid confusing readers. Furthermore, tables 5 and 6 in the article need several points- if there is no data, it should be explained. It is essential to correct these omissions or provide clarifications on why these points are missing. Tables are critical for presenting data and findings, so their accuracy and completeness are crucial for the readers' understanding.
Another issue is the theoretical background, which is heavily polarized toward Chinese authors and lacks sufficient international references. A comprehensive literature review with a broader range of international sources would strengthen the paper's credibility and provide a more balanced perspective.
In conclusion, the article has a promising topic related to the impact of digitalization on carbon reduction in high energy-intensive enterprises. However, the downsides identified need to be addressed to improve the overall quality of the paper. The paper's scientific merit can be significantly enhanced by providing more detailed information in the abstract, rectifying the empty page and missing data in tables, and enhancing the theoretical background with diverse international references.
Sentence Structure:
Some sentences are long and could be broken into smaller, more concise sentences to improve readability.
Word Choice:
A few word choices and phrases could be refined to enhance the text's flow. For example: "achieve carbon balance by 2060" could be rephrased as "attain carbon neutrality by 2060" for clarity.
Consistency:
Ensure consistency in verb tenses and sentence structure. Keep the tense consistent throughout the text.
Paragraph Breaks:
Consider breaking down the text into paragraphs to create a more organized and readable structure, especially when introducing different topics or arguments.
Clarity of Argument:
Some sentences could be clarified to express the intended meaning better. For instance, in the second paragraph, the sentence "The digital revolution is speeding up the osmosis of all sorts of industrial fields" may benefit from rephrasing to be more explicit.
Sentence Structure:
Some sentences are long and could be broken into smaller, more concise sentences to improve readability.
Word Choice:
A few word choices and phrases could be refined to enhance the text's flow. For example: "achieve carbon balance by 2060" could be rephrased as "attain carbon neutrality by 2060" for clarity.
Consistency:
Ensure consistency in verb tenses and sentence structure. Keep the tense consistent throughout the text.
Paragraph Breaks:
Consider breaking down the text into paragraphs to create a more organized and readable structure, especially when introducing different topics or arguments.
Clarity of Argument:
Some sentences could be clarified to express the intended meaning better. For instance, in the second paragraph, the sentence "The digital revolution is speeding up the osmosis of all sorts of industrial fields" may benefit from rephrasing to be more explicit.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions. Your comments are of great help to our research work.
Attached is our reply to the reviewer's suggestion, please review it.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions. Your comments are of great help to our research work.
Attached is our reply to the reviewer's suggestion, please review it.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The overall changes are positive and help emphasize the quality of the research. One thing to point out is that the background has focused on Chinese authors and should include more references from international sources. However, it is now acceptable.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions. Your comments are of great help to our research work.
Attached is our reply to the reviewer's suggestion, please review it.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
From its very nature, what the authors contribute to this revision is merely on the explanations put on the cover-letter, rather on the revision itself. In other words, most issues mentioned in the previous review comments are not seriously taken or dealt for revision. The authors are strongly required to provide significant improvement for the content, thus making this draft with its validity and contribution.
1. Definitions and measures of key variables are vague
l Definition and measure conversion of the two key variables of this paper (i.e., CO2 and Digital) are not based upon widely-accepted research, which makes the rigidness and validity of variable setting is questioned. Please provide more convincing evidence in showing that such definitions and measures are appropriate and rigidness.
2. Tests on hypotheses and their relationships with the research are called for further explanation
l With regard to Hypothesis 1, although the authors provide further explanations. However, there exists clear difference between non-linear and “inverted U shape”. Please be sure whether current research method and examination is truly applicable for examining inverted U shape. As well, be sure all the claims around the whole paper are made in a consistent manner.
l Regarding Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3, less literature provides direct supports for framing such two hypotheses, according to current draft. As well, the authors should provide further information to ensure findings of these two hypotheses have strong relationships with: (1) theoretical supports; and (2) research title / theme of this paper. Ad hoc reference or papers without being reviewed by this draft is not recognized.
3. There exists conflicting information in terms of the explanation power (i.e., R2) of regression models, thus calling for further validation and explanation
l It is challenging that as all the sub-sample regression results provide extremely high R2 (i.e., all are greater than 0.834, according to Table 7), it is hardly to see why all the explanation power (R2) of the remaining regression models (i.e., those with moderate effects shown in Table 8 and that with threshold models shown in Table 10) are all low (i.e., no higher than 0.304).
l It is argued that variables with low R2 may lead to relatively low explanation power or impacts on dependent variables. It is therefore suggested that the conclusions and findings should be drawn carefully.
4. Conclusions of this paper require further clarification and enhancement
l Implications (especially theoretical implications) and conclusions are not clearly drawn, thus weakening the contribution of the current draft.
l Generalizability of the proposed findings (i.e., appropriate for other nations or any generalizable implications) are suggested to clearly made.
To ensure the readers follow the logic smoothly, the whole paper is suggested to revise the current paper structure (especially on Section 2 and 3).
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions. Your comments are of great help to our research work.
Attached is our reply to the reviewer's suggestion, please review it.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
