PONE-D-23-08520Government Spending Shocks and Default Risk in Emerging MarketsPLOS 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 Jul 15 2023 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,

Ayesha Afzal, PhD

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 financial disclosure:

"Jiang thanks the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant 72103135 and Grant 72231003) for research support. Li thanks the National Social Science Fund of China (Grant 21AZD036) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant 72274062) for research support."

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

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: No

**********

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: This article is about the role of government spending in default risk in emerging economies. A gap has been underlined to justify the study but this contribution could have been written in a better way. Relevant literature has been incorporated but there is no recent article. The literature is not explained well so it is hard for a reader to understand the importance of the studied variables and relationships between them. The results are provided but without explanation or discussion. No implications have been given to show how these findings can be utilised by economic and public policy makers, teachers and researchers. The conclusion is weak.

Reviewer #2: 1) Abstract

a) Abstract should be more concrete and therefore needs realignment.

a) The keywords are more or less repetition of the research title. It is suggested to revisit the keywords.

2) Introduction:

a) The paragraph 1 lacks references. All the statements, facts and rationale put forth should be supported with proper in text citations.

b) The contribution of the research is missing. It is recommended to add the contributions and justify your contribution. For example, review the following papers and gain insight:

i) Cai, L., Firdousi, S. F., Li, C., & Luo, Y. (2021). Inward foreign direct investment, outward foreign direct investment, and carbon dioxide emission intensity-threshold regression analysis based on interprovincial panel data. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-14.

ii) Li, C., Firdousi, S. F., & Afzal, A. (2022). China’s Jinshan Yinshan sustainability evolutionary game equilibrium research under government and enterprises resource constraint dilemma. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(27), 41012-41036.

iii) Mirza, N., Umar, M., Afzal, A., & Firdousi, S. F. (2023). The role of fintech in promoting green finance, and profitability: Evidence from the banking sector in the euro zone. Economic Analysis and Policy, 78, 33-40.

iv) Awais, M., Afzal, A., Firdousi, S., & Hasnaoui, A. (2023). Is fintech the new path to sustainable resource utilisation and economic development? Resources Policy, 81, 103309.

3) Theoretical background and hypothesis development

The introduction and literature review section are merged as one. It is fine although recommend to divide it under two parts. Moreover, there is a need for more recent studies ranging from 2018-2023 to support the study hypothesis properly. The entire study is too scanty and the related literature is not exhausted.

a) The first part of introduction is supported with many facts and figures but yet again there is quite old reference to support the statements.

b) The literature review is also weak. The hypothesis statements should be added and explained well. The theoretical connections should be established to justify the research variables and proposed hypothesis. Moreover, update references are required.

4) Data and methodology

The econometric modelling presented is good. However, it is suggested proper reasoning for opting VAR should be provided with references.

5) Results and Discussion

a) There is hardly any referencing to support the results. The results are although quite significant and interesting. However, there needs to be proper discussion to support/reject the hypothesis made earlier.

6) Conclusion and Implications

a) I would highly recommend inclusion of this section in the revised manuscript. You can review the following paper for this section:

i) Li, C., Firdousi, S. F., & Afzal, A. (2022). China’s Jinshan Yinshan sustainability evolutionary game equilibrium research under government and enterprises resource constraint dilemma. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(27), 41012-41036.

ii) Afzal, A., Firdousi, S. F., Waqar, A., & Awais, M. (2022). The Influence of Internet Penetration on Poverty and Income Inequality. Sage Open, 12(3), 21582440221116104.

b) It is suggested to add one paragraph on study limitations and future research direction.

Last but not the least, there are many grammatical errors in the entire manuscript. It is highly recommended to review the document in detail. It is recommended to use professional reference and citation software so that paper seems well presented.

**********

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: Yes: Dr Saba Fazal Firdousi

**********

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Plos One Review.docx

Government Spending Shocks and Default Risk in Emerging Markets

PONE-D-23-08520R1

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,

Ayesha Afzal, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

All reviewers comments have been addressed appropriately.

Reviewers' comments: