PONE-D-21-35606The Impact of Trade and Financial Expansion on Volatility of real exchange ratePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chen,

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 Jan 07 2022 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Haibin Lv

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information

[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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: In the open economy, the abnormal fluctuation of exchange rate, as a central variable, often indicates the arrival of systemic financial risk. Maintaining the stability of exchange rate fluctuation is of great significance to the stable development of domestic finance. The real exchange rate is evaluated by combined least squares (LSO). Using panel data from 45 major countries in the world and instrumental variable method, the manuscript focuses on the impact of trade and financial openness on real exchange rate fluctuations.

The article needs to be revised before publication：

1 The results of the article and the practical value of the article are not given in the abstract. Please add.

2 The introduction needs to be reorganized. At present, there are only a large number of background descriptions. The author needs to supplement the latest research results and shortcomings in relevant fields, so as to lead to the innovation and expected practical value of this research.

3 It is suggested that the author do not start from a frame diagram in section 2.1, so as to improve readers' interest in reading.

4 The title of section 2.3 of the article is "Intelligent trade and financial market supported by “deep learning + Internet of Things”, but this part does not involve the Internet of things, and the author needs to verify and modify it.

5 The presentation of the results of the article is too single. At present, there are only tables. Can you add images to the results and improve the richness of the results?

6 The discussion part of the article needs to be reorganized. The discussion should focus on comparing the results of this article with the research results of scholars in other fields to reflect the advantages and disadvantages of this research, rather than too much description of the current research situation.

7 The writing of the conclusion is not standardized, so it needs to have a certain description of the background, methods and results, and explain the shortcomings of this study and future research plans. Please add.

8 What is the basis for the article to obtain the data results? In other words, how does the article obtain the required data set?

9 The artificial intelligence and deep learning involved in the article only stay in the background description. How does the author reflect the innovation of the article method?

10 Please move the method description in section 3.1 to the second part to improve the normalization of the logical level of the article.

Reviewer #2: The research purpose of the article is to promote the development of competition while avoiding the financial risks brought by opening up. The article combines deep learning and IoT family members to change the processing of text information in the analysis of financial data. And trading strategies are proposed to maintain the stability of the currency exchange rate, using the least square method to evaluate the impact of the country’s trade and financial opening on real exchange rate volatility.

For the structure and content of the article, the following suggestions are given:

�No specific numerical results of the research are given in the abstract, so the author should add some.

�The end of the abstract does not state how the research conclusions of the article are helpful to the field.

�The article needs to add some research literature on the issues in this field to explain the research status, and the literature needs to be within the nearly years.

�The legend in Figure 1 covers the abscissa axis, please modify it.

�Organize the content of the table, add a slash to the table without data.

�The conclusion needs to be rewritten. It is necessary to mention the research background, research methods, research results, and conclusions to promote the field, and the shortcomings of the article.

Reviewer #3: Analysis is conducted on the influence of trade and financial opening on the volatility of real exchange rate. Through the empirical test of panel data of 45 major countries in the world, the pooled order least square (OLS) Method and instrumental variable method are used to evaluate the influence of trade and financial opening of sample countries on the volatility of real exchange rate.

1. The structure of the abstract is not clear enough and should be re-organized.

2. The introduction describes the relevant research in detail, but lacks the summary of the current research and the deficiencies in the research. What research gaps can the research content of this paper fill? These should be written clearly.

3. The last paragraph of the introduction should highlight the description of the research methods, research contributions, and innovations.

4. The legend in Figure 1 covers the coordinate axis. Adjust it.

5. The structure of the discussion part is not clear enough. It can be divided into several sub-headings for discussion and adjustment.

6. The overall content of the conclusion part is too short and the structure is not clear enough. A description of the research background needs to be added at the beginning, and the shortcomings and future prospects in the research are included at the end. The results of the research process need to be supplemented.

**********

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

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.

The Impact of Trade and Financial Expansion on Volatility of real exchange rate

PONE-D-21-35606R1

Dear Dr. Chen,

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,

Haibin Lv

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: The real exchange rate is evaluated by combined least squares (LSO). Using panel data from 45 major countries in the world and instrumental variable method, the manuscript focuses on the impact of trade and financial openness on real exchange rate fluctuations. All the reviewers comments has been addressed by the authors. The article may be accept for publication.

Reviewer #2: The paper was revised to address the reviewers' comments from the previous version. The authors did a good job overall in addressing theses comments in the corresponding sections as explained in the submitted revision.The manuscript can be accepted now.

Reviewer #3: Analysis is conducted on the influence of trade and financial opening on the volatility of real exchange rate. Through the empirical test of panel data of 45 major countries in the world, the pooled order least square (OLS) Method and instrumental variable method are used to evaluate the influence of trade and financial opening of sample countries on the volatility of real exchange rate. Picking a very interesting and timely subject. In this revision, authors explain and discuss my concerns in details. The paper can be accepted.

**********

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 #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No