Locating the Principal Sectors for Carbon Emission Reduction on the Global Supply Chains by the Methods of Complex Network and Susceptible–Infective Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1-The abstract clearly specifies the importance of this research. It is actually a trending topic and indeed a very important aspect. However, please briefly describe the simulation in the abstract. Also avoid using words like we, our, etc.

2-Change the referencing style from (name, year) to [1], [2], etc. 

3-At the end of your introduction, please specify how your work is significant and how it varies from literature. 

4-Major comment: 

Whenever you mention '' previous research'', you have to reference this. 

Also, reference all equations, reference all assumptions, then validate your work against other available methods.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has scientific and practical significance for the development of industry taking into account environmental risks in various industries. The work contains a mathematical justification of the authors' proposals. It should also be noted the extensive scientific base used by the authors and the review of sources.

At the same time, there are no references to information sources in the text of the work, very limited statistical data on industries that gave at least a general idea of the state of the economy, as well as environmental pollution.

Nevertheless, the work is well structured, written in a competent language, is of a research nature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article titled ‘’ The spreading capabilities of sectors in the carbon emission 2 flows along the global production chains: A network perspective’’ is interested article, however, there are some major and minor comments for the authors to improve the article:

1. In the title ‘’ A network perspective’’ does not add any scientific value. It is suggested to change the title with respect to some aligned application.
2. Again, in the title ‘’ The spreading capabilities of sectors’’ seems odd, author is advised to consider serious efforts in the change of the title, which represent some more valued statement / content.
3. The start of abstract should be a problem statement, the statement ‘’ Although scholars have done plenty of works to find the drivers of carbon emissions, there 9 is still a big challenge to locate the reasonable targets for carbon emission reduction policies in the complex global supply chain’’ reflects no specific problem, it is general statement.
4. Line 11 of abstract ‘’ In this paper, we proposed a novel framework’’ personal nouns should be avoided in the scientific writing. It should be checked throughout the manuscript.
5. Line 19-20 of the abstract ‘’ e. It indicated that although some sectors exported much embodied carbon emissions to others, their influence usually was limited to their neighbors when they changed’’ has serious concern of English language structure, also, the personal nouns ‘’they / their’’ should be avoided.
6. There is no analysis / values / statistical results about the main content i.e. carbon emission anywhere in the abstract.
7. Author should add some numeric values of the boundary conditions / methodology conditions or any result values of the simulations in the abstract.
8. The whole abstract is very generic e.g. ‘’sector’’ is very open term. Author should confined the study to some direction.
9. Abstract should close / end with the statement of solution of some problem or any application as utilization of this research.
10. Author should check the reference style of the sustainability journal is ‘’numbered’’ and not ‘’author-year’’. It should be revised according to the journal guidelines.
11. There are many minor and major grammatical and language structure issues in the introduction / literature review section. Also, there is need to add some very relevant discussion in introduction section related to the previous work of this study.
12. Why this study is important? Author should explain it explicitly.
13. There are 1-9 equations in this paper, but none of the equation include any reference. If these are authors’ own equation, then it is OK, otherwise it must include the source.
14. Heading 3 is ‘’data’’, which is very inappropriate, headings should be specific and descriptive.
15. Also, this heading include multiple personal nouns and no particular information. It says 44 countries data. What is this? Which countries? Why those 44 countries? Also, the website is mentioned. It must be used as proper reference or it should be added in the appendix section.
16. Figure 1 axes values are not readable.
17. In Figure 2, what is on Y-axis? What is the value / units? Also x-axis units should be revised?
18. Similar issue is in figure 3.
19. In the manuscript, author use the word of ‘’Electricity’’ with the ‘’E’’ capital. It should be checked. Also, these kind of errors should be checked throughout the manuscript.
20. There are many old references, authors should update the references. Also, authors are suggested to add some references from sustainability journal to relate the relevancy of the journal and for the better readability of the content.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed the comments successfully. 

Author Response

Thank you for your acceptance.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have tried to addressed the comments. However, still few mistakes / errors are there to correct. This includes personal nouns i.e. ''we'' used at two places (in introduction section and in discussion section).

This is strange that the there is single author in the manuscript and author has used the word ''we'' in the comments file and in the personal nouns inside the revised version as well.

Figure 1 quality is still poor especially axis.

reference section is doubled or may be some copy/paste twice mistake. please check.

Still many old references are present, which should be at least reduced or bring to minimum.

Overall, conclusion and discussion section logical reasoning is still week. 

Abstract still not have figured / numeric values. It is recommended. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf