Exploration or Exploitation? Corporate Green Innovation Strategy for Carbon Emission Reduction-Evidence from Pilot Enterprises in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter reading the entire article, I noticed a number of issues related to:
Abstract. The authors clearly specify the objective of the research, the methodology used, the results obtained and the conclusions of their research.
Introduction. The authors present some aspects related to the context of the research and bring some clarifications related to the novelty and personal contributions to the development of their research, but do not specify exactly what is the gap covered in the specialized literature. I suggest the authors to realize these aspects.
Literature review. The authors briefly present some aspects related to Carbon trading and green innovation, Exploratory green innovation and exploitative green innovation and Peer pressure and green innovation and launch 4 research hypotheses. I suggest the authors to expand the specialized literature by adding other significant studies in this field.
Research design should be replaced with Methodology of research. The authors present some general information about the data selection and the variables used, but do not present the general framework of the research in the form of a graphic figure. I suggest the authors to realize this aspect and in addition to specify the software used for the analysis of the data used.
Empirical tests should be replaced with Data Analysis. The authors test the 4 research hypotheses and make comments based on them. The graphs should appear on one page and the equations should be noted. I suggest the authors to realize these aspects.
Conclusions and recommendations. The authors present some of their own research contributions and make some recommendations for future research. Are these future research directions or are they mere recommendations? The limits of this research are not found. I suggest the authors to realize the mentioned aspects.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo comments.
Author Response
Please check the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe introduction sets the stage well by highlighting the importance of carbon emission reduction and the role of carbon trading. Consider breaking down the introduction into subsections to clearly delineate the objectives, existing research gaps, and the significance of the study.
While the literature review provides a good overview of existing research, there is an opportunity to probe deeper into specific studies and their methodologies to provide a more nuanced understanding of the topic. Additionally, consider discussing any contradictory findings in the literature and how your study aims to address or reconcile these discrepancies.
The theoretical framework is well-developed and integrates relevant theories. However, there could be further clarification on how these theories specifically apply to the context of carbon trading and green innovation. Make sure that each hypothesis is clearly stated and supported by theoretical reasoning. As well, consider providing a rationale for why these hypotheses are significant for advancing the existing knowledge in the field.
The model equation is presented clearly, but it might be beneficial to provide a step-by-step explanation of how the difference-in-differences (DID) method is applied and why it is suitable for this study.
Including information about the sources of data used in the study, as well as details about the sample selection process, would bolster the credibility of the findings. Transparent reporting of data sources and sample characteristics enables other researchers to replicate the study and verify its conclusions.
Similarity is 21.53%, it must be reduced.
Author Response
Please check the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study deals with an interesting and relevant topic of the impact of carbon emissions on green innovation in China. I appreciate the aims of this work; it is interesting and informative to readers in this stream of research. However, I have the following comments that hopefully help the author to improve the study.
Hypothesis 4 is not properly defined. The hypothesis stipulates a mediating relationship, while Section 4.4 is titled “Moderating effects test”.
Which table shows empirical estimation of the equation on page 7?
In Table 4, why variables Time and Treat are not included? They are included in the equation on page 7.
Are standard errors robust to heteroskedasticity?
On page 11, it is stated: “The empirical findings, presented in column (7) of Table 4, reveal a correlation coefficient…” Table 4 does not show correlation coefficients, but regression coefficients.
Why does the equation on page 7 include variables Time and Treat, while the equation on page 11 does not include them?
Figure 1 shows the parallel trend test results. Where are the treatment and control groups in the figure?
Recommendations in the concluding section should be separated into policy and managerial.
The use of bullet points in the conclusion should be avoided.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The study would benefit from a detailed proofreading. For instance, on page 11, there is an incomplete sentence: “To enhance the reliability of the conclusion.”
Author Response
Please check the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy comments are addressed at a satisfactory level.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of English language is good.
