Beta decoupling relationship between CO2 emissions by GDP, energy consumption, electricity production, value-added industries, and population in China

Rabnawaz Khan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0249444

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 17, 2020
21 Dec 2020 Decision Letter - Bing Xue, Editor PONE-D-20-34342 Beta decoupling relationship between CO2 emissions by GDP, energy consumption, electricity production, value-added industries, and population in China PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Khan, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 04 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Bing Xue, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "I acknowledge the helpful instruction and comments from my supervisor and thanks to the financial support of the National Natural Science Foundation of China of the Fujian University of Technology." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "Yes." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: "No." Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests 4. Please include a caption for figure 8. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: 1 The abstract can be further refined. 2 There are more than five keywords in the abstract. 3 The introduction does not elaborate on the topic of this article and its value, and we recommend rewriting. 4 The contribution of this article is not very obvious, and it is recommended to rewrite. 5 In the part 3, the reasons for the research results need to be explained and demonstrated. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249444.r001
Revision 1
22 Jan 2021 Author Response Authors' Response to Reviewers' Comments No: [PONE-D-20-34342] Title: Beta decoupling relationship between CO2 emissions by GDP, energy consumption, electricity production, value-added industries, and population in China Dear editor and reviewers, Thank you very much for your letter and reviewers’ valuable suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Beta decoupling relationship between CO2 emissions by GDP, energy consumption, electricity production, value-added industries, and population in China” No: [PONE-D-20-34342]. Those comments are very valuable and helpful for improving our paper, as well as providing the important guiding significance to our research. According to the editor’s and reviewers’ comments, we have carefully checked and improved the manuscript. The questions in the comments were marked in blue, and the corresponding responses are listed below point by point. Response to additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf andhttps://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf Reply: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. According to your valued comments, we have revised it carefully as follows. We have revised the paper point by point by the valuable comment. According to the Plos One manuscript body formatting guideline, I modified the whole paper, including heading, figures, and table style. The complex structure of Beta decoupling techniques (BDT) tables 2, 3,4, and 5 do not fulfill the requirement of table style, therefore as per given instruction all the tables are converted into figure caption like 6,9,11, and 12. 2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "I acknowledge the helpful instruction and comments from my supervisor and thanks to the financial support of the National Natural Science Foundation of China of the Fujian University of Technology." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "Yes." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Reply: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. According to your valued comments, we have revised it carefully as follows. We have revised the paper point by point by the valuable comment. As per the given instruction, I have excluded the funding information from acknowledgment (Line 28). 4. Please include a caption for figure 8. Reply: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. According to your valued comments, we have revised it carefully as follows. We have revised the paper point by point by the valuable comment. According to the Plos One manuscript body formatting guideline, I modified the figures and table captions under the stated requirements. Tables exported as TIFF figure, all the figure captions have been revised and cite and re-label. Figure 8 caption is updated now it shows figure 10. Reviewers' comments: 5.Reviewer's Responses to Questions Reviewer #1: 1 The abstract can be further refined. Reply: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. According to your valued comments, we have revised it carefully as follows. We have revised the paper point by point by the valuable comment. As per the given instruction, I have modified and refined the abstract and make it easy for the reader. likewise "The sources of fossil energy are a vital cause of economic growth and influence on security, whereas energy enhances or promotes socio-economic stability and the environment. As the fossil energy sources supply has become progressively stern, reconnoitering the beta decoupling relationships between CO2 emissions, GDP, energy consumption, electricity consumption, value-added industries, and population in China, and the result will be favorable for illustrative the security of the resources. This study adopts the extended stochastic model (STIRPAT) with Beta Decoupling Techniques (BDT). This technique employs the decoupling situation by the alpha and beta effects from 1989 to 2018 and calculates the % change in CO2 emissions by GDP growth and energy consumption. The estimated results are negative and economic growth depends on coal and natural gas. First CO2 emissions annually increasing cause of rapid growth, energy consumption, and electricity production, and the structural contradiction of energy remained static. Second, the Value-added industries estimated that CO2 emissions reduce by primary industries. Third, the decoupling states of CO2 emissions and population show an inverse relationship. This paper suggests that China is sustainable and strengthen energy output, transmute the energy consumption structure, and advance development policies under the environmental circumstance." 2 There are more than five keywords in the abstract. Reply: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. According to your valued comments, we have revised it carefully as follows. We have revised the paper point by point by the valuable comment. As per the given instruction, I have used only the five most relevant and authentic words as keywords. Likewise, the Beta Decoupling Technique, stochastic model (STIRPAT), energy consumption, electricity production, and value-added industries. 3 The introduction does not elaborate on the topic of this article and its value, and we recommend rewriting. Reply: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. According to your valued comments, we have revised it carefully as follows. We have revised the paper point by point by the valuable comment. As per the given instruction, the first section introduction is modified and improved with new research findings. Modified article lines are stated below. Modified lines with track change: 1. Introduction: (237 to 253), (257 to 263), (266 to 270), (273 to 278), (319 to 353) 1.2 Primary energy consumption: (360 to 364) 1.3 Electricity generation: (386 to 391) 1.4 Value-added industries: (240 to 248) 4 The contribution of this article is not very obvious, and it is recommended to rewrite. Reply: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. According to your valued comments, we have revised it carefully as follows. We have revised the paper point by point by the valuable comment. As per the given instruction, the contribution of the article rewrites from the line 319 to 353. A significant contribution of this study to the existing research is the Beta decoupling technique (BDT). (1) Mostly, existing studies sought causes for decoupling economic upheaval from CO2 emissions based on technological changes and production. (2) It used the decomposition approach because of the logarithmic mean division index (LMDI), which shows the index decomposition method. It limits the LMDI approach in case of technical efficiency and growth [24]. Therefore, it’s needed to introduce a more meaningful technique to determine the significant effects of CO2 emissions by growth and energy consumption. (3) The Beta decoupling technique expanded by planned (IPAT) into a stochastic model (STIRPAT) analysis of CO2 emissions. (4) We examined the decoupling among CO2 emissions, GDP, energy consumption, electricity production, value-added industries, and population for China from 1989 to 2018, while most prior studies have explored erstwhile to 1989. This research study should specify a thoughtful sound of Beta decoupling and its causes for the latest eras in China. 5 In the part 3, the reasons for the research results need to be explained and demonstrated. Reply: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. According to your valued comments, we have revised it carefully as follows. We have revised the paper point by point by the valuable comment. As per the given instructions, the third part of the article amends and modified. The research results are explained and demonstrated line by line. Modified lines with track change: 3.1 Gross development product (GDP): (740 to 750), and (757 to 774) 3.2 Energy Consumption: (793 to 796), (833 to 840), (844 to 845) 3.3 Generation of Electricity: (916 to 942) 3.4 Value-added Services: (1002 to 1008), (1024 to 1090) 3.5 Urbanization and Ruralization: (1110 to 1118) Thank you very much again for your valuable comments and suggestions. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: BDT-Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249444.r002
18 Feb 2021 Decision Letter - Bing Xue, Editor PONE-D-20-34342R1 Beta decoupling relationship between CO2 emissions by GDP, energy consumption, electricity production, value-added industries, and population in China PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Khan, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 04 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Bing Xue, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: After a careful assessment of the manuscript, I believe this informative study is suitable for publication. This article describes that the sources of fossil energy are a vital cause of economic growth and influence on security, whereas energy enhances or promotes socio-economic stability and the environment. As the fossil energy sources supply has become progressively stern, reconnoitering the beta decoupling relationships between CO2 emissions, GDP, energy consumption, electricity consumption, value-added industries, and population in China, and the result will be favorable for illustrative the security of the resources. This study adopts the extended stochastic model (STIRPAT) with Beta Decoupling Techniques (BDT). This technique employs the decoupling situation by the alpha and beta effects from 1989 to 2018 and calculates the percentage change in CO2 emissions by GDP growth and energy consumption. Abstract and Introduction improvement: I happy to evaluate this interesting study. In my opinion, I have some guidelines for the authors to enhance the study quality before endorsing it for publication. As the Abstract is the main door or "FACE" of the manuscript, it should briefly present high-quality English with new information. I have suggested some studies to check the abstracts, improve yours, cite them in the introduction, and build your study objectives like these studies. Abbas, J., Mahmood, S., Ali, H., Ali Raza, M., Ali, G., Aman, J., Bano, S., & Nurunnabi, M. (2019). The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility Practices and Environmental Factors through a Moderating Role of Social Media Marketing on Sustainable Performance of Business Firms. Sustainability, 11(12), 3434. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/12/3434 Hussain, T., Abbas, J., Wei, Z., Ahmad, S., Xuehao, B., & Gaoli, Z. (2021). Impact of Urban Village Disamenity on Neighboring Residential Properties: Empirical Evidence from Nanjing through Hedonic Pricing Model Appraisal. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 147(1), 04020055. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)up.1943-5444.0000645 Abbas, J., Raza, S., Nurunnabi, M., Minai, M. S., & Bano, S. (2019). The Impact of Entrepreneurial Business Networks on Firms’ Performance Through a Mediating Role of Dynamic Capabilities. Sustainability, 11(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113006 Methods and Results The results section of the paper presents a good view of the study. This work presents a notable investigation on a selected topic. I suggest including some graphical presentations to improve the quality of this study. Please see the proposed studies and see the graphical representation. Improve your work like these studies and cite them in this section. Abbasi, K. R., Abbas, J., & Tufail, M. (2021, 2021/02/01/). Revisiting electricity consumption, price, and real GDP: A modified sectoral level analysis from Pakistan. Energy Policy, 149, 112087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112087 Mubeen, R., Han, D., Abbas, J., & Hussain, I. (2020). The Effects of Market Competition, Capital Structure, and CEO Duality on Firm Performance: A Mediation Analysis by Incorporating the GMM Model Technique. Sustainability, 12(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083480 Raza Abbasi, K., Hussain, K., Abbas, J., Fatai Adedoyin, F., Ahmed Shaikh, P., Yousaf, H., & Muhammad, F. (2021). Analyzing the role of industrial sector's electricity consumption, prices, and GDP: A modified empirical evidence from Pakistan. AIMS Energy, 9(1), 29-49. https://doi.org/10.3934/energy.2021003 Conclusion I suggest you make a separate heading of the conclusion and do not mix it with implications. Policy Recommendations I again recommend you to make a separate heading of the Policy Recommendations. The conclusion section is acceptable. Overall, this presents a good piece of research work. I recommend that authors do a little more work and revise this article accordingly. I suggest the authors check English quality and fix some weak sentences. If you have already taken English editing service, ask them to recheck the quality to meet scientific merit for publication. I endorse this manuscript for publication after minor corrections, as suggested. Reviewer #3: Dear Authors, Thank you for the opportunity for me to go through and read your Paper Titled: Beta decouplingrelationship between CO2 emissions byGDP, energy consumption, electricity production, value-added industries,and population in China. The authors have done a great a job by revising the paper. The Abstract and Intruduction has been revised Accordingly. Also the Research Results is well explained and Demonstrated, therefore the recommend this paper for Publication. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249444.r003
Revision 2
13 Mar 2021 Author Response Authors' Response to Reviewers' Comments No: PONE-D-20-34342R1 Title: Beta decoupling relationship between CO2 emissions by GDP, energy consumption, electricity production, value-added industries, and population in China Dear editor and reviewers, Thank you very much for your letter and reviewers' valuable suggestions on our manuscript entitled "Beta decoupling relationship between CO2 emissions by GDP, energy consumption, electricity production, value-added industries, and population in China”. No: [PONE-D-20-34342R1]. These comments are very esteemed and helpful for meaningfully improving our paper. It is providing the imperative guiding significance to our research. According to the editors' and reviewers’ comments, we have carefully checked and improved the manuscript. The questions in the comments were marked in blue, and the corresponding responses are listed below point by point. Reviewers' comments: Response to additional requirements. 6. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #2: After a careful assessment of the manuscript, I believe this informative study is suitable for publication. This article describes that the sources of fossil energy are a vital cause of economic growth and influence on security, whereas energy enhances or promotes socio-economic stability and the environment………. energy consumption. Abstract and Introduction improvement: I happy to evaluate this interesting study. In my opinion, I have some guidelines for the authors to enhance the study quality before endorsing it for publication. As the Abstract is the main door or "FACE" of the manuscript, it should briefly present high-quality English with new information. I have suggested some studies to check the abstracts, improve yours, cite them in the introduction, and build your study objectives like these studies. Reply: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. According to your valued comments, we have revised it carefully as follows. We have revised the paper point by point by the valuable comment. Under your kindful consideration, I have changed sentences with pure wording and increase reader interest. I have also read your research papers, and after profound review, I modified the abstract and introduction portion. Likewise, The credible sources of fossil energy efficiently are a vital cause of economic growth and considerable influence on adequate security. Whereas radiant energy positively enhances or ostensibly promotes socio-economic stability and the controlled environment. The fossil energy sources supply has become progressively stern in China and reconnoitering the beta decoupling relationships between CO2 emissions, GDP, energy consumption, electricity consumption, value-added industries, and population. In the introduction portion, I have cited your research papers. As per the given valuable suggestion of your three research papers, I modified the 2nd paragraph lines (112-134) and included the valued finding of your research with technical skills. Furthermore, as per the given instruction research manuscript carefully check the theoretical. The whole paper screening again lines to the line under technical and academic writing style. And progressively improve the advised reader's economic interest. Graciously according to manuscript objectives, all the cleared tables, figures and values verify again with the proper interpretation and clear the determined objectives with technical skills. In addition, as per the given instruction, the theoretical check and modified the significant contribution from the line 253 to 265. Methods and Results The results section of the paper presents a good view of the study. This work presents a notable investigation on a selected topic. I suggest including some graphical presentations to improve the quality of this study. Please see the proposed studies and see the graphical representation. Improve your work like these studies and cite them in this section. Reply: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. According to your valued comments, we have revised it carefully as follows. We have revised the paper point by point by the valuable comment. As per your valuable suggestion, I have already included three figures (1,2 and 3) lines (287, 317, and 363) in the introduction portion in the form of primary energy consumption, electricity production, and value industries. The second portion (methodology) included two figures (4 and 5) lines (502 and 525) in the form of the Beta decoupling and a strong positive/negative attitude of decoupling. The third portion (result and discussion) included three Figures (7,8 and 10) lines (720,807, and 958) in the form of GDP with Primary energy consumptions, energy generation, value-added primary industries, and Urban and rural population. CO2 emission industrial sectors (million tons) and the Pivot chart with GDP. In addition, individually interpreted all the eight figures in lines 269, 319, 365, 484, 508, 676,816, and 941. In this portion, I have also cited your three research papers and modified the separate sentences as for the valuable interest. Conclusion I suggest you make a separate heading of the conclusion and do not mix it with implications.  Policy Recommendations implication I again recommend you to make a separate heading of the Policy Recommendations. The conclusion section is acceptable. Overall, this presents a good piece of research work. I recommend that authors do a little more work and revise this article accordingly. I suggest the authors check English quality and fix some weak sentences. If you have already taken English editing service, ask them to recheck the quality to meet scientific merit for publication. I endorse this manuscript for publication after minor corrections, as suggested. Reply: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. According to your valued comments, we have revised it carefully as follows. We have revised the paper point by point by the valuable comment. As per the given instruction, I have separated both portion recommendation (line 1056) and implication also theoretical check it as per reader interest. Furthermore, the quality of English has been improved with editing services, and recheck the quality merit for publication. Reviewer #3: Dear Authors, Thank you for the opportunity for me to go through and read your Paper Titled: Beta decoupling relationship between CO2 emissions by GDP, energy consumption, electricity production, value-added industries, and population in China. The authors have done a great a job by revising the paper. The Abstract and Introduction has been revised Accordingly. Also, the Research Results is well explained and Demonstrated, therefore the recommend this paper for Publication. Reply: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions. According to your valued comments, we have revised it carefully as follows. We have revised the paper point by point by the valuable comment. Thank you so much for your kind compliments. Thank you very much again for your valuable comments and suggestions. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: BDT(2)-Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249444.r004
19 Mar 2021 Decision Letter - Bing Xue, Editor Beta decoupling relationship between CO2 emissions by GDP, energy consumption, electricity production, value-added industries, and population in China PONE-D-20-34342R2 Dear Dr. Khan, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Bing Xue, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249444.r005
Formally Accepted
23 Mar 2021 Acceptance Letter - Bing Xue, Editor PONE-D-20-34342R2 Beta decoupling relationship between CO2 emissions by GDP, energy consumption, electricity production, value-added industries, and population in China Dear Dr. Khan: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Professor Bing Xue Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249444.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .