Directions for Sustainable Development of China’s Coal Industry in the Post-Epidemic Era
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Abstract should be re-structured as : objective of the paper, methodology used, results derived and policy implication.
2. Literature cited in the introduction is limited and needs further extension,
3. Authors have clearly stated the aims and objectives of the paper on page number 2. They should also briefly highlight the research questions, novelty, and contribution of their study.
4. Section 2 is weak and needs further elaboration. I am not only surprised but unable to understand why authors have summarized methodology section in few lines?
5. Results section is amazing, but discussion section should be comprehensive. Therefore, extend it further to add coherence in results.
6. In the conclusion section research and applied implications are missing. Further elaborate on the limitations of your research.
7. Text requires improvement.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer's comments concerning our manuscript entitled" Directions for sustainable development of China's coal industry in the post-epidemic era" (ID: sustainability-2256797). Those comments are all valuable and very for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.
As our article received comments from four reviewers, the attached upload is the revised reviewable version. We have highlighted the comments you have given in red.
Responds to the reviewer's comments:
- Abstract should be re-structured as : objective of the paper, methodology used, results derived and policy implication.
Response: We have rewritten the abstract following your suggestion.
- Literature cited in the introduction is limited and needs further extension,
Response: In the introduction, we expanded the relevant content of the environment and carbon emissions.
- Authors have clearly stated the aims and objectives of the paper on page number 2. They should also briefly highlight the research questions, novelty, and contribution of their study.
Response: We have added your reference in the relevant section on page 2.
- Section 2 is weak and needs further elaboration. I am not only surprised but unable to understand why authors have summarized methodology section in few lines?
Response: We have rewritten section 2 and constructed the methodological model, as well as the analytical model framework.
- Results section is amazing, but discussion section should be comprehensive. Therefore, extend it further to add coherence in results.
Response: The results section has been expanded and we have improved Figure 12 to present the comparison results more clearly
- In the conclusion section research and applied implications are missing. Further elaborate on the limitations of your research.
Response: In the discussion of the results section, we add the limitations of this article, including not covering too much clean energy related content, only briefly summarising regional development and enterprise development issues related to the coal industry, adding that the environmental indicators mentioned in the previous article have not been studied in more depth, etc.
7. Text requires improvement.
Response: We have re-examined the content of the text and have deleted and amended some of the statements.
We appreciate your careful comments on our articles, which have helped us to improve the integrity and depth of our research, we look forward to your reply !
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
After reviewing, I find that the paper attempts to discover “Directions for sustainable development of China's coal industry in the post-epidemic era”, which is relatively topical and necessary, especially in China. I can find that the authors have made great effort to analyze the situation, and show some interesting findings. Overall, the quality of this paper is acceptable.
For a better contribution to the literature, I would like to suggest some revisions that are good for enhancing the quality of the manuscript.
1. Can the authors provide the comparison the directions for sustainable development of China's coal industry in the pre-epidemic and post-epidemic era so that it can demonstrate the change under the influence of pandemic.
2. Explaining why you select those such methodology? What are the disadvantages and advantages?
3. Are there any limitations of the research and what is the futher study?
4. Sort the list of references in Alphabet order.
Thank you
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer's comments concerning our manuscript entitled" Directions for sustainable development of China's coal industry in the post-epidemic era" (ID: sustainability-2256797)
Those comments are all valuable and very for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.
As our article received comments from four reviewers, the attached upload is the revised reviewable version. We have highlighted the comments you have given in red.
Responds to the reviewer's comments:
- Can the authors provide the comparison the directions for sustainable development of China's coal industry in the pre-epidemic and post-epidemic era so that it can demonstrate the change under the influence of pandemic.
Response: In response to this content, we have continued to look for information and found that China's plans for the coal industry focus on the development of clean technologies to produce high quality coal, the production and consumption that changed the most during the epidemic, so we have added to the discussion section only in response to the questions you raised.
- Explaining why you select those such methodology? What are the disadvantages and advantages?
Response: We have rewritten Section 2, refining the methodology and constructing a methodological model, as well as an analytical model framework, detailing the reasons for the choice of these methods.
- Are there any limitations of the research and what is the futher study?
Response: In the discussion of the results section, we add the limitations of this article, including not covering too much clean energy related content, adding that the environmental indicators mentioned in the previous article have not been studied in more depth, etc. We present our intention to continue our research on regional development and enterprise development issues related to the coal industry.
- Sort the list of references in Alphabet order.
Response: The articles have been sorted alphabetically in the reference list.
We appreciate your careful comments on our articles, which have helped us to improve the integrity and depth of our research, we look forward to your reply!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
ID: 2256797
Title: Directions for sustainable development of China's coal industry in the post-epidemic era
This study analyzes the revision of China's post-pandemic coal industry for sustainable development. The study emphasizes that coal demand will continue with PESTEL and SWOT analyzes. For this reason, he states that China should give importance to low-carbon coal utilization. My suggestions for the work are as follows.
-Environmental Performance Index (EPI). Various EPI indexes are available in the literature. Provide more comprehensive information about the EPI you are considering.
-Environmental damages of coal should be mentioned in detail in the introduction.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w13101387
- In the conclusion part, briefly discuss the energy sources that China can use as an alternative to coal, according to your personal ideas.
Work flow is good. The authors presented the findings well in the discussion and conclusion section. The graphical representations and quality of the work are top-notch. I think that this article will contribute to the literature. It may be ready for publication after minor corrections above.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer's comments concerning our manuscript entitled" Directions for sustainable development of China's coal industry in the post-epidemic era" (ID: sustainability-2256797)
Those comments are all valuable and very for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.
As our article received comments from four reviewers, the attached upload is the revised reviewable version. We have highlighted the comments you have given in red.
Responds to the reviewer's comments:
-Environmental Performance Index (EPI). Various EPI indexes are available in the literature. Provide more comprehensive information about the EPI you are considering.
Response: Regarding the part of the extended EPI you proposed, when we conducted in-depth research again, we found that this is a good entry point to help us continue to study the relationship and impact between carbon dioxide emissions and the coal industry.
Limited by the length of the article, the EPI content mentioned in the article is only a detailed item of the influencing factors of the environmental part. We intend to include this part you proposed into the insufficiency of the article and the part of continuing research.
-Environmental damages of coal should be mentioned in detail in the introduction.
Response: Regarding the article you recommended on the analysis of coal influence factors, we read it carefully and brought us a lot of inspiration, and introduced its viewpoints into the introduction part (Citation [70]), and added a lot of ideas from this in the following content. Thank you for recommending this high-quality article to us.
- In the conclusion part, briefly discuss the energy sources that China can use as an alternative to coal, according to your personal ideas.
Response: We have substantially expanded the discussion section of the article following your suggestions
We appreciate your careful comments on our articles, which have helped us to improve the integrity and depth of our research, we look forward to your reply!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have reported "Directions for sustainable development of China's coal industry in the post-epidemic era". Although the report was well presented, there are a few areas that need to be addressed.
1. Abbreviations have to be defined for the first time they are used before using the abbreviation subsequently. Eg. on Page 1 line 13. Page 7 line 234. Furthermore, abbreviations should not appear in the abstract.
2. There are a few sentences that are too long and need to be reduced or rephrased for easy understanding. Eg, Page 1 lines 34-40, page 2, lines 56-62, page 6, lines 166-170, etc
3. The word font on page 2 line 80-82 appear to be different.
4. Some sentences are incomplete, eg. on page 2, lines 54-55
5. Figure 10 can be improved.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer's comments concerning our manuscript entitled" Directions for sustainable development of China's coal industry in the post-epidemic era" (ID: sustainability-2256797)
Those comments are all valuable and very for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.
As our article received comments from four reviewers, the attached upload is the revised reviewable version. We have highlighted the comments you have given in red.
1. Abbreviations have to be defined for the first time they are used before using the abbreviation subsequently. Eg. on Page 1 line 13. Page 7 line 234. Furthermore, abbreviations should not appear in the abstract.
Response: The correct use of all abbreviations has been corrected in the text, and we have substantially revised the Abstract.
2. There are a few sentences that are too long and need to be reduced or rephrased for easy understanding. Eg, Page 1 lines 34-40, page 2, lines 56-62, page 6, lines 166-170, etc
Response: The sentences you mentioned in the article have been corrected.
3. The word font on page 2 line 80-82 appear to be different.
Response: Corrected in text.
4. Some sentences are incomplete, eg. on page 2, lines 54-55
Response: The sentences have been corrected.
5. Figure 10 can be improved.
Response: Figure 10 has been improved. Due to the large changes in the content of the article, the serial number of this figure has been corrected to 12.
We appreciate your careful comments on our articles, which have helped us to improve the integrity and depth of our research, we look forward to your reply!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have addressed all the comments adequately. The quality of manuscript has improved considerably.
