PONE-D-23-33006Analysis of the Characteristics of Spatial and Temporal Divergence of China's Import and Export TradePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wu,

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 Dec 14 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,

Rita Yi Man Li

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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

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 amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

5. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author  Zhu Ning.

6. We note that Figures 3, 4, 6 and 7 in your submission contain map/satellite images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 3, 4, 6 and 7 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Additional Editor Comments:

1. Originality:

• The paper lacks significant new information to justify publication. It mainly summarizes and analyzes existing literature without providing novel insights or findings.

2. Relationship to Literature:

• Many paragraphs have missing citations.

• Regarding technological innovation, citation and more details are needed: Is centralization killing innovation? The success story of technological innovation in fiscally decentralized countries, Technological Forecasting and Social Change Volume 168, July 2021, 120731

• The paper demonstrates a limited understanding of the relevant literature in the field. It relies heavily on a few sources and neglects to cite a broader range of literature that could provide a more comprehensive context for the research.

•

3. Methodology:

• The paper's argument is not adequately built on an appropriate base of theory or concepts. The theoretical framework is unclear, and it would benefit from a more robust foundation to support the research.

• The design of the research or intellectual work is not well-described. The methods employed are not clearly explained, and it is difficult to assess their appropriateness for the research objectives.

• Mutltiple regression needs citation: Comparative Study of Factors Contributing to Land Surface Temperature in High-Density Built Environments in Megacities Using Satellite Imagery, Sustainability 2021, 13(24), 13706

4. Results:

• The presentation of results lacks clarity and coherence. The data are not effectively analyzed or interpreted, making it challenging to draw meaningful conclusions from them.

• The conclusions do not adequately tie together the other elements of the paper. They appear disjointed and unsupported by the evidence presented.

5. Implications for research, practice, and/or society:

• The paper fails to clearly identify any implications for research, practice, and/or society. It does not bridge the gap between theory and practice, and there is a lack of discussion on how the research findings can be practically applied or have an impact on economic, commercial, or public policy aspects.

• The paper does not adequately discuss the potential contributions to the body of knowledge in the field. It does not position the research within the existing published work, and the referencing and introductory discussion are insufficient.

6. Quality of Communication:

• The paper's clarity of expression and readability need improvement. The sentence structure is often convoluted, and there is excessive use of technical jargon and acronyms that may hinder understanding for readers outside the specific field.

• The paper is not written concisely. There is unnecessary repetition of information and a lack of focus on the key points, making it challenging for readers to grasp the main ideas.

• The organization of the paper could be enhanced. The flow of information is disjointed in some sections, and the logical progression of the argument is not always clear.

• Some figures and tables lack clear explanations or citations to support the data presented. This compromises the overall clarity and reliability of the visual representations.

General Comments:

• The research question in the introduction is not clearly stated. It should be refined to provide a concise and focused overview of the study's objective.

• The introduction section exceeds the recommended length. It would be beneficial to shorten it by eliminating unnecessary background information and focusing on the specific research problem and objectives.

• There are several citation errors throughout the paper. Inconsistent referencing styles and missing or incorrect citations undermine the credibility and academic rigor of the work.

• The interpretations and conclusions drawn in the paper are not consistently supported by the evidence presented. There are instances where assumptions are made without sufficient justification, and the logical connection between the evidence and conclusions is weak.

• The title of the paper does not adequately represent the content. It should be revised to accurately reflect the scope and focus of the research.

• The abstract provides a brief summary of the paper but lacks clarity and conciseness. It should be revised to clearly state the main results and provide a more accessible overview of the study.

• The keywords chosen do not accurately reflect the content of the paper. They should be carefully selected to align with the main themes and concepts addressed in the research.

• The length of the paper is appropriate for the level of detail and analysis presented.

• The key messages conveyed in the paper should be shortened, ensuring they are accurate, clear, and succinct to effectively communicate the main findings.

• There are no concerns about plagiarism identified in the paper.

These comments aim to provide constructive feedback to improve the paper's quality, coherence, and impact.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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: Dear Authors,

Thank You for so relevant and exciting Article.

Please consider the Sustainability concept concerning the Article topic. I'd recommend considering ESG-goal achievement in the Discussion section.

Reviewer #2: Your topic is very interesting Title: " Analysis of the Characteristics of Spatial and Temporal Divergence of China's Import and Export Trade ". I have some comments on your scripture which help you to update your manuscript.

Introduction

The introduction section doesn’t present clear picture what we need to need to learn, why we need to learn. Problem statement, research objectives or significance of the study should be clearly stated.

Literature Review

The literature review section lacks theoretical underpinnings. In my opinion the whole section needs to overhaul. The researcher need to read past relevant studies and also make sure that you attempt to identify the gaps in the existing literature such that it becomes easy to justify and trace the contribution of your study. Moreover, scant studies helps you to identify the appropriate theory on which your relationship will be based.

Methodology

The study has critical deficiencies from a methodological standpoint. How the researcher determined the sample size? Where is the justification? In the current study there is no reference (Few but not related) to any sort of information about generating an item pool and receiving expert opinions for the scale. Moreover, what are the sources of scales? How it was developed? Unfortunately, it is a doubt whether the scales are valid. No information exits about a validity test for scales. Furthermore, How to overcome the common method bias as data has been collected from single method ? where is CFA ? THERE IS NO THEORETICAL GROUNDING..

Discussion

The tests and presentation of findings are much more complicated. Again, I had difficulties in understanding the how findings of the study are connected to results of the analyses. Hypotheses testing is not well stated. The same applies to conclusion section

Contribution

The study's contribution is not written (a few of their but theoretical contribution is missing). Who will benefit from this research, both practically and theoretically? What role will it play in the existing literature? What's the latest/new?

Reviewer #3: The core claims are clearly expressed in abstract and conclusion part of the research paper. The empirical findings are cohere with each other and theorical framework of this work. The literature review is quite extensive and completed using up-to-date sources on the subject. The methods applied and the variables used in the methodology section of the article provided the required results. The findings of the article contributed to the literature as well. The findings and novelty of the manuscript contributes the existing literature. The English language of the article is clear and understandable, and the terminology used is compatible with the subject of the study. The article is very well-written and it is easy to follow. In addition, the article well discusses the topic of interest, and deals with a topic with many applications in practice. The quality of literature review and the aim of the paper is pretty well. The quality of the research is acceptable as well as the contribution of the paper. The quantitative research is very well conducted and the methodology described in the specific chapter is followed by current data processing. The methodology used is also very well described. The research fills a gap both by focusing on China's trade capacity and the influencing factors by considering the characteristics of spatial and temporal divergence to conduct exhaustive research on the influencing factors and temporal-spatial divergences in China's import and export trade. The researchers of the article recommend ensuring the optimization of trade channel layout. To enhance transportation efficiency, accessibility of goods, and decrease trade expenses, trade channel layout must be rationalized according to the spatial and temporal distribution traits of import and export trades. Firstly, upgrading of seaports and inland ports is essential for ameliorating goods' loading, unloading and transportation capacities, and accelerating trade transport times. On the other hand, diversifying and improving trade channels can be achieved through developing logistics networks, including highways and railroads. Additionally, facilitating faster and more convenient trade channels can be achieved by promoting the advancement of air freight and logistics technology. Strengthening trade cooperation and communication is also essential. This can be accomplished by actively expanding international trade partners and enhancing trade cooperation and communication with major trading partner countries and regions. Strengthening trade cooperation with developed economies is one approach to enhancing our trade level by learning advanced trade concepts and management experience. Additionally, our trade activities can be diversified and economic complementarity can be strengthened by focusing on trade cooperation with emerging market and developing countries. Furthermore, there is a need to establish and expand free trade zones and regional economic cooperation mechanisms to enhance trade facilitation and increase the scope of trade. Upgrading Trade Technology: Enhancing trade-related technological research and innovation to analyze and forecast trade data more effectively. Utilize innovative technologies, such as big data analysis and artificial intelligence, to gain deeper insights into trade potential and predict trade demand and market fluctuations accurately. Additionally, strengthen trade information sharing and platform development to ensure timely and precise trade information. Furthermore, the emphasis should be on developing trade talent by enhancing training and exchange programs, as well as improving the technical capabilities and professional quality of practitioners. In my opinion, the article has its merit and is of interest for the PLOS One readership. Consequently, the article is acceptable...

Reviewer #4: Your work contains multiple analyses, is remarkable as such, and is gripping to read. My suggestions and editing requests for the study were sent to the editor as a pdf. I wish you success in your future manuscripts.

Reviewer #5: Although the subject of the article is attractive, there are many issues that need to be corrected in the article.

1-) The purpose of the article is not fully described in the introduction part of the article. What is the purpose of the article? Why is the topic of the article important? What is the article's contribution to the literature?

2-) Gini coefficient needs more detailed explanation.

3-) ESA and MLR also need more explanation.

4-) Conclusion section is too short.

5-) Is there no discussion section? The authors need to add a discussion section in the article.

**********

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: Yes: Sergey Barykin

Reviewer #2: Yes: RASHIDN MD SALAMUN

Reviewer #3: Yes: Salih Kalaycı

Reviewer #4: Yes: M. Esra Atukalp (Assoc. Prof. Dr.)

Reviewer #5: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer Report.pdf

PONE-D-23-33006R1Spatio-temporal heterogeneity of China's import and export trade, factors influencing it, and its implications for developing countries' tradePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wu,

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 22 2024 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,

Rita Yi Man Li

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:

Title: "Determinants of carbon emission: Province level evidence from China"

Abstract:

The abstract provides a concise summary of the paper's content. It clearly states the research question and the methodology used. However, it can be improved by including the main findings and conclusions of the study. Additionally, there are a few grammatical errors that need to be addressed.

Introduction:

The introduction adequately presents the research question and provides background information on the topic. However, it is overly lengthy and could be condensed to provide a more concise overview of the existing literature. Shortening the introduction to under 2 pages would improve its readability and focus.

Relationship to Literature:

The paper demonstrates a moderate understanding of the relevant literature in the field. However, there are some notable omissions of significant work that should be addressed. The authors should expand their literature review to encompass a wider range of sources and incorporate recent developments in the field: A study on public perceptions of carbon neutrality in China: has the idea of ESG been encompassed? Frontiers in Environmental Sciences, 2023

Additionally, there are a few citation errors that need to be corrected. Section 3 has missing citation.

Methodology:

The paper's argument is built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, and ideas. The research design and methodology employed are suitable for addressing the research question. However, there is room for improvement in terms of providing more details on the specific methods used in the study. Additionally, the authors should clarify any potential limitations or biases in the methodology. 4.2 why 27 sectors were selected?

Results:

The results are presented clearly and analyzed appropriately. The findings are discussed in relation to the research question and are supported by the evidence presented. However, there are a few instances where the interpretations and conclusions could be further strengthened by providing additional evidence or analysis. Line 355, “it can be seen that outflow’s contribution to carbon emission is the highest, accounting for 56.0%, 53.6% and 45.9% of the emission in 2007, 2012”? What do you mean by outflow? Figure 2 is unclear what it meant.

Implications for research, practice, and/or society:

The paper identifies some implications for research, practice, and/or society. It discusses the potential economic and commercial impact of the research, as well as its relevance to public policy and the body of knowledge. However, these implications could be further elaborated upon and linked more explicitly to the findings and conclusions of the paper.

Quality of Communication:

The paper generally expresses its case clearly, but there are areas where improvements can be made. Attention should be paid to sentence structure, jargon use, and acronyms to ensure clarity and readability. The paper should be written in a clear and concise manner, with key points accurately reflecting the main arguments.

Conclusion:

The conclusions and potential impacts of the paper are generally clear. However, they could be further strengthened by providing a more comprehensive summary of the main findings and their significance. Additionally, the authors should ensure that the conclusions logically follow from the evidence presented.

Title, Abstract, and Keywords:

The title adequately represents the content of the paper. The abstract provides a summary of the paper's key elements but could be improved by including the main results and conclusions. The keywords accurately reflect the content and topic of the study.

Length and Organization:

The paper is an appropriate length, but could benefit from some organizational improvements. The introduction should be condensed, and the main body of the paper should be organized in a logical and coherent manner to enhance readability and flow.

Overall, the paper has potential but requires revisions and improvements in several areas. Addressing the identified weaknesses, such as expanding the literature review, providing more details on the methodology, strengthening the interpretations and conclusions, and improving the clarity of communication, will significantly enhance the quality and impact of the paper.

[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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: 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 #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #4: 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 #4: 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: Dear Authors,

Thank You for enhancing the manuscript by following the Reviewers' comments.

I can see that You have made all requested changes to the manuscript. I suggest the authors add some sentences to the Discussion section regarding ESG-goals achievement.

Reviewer #4: The manuscript has changed a lot from its original version. This happened because you took other referee suggestions into consideration.

You made my suggestions. Thank you

**********

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: Yes: Sergey Barykin

Reviewer #4: Yes: M. Esra ATUKALP

**********

[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.

Spatio-temporal heterogeneity of China's import and export trade, factors influencing it, and its implications for developing countries' trade

PONE-D-23-33006R2

Dear authors,

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,

Rita Yi Man Li

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Some references need standardisation.

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 #4: 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 #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #4: 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 #4: 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: Dear Authors,

Thank You for submitting the relevant research.

I can see that You improved the manuscript by following the Reviewers' comments.

Reviewer #4: The manuscript has changed a lot from its original version.This happened because you took other referee suggestions into consideration.

You made my suggestions. Thank you.

**********

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: Yes: Sergey Barykin

Reviewer #4: Yes: M. Esra ATUKALP

**********