Spatiotemporal Variation and Driving Factors of Embodied Carbon in China-G7 Trade

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript Title: Spatial-temporal Variation and Driving Factors of Embodied Carbon in China-G7 Trade
The Comments are:
1. Abstract should have one sentence per each: context and background, motivation, hypothesis, methods, results, conclusions. While the author presents the Abstract, answer the questions carefully: What problem did you study and why is it important? What methods did you use? What were your main results? And what conclusions can you draw from your results? Please make your abstract with more specific and quantitative results while it suits broader audiences.
2. Avoid lumping references as in “(Gozgor and Can, 2016; Liu et al., 2018; Nathaniel et al., 2019)” and all other. Instead, summarize the main contribution of each referenced paper in a separate sentence.
3. Introduction Section. (1. Please highlight the main gaps that have motivated this paper. 2. Please review more recent studies. 3. The manuscript will benefit from having a more international outlook. The results are quite limited and restricted to the case study of China. It should go beyond and demonstrate how the research fills the gaps in the literature. 4. Please add some recent articles in 2022 for example: "A Hybrid Model with Applying Machine Learning Algorithms and Optimization Model to Forecast Greenhouse Gas Emissions with Energy Market Data")
4. Please clearly indicate why the proposed model is novel. The authors are recommended to use a table for comparing the features of the proposed model with the previous similar models.
5. In Methodology Section, (1. Please provide better problem definition. 2. Please point out the main contributions of this paper. 3. What are the main assumptions of your model?
4.Adding a flowchart showing the step-by-step procure of the proposed study is recommended.)
6. As a key part of a paper, the Discussion should show the readers at least two elements: "breadth" and "depth". "Breadth" reflects whether the analytical results can be explained via different approaches.
"Depth" reflects whether the analytical results completely answer the questions raised in the Introduction. My first sense shows the current Discussion is without enough insight. This should explore the significance of the results of the work, not repeat them.
A combined Results and Discussion section is OK. However, avoid extensive citations and discussion of published literature.
7. Rewrite the conclusion chapter as it looks more like a general summary of the paper. The most important findings should be backed up by results.
(eg. provide quantitative results in conclusions)

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is quite interesting, and I will make some suggestions to make the paper better. Thus, in the introduction, the author should present and better specify the motivations of this article. Then, in the methodology, the author can give and formulate the hypotheses to be tested. Finally, regarding the data used, I believe that the author will be able to present his sources in more detail.

In the conclusions, the author should also summarise the results found, but interconnect them with possible recommendations for economic and energy policy.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am satisfied with the revisions.