Research on the emissions from industrial products exported from Guangdong Province—an input-output model analysis

Yu-Xia Du; Ming-Jie Li; Jun-Jie Huang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0276300

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 2, 2022
7 Jun 2022 Decision Letter - Balasubramani Ravindran, Editor PONE-D-22-05437Research on the emissions from industrial products exported from Guangdong Province—an input-output model analysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ming Jie Li, 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 Jul 22 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, Balasubramani Ravindran, 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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. 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 4. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2-13 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 5. 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. 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ******** 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: The author has highlighted only about waste water emissions what about other pollutants from the industries. I doubt that adjustment in industrial structure would reduce the emission. Why the author has not insisted about EMS certification as a control measure Reviewer #2: This study investigated the wastewater, waste gas, and solid waste emissions in Guangdong’s industrial exports from 2004 to 2015. The authors use LMDI index and input-output model to analyze the factors. This study classified Guangdong’s foreign trade industries and analyze and compare waste gas emissions, wastewater emissions, solid waste emissions for each category. Overall, the authors have spent a lot of efforts on this study and the manuscript has been prepared in a professional manner. It is well organized and the message is clear. However, there are areas for improvement in terms of content. The current manuscript has a major revision of some issues that need to be addressed before being considered for publication. 1. The unit in figure 1 is not defined, The manufactured good amount and total export is seemed equal in figure however the proportion of manufactured goods have fluctuation, it’s better that chat shows the differences. 2. The second section (research area and method) lacks a detailed review of the model and methodology What is the other method and index to analyze the problem? What is the other methods and index that used in existing literature? Why authors use input-output model and LMDI to analyze the problem? 3. Most of research in literature review is focused on research conducted in china, it’s proposed to mention and investigate other existing research in other countries. 4. Some parts of the paper can be shorten (e.g., Sections 4) and proposed to summarize some analysis and result in table for readers. Reviewer #3: 1. Keywords should ideally be phrases of 2-4 words. Research keywords are not carefully selected. It is also necessary to give the reader an adequate explanation after choosing a keyword. and change the keywords "LMDI" to "The logarithmic mean Division index". 2. The reason for doing research (research gap) and research innovation must be clearly stated in the abstract and the introduction. 3. It is better to compare the results of this study with other similar studies. Also, the benefits of research are described. ****** 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: Yes: Ali Reza Afshari ******** [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.0276300.r001
Revision 1
13 Sep 2022 Author Response Reviewer #1: The author has highlighted only about waste water emissions what about other pollutants from the industries. I doubt that adjustment in industrial structure would reduce the emission. Why the author has not insisted about EMS certification as a control measure Response: This study uses an input-output model to analyze the wastewater, waste gas, and solid waste emissions found in Guangdong’s industrial exports from 2004 to 2015.We studied not only waste water emissions, but also waste gas, and solid waste emissions. 1.This paper carries out the structural decomposition of the emissions from industrial products exported from Guangdong Province. We suggest that improvement of technical level will reduce the emission significant. 2.On the page14, we add EMS as a control measure to reduce emissions for international trade. Reviewer #2: This study investigated the wastewater, waste gas, and solid waste emissions in Guangdong’s industrial exports from 2004 to 2015. The authors use LMDI index and input-output model to analyze the factors. This study classified Guangdong’s foreign trade industries and analyze and compare waste gas emissions, wastewater emissions, solid waste emissions for each category. Overall, the authors have spent a lot of efforts on this study and the manuscript has been prepared in a professional manner. It is well organized and the message is clear. However, there are areas for improvement in terms of content. The current manuscript has a major revision of some issues that need to be addressed before being considered for publication. 1. The unit in figure 1 is not defined, The manufactured good amount and total export is seemed equal in figure however the proportion of manufactured goods have fluctuation, it’s better that chat shows the differences. 2. The second section (research area and method) lacks a detailed review of the model and methodology What is the other method and index to analyze the problem? What is the other methods and index that used in existing literature? Why authors use input-output model and LMDI to analyze the problem? 3. Most of research in literature review is focused on research conducted in china, it’s proposed to mention and investigate other existing research in other countries. 4. Some parts of the paper can be shorten (e.g., Sections 4) and proposed to summarize some analysis and result in table for readers. Response: 1.We add the unit for figure 1. As the proportion of exported industrial products is greater than 97%. Actually, the amount of manufactured goods is really close to the amount of total export. we just can adjust the Figure 1 to make it more clear. 2.We add detailed review of the model and methodology in the second section which can be seen in P4-P6. Most papers use input-output approach to analyze this problem. SRIO(Single regional Input-output)\\BTIO(Bilateral trade input-output)\\MRIO(Multilateral regional input-output) are widely used, this paper just studied the problem of Guangdong Province, so we just used SRIO to analysis the emission of industrial products. SDA(Structural Decomposition Analysis) and LMDI(The logarithmic mean Division index) are widely used to describe the decomposition of pollution emission structure, but LMDI can overcome the cross-term problem of SDA well, so we chose LMDI as the index. Based on your comments, we have clarified and explained the difference of the current study with the available literature, which can be seen in P4-P6 3.We also list some existing research in other countries like OECD countries\\American\\ Norway\\ South Korea\\ Poland\\ Turkish\\ Saudi Arabia, and so on, which can be seen in P4-P5 4. Based on your comments, Sections 4 has been shorten and we summarized analysis and result in table, which can be seen in P11 and table2-3. Reviewer #3: 1. Keywords should ideally be phrases of 2-4 words. Research keywords are not carefully selected. It is also necessary to give the reader an adequate explanation after choosing a keyword. and change the keywords "LMDI" to "The logarithmic mean Division index". 2. The reason for doing research (research gap) and research innovation must be clearly stated in the abstract and the introduction. 3. It is better to compare the results of this study with other similar studies. Also, the benefits of research are described. Response: 1. Based on your comments, we have selected research keywords which can be seen P2. 2. We have clarified and explained reason for doing research which can be seen in P3. Research innovation has been stated in the introduction which can be seen P3-P4. 3. Due to the different regions studied, we made some comparisons in terms of research methods, which can be seen in p6 Based on your comments, the benefits of research are described in P4. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276300.r002
19 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Muhammad Ikram, Editor PONE-D-22-05437R1Research on the emissions from industrial products exported from Guangdong Province--an input-output model analysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Li, 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 Nov 03 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, Muhammad Ikram Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Dear Authors, The paper is improved but sincerely the conclusions are not clear. I suggest to enhance the entire-section providing managerial implications, main issues and what are the key-messages of your work. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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.0276300.r003
Revision 2
28 Sep 2022 Author Response Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Response: We reviewed our reference carefully, and we haven’t find any papers have been retracted. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Authors, The paper is improved but sincerely the conclusions are not clear. I suggest to enhance the entire-section providing managerial implications, main issues and what are the key-messages of your work. Response: We read our paper carefully and improved it as much as we could. As for the deeper causes of the described problems, we may need to conduct further research and publish in the next paper. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. We used PACE to correct our pictures, which really helped us a lot. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276300.r004
5 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Muhammad Ikram, Editor Research on the emissions from industrial products exported from Guangdong Province--an input-output model analysis PONE-D-22-05437R2 Dear Dr. Li, 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, Muhammad Ikram Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276300.r005
Formally Accepted
26 Oct 2022 Acceptance Letter - Muhammad Ikram, Editor PONE-D-22-05437R2 Research on the emissions from industrial products exported from Guangdong Province—an input-output model analysis Dear Dr. Li: 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 Muhammad Ikram Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276300.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 .