On the Internal Synergistic Mechanism of Operating System of Beijing’s High-Technology Industry Chain: Evidence from Science and Technology Service Industry
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments to Authors for for Manuscript ID sustainability-2114855
Title: ”The impact of the carbon emission trading pilot program on urban
carbon intensity - Evidence from cities at prefecture level and above in China”
Overview and general recommendation for authors:
The genesis of this paper is the issue of exploring the co evolutionary mechanism of ten top high-technology industries and their detailed sectors
The study uses the complex network model to reflect the internal structure of Beijing's high-technology industry chain. Based on the quantitative data of the synergistic relationships of the BHIC, this paper depicts the operation system of BHIC by constructing a complex network model named the Beijing High-Tech Industries Relationship Network (HTIRN-BJ) model.
The authors made the analysis on the HTIRN-BJ model by measuring seven indicators of the HTIRN-BJ model, including network density, network global efficiency, average path length, clustering coefficient, in-degree relative central potential, out-degree relative central potential, and network assortativity.
The results show that the BHIC (Beijing High-Tech Industrial Chain ) requires chain leaders to play a leading role in promoting technological innovation on the supply side of the chain and uses information sharing on the demand side on the basis of synergistic cooperation between upstream and downstream, to achieve high-quality development.
The authors discovered that it is necessary to dedicate more support from the government side by ensuring consistent government-sponsored programs, avoiding information isolation, beggar-thy-neighbour, and internal competition for profits, and improving the efficiency of industrial resources use.
The title and abstract are appropriate for the content of the text.
The authors appropriately cite past literature (a number of 24 references sources) with similar findings to theirs.
The manuscript is clear, relevant for the field and presented in a very well-structured manner. The cited references current are mostly within the last 4 years.
The research gap is the lack of studies covering function and status of the science and technology service industry and its concrete approach in order to stabilize the development of industry chain.
The manuscript is scientifically sound and the authors of the study decided to fill this gap by analyzing the bottlenecks in the development of S&T service industry.
The conclusions and suggestions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.
Because, for the industries in Beijing's high-tech industrial chains, there is a need to create solutions for reducing the lack of collaborative innovation in the global level, the current article is on a topic of relevance and general interest to the readers of the journal.
My best Regards,
The Reviewer
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It is indeed a good read, however can be better. Please follow the instructions:
1. Figure 2. HTIRN-BJ model should be having high resolution larger pictures with legends below indicating the summary
2. NLP is an ML which isn't 100% reliable. Therefore, a robustness check should be included.
3. How are you tackling the 'Lexical ambiguity' and the 'Semantic ambiguity' during this analysis?
4. Are you using 'Hidden Markov models'? Clarify in detail in the manuscript.
5. Fundamentally all the grey areas regarding AI implementation need not be presented as a black box approach. You have to detail everything to ensure transparency and credibility.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the invitation to review this article. I think that the current paper address a very important topic. Please, find bellow my comments and recommendations for the authors:
1. I would suggest that the authors improve the research context, by referring to the theoretical aspects of the research problem, not only the the practical implications. Also, the research gap should be clearly presented before de literature review section.
2. I consider that the literature review section must be improved. The authors should consult and includ more references from the literature to present a strong theoretical framework. For each industry, I would recommend references from the literature. Also, I would recommend that literature section be places before the methodology section.
3. The research results should be discussed by reffering to the previous studies from the literature.
4. The recommendations should be places in a distinct section of the paper. Also, the authors must refer to the study limits and future reserach.
I appreciate the rigorous methodological work of the authors and I hope that my recommendation will help them to improve the current form of the article.
Good luck!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The motivation is not clear. Please specify the importance of the proposed solution
-More mathematical analysis and related equations should be given.
- The state of the art is very limited; although they claimed that the subject is of great interest? They should present a categorical view of different existing approaches. In the proposed technique; the authors consumed a large space in primitives related to the basic ideas.
The quality of the figures really needs improving.
- I suggest that the authors introduce certain taxonomy, at least through subsections.
- The "Conclusions and Future Work" section appears excessively concise, then the authors should expand it by recapping all the steps to the proposed work, as to offer a brief but complete summary of it to the readers.
There are many algorithm parameters in the proposed method. What's the influence of these parameters?
About the datasets used by the authors, it is not clear if they are publicly available, otherwise (if they are private datasets) the possibility of reproducing the experiments, an indispensable aspect in any scientific work, would not be guaranteed, then the authors should clarify this aspect;
- The obtained experimental results must be more deeply discussed and justified. The Results and Discussion section must be enriched.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I am fine with the changes.
Author Response
As the corresponding author, I, on behalf of all the authors of this article, thank you for your valuable suggestions!
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for sending me the updated version of the paper.
The authors answered to all my comments and the quality of the paper significantly improved. Probably, some additional references could be added to the paper for a better discussion of the results compared to existing studies from the literature - in my opinion, this could lead to a better understanding of the phenomenon. However, congratulations for all your work.
Good luck!
Author Response
As the corresponding author, I, on behalf of all the authors of this article, thank you for your valuable suggestions!
Also, we will further revise the article according to your instructions, and you will see the modifications in the final version.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have correctly addressed the issues I made w.r.t. to the previous version of the manuscript. I thank the authors for their effort in improving the manuscript. The only pending issue is a thorough revision of language. The writing still shows quite a few deficiencies and I strongly recommend a professional proofread before publication
Author Response
As the corresponding author, I, on behalf of all the authors of this article, thank you for your valuable suggestions!
Also, we will further revise the article according to your instructions, and you will see the modifications in the final version.
