Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 26, 2023
Decision Letter - Shanjida Chowdhury, Editor

PONE-D-23-05630Does Green Innovation Moderate between FDI and Environmental Sustainability? Empirical Evidence from South AsiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Brohi,

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 30th April, 2023. 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,

Shanjida Chowdhury

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 you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide

[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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

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: Yes

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: No

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 study is severely underdeveloped.

1. There is no research question or policy relevance.

2. Literature review pinpoints no research gap.

3. The empirical model is flawed. It suffers from endogeneity bias (reverse causality and omitted variable).

4. Results are not discussed. They are only reported.

5. There are no implications drawn from the study.

6. The language is below publication standard.

Reviewer #2: 1) The manuscript is well written. The topic is very interesting. However, authors need to revise the abstract and make it more clear and crisp.

2) Add value addition in the introduction, you may read the suggested papers and get the idea how to write down the value addition.

3) Please add these papers in literature review or introduction to make it more rigorous and updated:

1. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-022-21401-9

2.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-022-21339-y

3.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-022-22587-8

4.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301420722003579

5.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-022-23355-4

4) Review the English language and correct grammar and spelling errors.

Reviewer #3: I thoroughly read the research paper entitled “Does Green Innovation Moderate between FDI and Environmental Sustainability? Empirical Evidence from South Asia”. The topic is interesting and will contributes to Environmental Economic literature. Before to publish the paper, revise the paper according to my comments and suggestions.

1. Please clearly elaborate the novelty of your research paper in the introduction section.

2. Please briefly clarify your methodology in the introduction section

3. Please briefly discuss your results at the end of introduction section. So that readers be convenient while read your research paper.

4. The objectives should not be in bulletin. Its should be in paragraph. Its not thesis.

5. The very current literature is missing on Environmental sustainability and FDI in south Asia and global. Please update the literature. For example,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.120836,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2023.02.035

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2019.101129

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-03-2022-0395

10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000724

DOI 10.1108/JES-03-2020-0123

Good luck!

**********

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: Faheem Ur Rehman

**********

[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 steps.

<quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal>

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: PONE_review.docx
Revision 1

Review and Response Sheet

We are very grateful to respected editor and reviewers for their time and efforts to provide the valuable insights for the improvement of this paper. We have revised the manuscript under the suggestions of respected reviewers. The changes are highlighted with yellow color in each part of the manuscript the response of each comment is given below.

Reviewer #1

Comments Author Response

There is no research question or policy relevance. The author has added the research questions.

The literature review pinpoints no research gap. The study highlighted the research gap

The empirical model is flawed. It suffers from endogeneity bias (reverse causality and omitted variable). Authors has applied the causality test and the for the endogeneity problem authors have employed FMOLS and DOLS estimation.

Results are not discussed. They are only reported.

Results are discussed in detail.

There are no implications drawn from the study. The author draws Policy implications from the study.

The language is below publication standard. The paper is now proofread by a native speaker.

Reviewer 2

Comments Author Response

The manuscript is well written. The topic is very interesting. However, authors need to revise the abstract and make it clearer and crisper. Thank you for your comment. Author has revised the abstract make it clearer and more understandable.

Add value addition in the introduction, you may read the suggested papers and get the idea how to write down the value addition.

Author added the value addition in the introduction and revised the whole intro.

Please add these papers in literature review or introduction to make it more rigorous and updated:

1. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-022-21401-9

2.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-022-21339-y

3.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-022-22587-8

4.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S

0301420722003579

5.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-022-23355-4

Thank you for suggesting the valuable papers which increased the empirical evidence and justification. Author has cited the all relevant papers.

Review the English language and correct grammar and spelling errors.

The paper is now proofread by native speaker.

Reviewer #3

Comments Author Response

Please clearly elaborate the novelty of your research paper in the introduction section. Thank you for pointing out the important point. The author has highlighted the contribution of the study.

Please briefly clarify your methodology in the introduction section

The author has clarified the methodology in the introduction section now it is clearer and more understandable.

Please briefly discuss your results at the end of introduction section. So that readers be convenient while read your research paper. The author has added the results at the end of the introduction section.

The objectives should not be in bulletin. Its should be in paragraph. Its not thesis.

The author has rewritten the objectives according to suggestions.

The very current literature is missing on Environmental sustainability and FDI in south Asia and global. Please update the literature. For example,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.120836,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2023.02.035

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2019.101129

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-03-2022-0395

10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000724

DOI 10.1108/JES-03-2020-0123

Thank you for suggesting the valuable recent papers which increased the empirical evidence and justification. The author has cited all relevant papers.

Thank you,

Sincerely

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Reviewers response.docx
Decision Letter - Shanjida Chowdhury, Editor

PONE-D-23-05630R1

Does Green Innovation Moderate between FDI and Environmental Sustainability? Empirical Evidence from South Asia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Brohi,

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,

Shanjida Chowdhury

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[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.]

- - - - -

For journal use only: PONEDEC3

<quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal><quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal>

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Shanjida Chowdhury, Editor

PONE-D-23-05630R1

Does Green Innovation Moderate between FDI and Environmental Sustainability? Empirical Evidence from South Asia

Dear Dr. Brohi:

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

Dr. Shanjida Chowdhury

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .