PONE-D-23-31556Do Government Innovation Preferences Enhance Ecological Resilience in Resource-based Cities under the Threshold of Environmental Decentralization?-- Empirical Evidence from 113 Resource-based Cities in ChinaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yang,

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 08 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,

Fuyou Guo, (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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

   " This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China (No.22BTJ071)."

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.

5. 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

6. We note that Figures 3 and 5 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 Figure(s) [#] 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/

7. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

8. 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. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Reviewer 1 Comments:

Government innovation preference is a solid foundation for carrying out innovation-driven strategies and an important guarantee for realizing efficient production modes. The structure of the article is clear and the process is explained well here. However, it could be improved in some detail.

1.Fig 1 is not necessary because you already give description in text.

2.The contributions of this paper require further clarification and improvement. It is suggested to further improve the innovation points.

3.Some of the statements are written without reference; try to add reference with every statement in your paper. Why you use the threshold effects model?

4. In the discussion part, the author should further explain the reasons for these results.

5. The overall quality of English is good, but need to be checked carefully again. I suggest the authors should look for an English native speaker to further check the language of the paper.

6. Some fresh paper can be used as ref. eg:

Tariq, G., Sun, H., Ali, I. et al. Influence of green technology, green energy consumption, energy efficiency, trade, economic development and FDI on climate change in South Asia. Sci Rep 12, 16376 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20432-z.

Edziah B K., Sun H., Adom P K., Wang F., Agyemang A O., 2022. The role of exogenous technological factors and renewable energy in carbon dioxide emission reduction in Sub-Saharan Africa, Renewable Energy, 196: 1418–1428.

Reviewer 2 Comments:

This article studies the impact of government innovation preferences on the ecological resilience of resource-based cities, and explores the mediating effect of the level of education and the threshold effect of environmental decentralization. It has certain theoretical significance and practical implications. However, there are some serious problems in this article, and I have to make the Rejection decision.

1. The literature review of this article seems difficult to satisfy, as it did not attempt to comprehensively review the relevant literature in this field, and it's more like literature list. This is also the main reason why the article does not clearly elaborate on its literature contribution.

2. The authors do not clearly state the research motivation, research question, and research contribution of this article.

3. This article has a big problem in the standardization of format, such as the format of literature citation.

4. The authors do not refine the theoretical and practical implication of this article, but simply put forward the conclusion. These contents are obviously insufficient in the empirical articles.

5. The authors cite a large amount of Chinese journal literature, which is not recognized in an English journal submission.

6. The language of this article is relatively puerile, and need to find an English native-speaker for comprehensive language editing.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: This article studies the impact of government innovation preferences on the ecological resilience of resource-based cities, and explores the mediating effect of the level of education and the threshold effect of environmental decentralization. It has certain theoretical significance and practical implications. However, there are some serious problems in this article, and I have to make the Rejection decision.

1. The literature review of this article seems difficult to satisfy, as it did not attempt to comprehensively review the relevant literature in this field, and it's more like literature list. This is also the main reason why the article does not clearly elaborate on its literature contribution.

2. The authors do not clearly state the research motivation, research question, and research contribution of this article.

3. This article has a big problem in the standardization of format, such as the format of literature citation.

4. The authors do not refine the theoretical and practical implication of this article, but simply put forward the conclusion. These contents are obviously insufficient in the empirical articles.

5. The authors cite a large amount of Chinese journal literature, which is not recognized in an English journal submission.

6. The language of this article is relatively puerile, and need to find an English native-speaker for comprehensive language editing.

Reviewer #2: I have reviewed the revised version and found that the author(s) has(ve) addressed all the comments. However, I have no further suggestion. I hope that the comments are useful for this and also for upcoming projects.

Reviewer #3: Government innovation preference is a solid foundation for carrying out innovation-driven strategies and an important guarantee for realizing efficient production modes. The structure of the article is clear and the process is explained well here. However, it could be improved in some detail.

1.Fig 1 is not necessary because you already give description in text.

2.The contributions of this paper require further clarification and improvement. It is suggested to further improve the innovation points.

3.Some of the statements are written without reference; try to add reference with every statement in your paper. Why you use the threshold effects model?

4. In the discussion part, the author should further explain the reasons for these results.

5. The overall quality of English is good, but need to be checked carefully again. I suggest the authors should look for an English native speaker to further check the language of the paper.

6. Some fresh paper can be used as ref. eg:

Tariq, G., Sun, H., Ali, I. et al. Influence of green technology, green energy consumption, energy efficiency, trade, economic development and FDI on climate change in South Asia. Sci Rep 12, 16376 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20432-z.

Edziah B K., Sun H., Adom P K., Wang F., Agyemang A O., 2022. The role of exogenous technological factors and renewable energy in carbon dioxide emission reduction in Sub-Saharan Africa, Renewable Energy, 196: 1418–1428.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-23-31556R1Do Government Innovation Preferences Enhance Ecological Resilience in Resource-based Cities under the Threshold of Environmental Decentralization?-- Empirical Evidence from 113 Resource-based Cities in ChinaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yang,

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.

==============================

I have read the manuscript very carefully, it is an interesting work. Despite of this, I have comments that will be helpful to improve the quality of manuscript. The comments are as follows:

1- In abstract section, write the contribution point of the study.

2- The Abstract must report the aim of the study, the basic information on the sample (time span, countries analyzed), the empirical methodology used, the main findings, and the relevant policy implications.

3- Introduction and Literature Review should be split into two different sections.

4- The introduction section is missing the main contribution and objectives of the paper. A lot of similar paper is found by searching the literature. In this light, the author must have to provide the significance and main contributions of this study? Why an how this study is different from other studies?

5- section of literature review. The novelty of this paper should be further justified by highlighting main contributions to the existing literature. This could be clearly presented in the Literature review related work. Please consider please consider citing following papers entitled:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101216

https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12326

https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X231181671

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103553

https://doi.org/10.1007/S11356-022-24903-8/TABLES/7

https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010766

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2023.04.008

https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-11-2020-0275

6- The literature is missing.

7- Why the author used ecological footprint as an independent variable? Does this a correct choice taking with carbon emission as dependent variables?

8- I suggest to use the graphical representation of the results.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 18 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,

Fuyou Guo, (Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

I have read the manuscript very carefully, it is an interesting work. Despite of this, I have comments that will be helpful to improve the quality of manuscript. The comments are as follows:

1- In abstract section, write the contribution point of the study.

2- The Abstract must report the aim of the study, the basic information on the sample (time span, countries analyzed), the empirical methodology used, the main findings, and the relevant policy implications.

3- Introduction and Literature Review should be split into two different sections.

4- The introduction section is missing the main contribution and objectives of the paper. A lot of similar paper is found by searching the literature. In this light, the author must have to provide the significance and main contributions of this study? Why an how this study is different from other studies?

5- section of literature review. The novelty of this paper should be further justified by highlighting main contributions to the existing literature. This could be clearly presented in the Literature review related work. Please consider please consider citing following papers entitled:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101216

https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12326

https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X231181671

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103553

https://doi.org/10.1007/S11356-022-24903-8/TABLES/7

https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010766

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2023.04.008

https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-11-2020-0275

6- The literature is missing.

7- Why the author used ecological footprint as an independent variable? Does this a correct choice taking with carbon emission as dependent variables?

8- I suggest to use the graphical representation of the results.

[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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: I have read the manuscript very carefully, it is an interesting work. Despite of this, I have comments that will be helpful to improve the quality of manuscript. The comments are as follows:

1- In abstract section, write the contribution point of the study.

2- The Abstract must report the aim of the study, the basic information on the sample (time span, countries analyzed), the empirical methodology used, the main findings, and the relevant policy implications.

3- Introduction and Literature Review should be split into two different sections.

4- The introduction section is missing the main contribution and objectives of the paper. A lot of similar paper is found by searching the literature. In this light, the author must have to provide the significance and main contributions of this study? Why an how this study is different from other studies?

5- section of literature review. The novelty of this paper should be further justified by highlighting main contributions to the existing literature. This could be clearly presented in the Literature review related work. Please consider please consider citing following papers entitled:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101216

https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12326

https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X231181671

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103553

https://doi.org/10.1007/S11356-022-24903-8/TABLES/7

https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010766

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2023.04.008

https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-11-2020-0275

6- The literature is missing.

7- Why the author used ecological footprint as an independent variable? Does this a correct choice taking with carbon emission as dependent variables?

8- I suggest to use the graphical representation of the results.

Reviewer #3: Now all points have been addressed already after my careful checking. The structure of the paper is logical with good writing. so I suggest to accept it.

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-23-31556R2Do Government Innovation Preferences Enhance Ecological Resilience in Resource-based Cities under the Threshold of Environmental Decentralization?-- Empirical Evidence from 113 Resource-based Cities in ChinaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yang,

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.

==============================

This paper establishes a mediating effect model and a threshold effect model and empirically analyzes 2009-2020 panel data covering 113 resourcebased cities in China as an example. Now the revisions are all ok.

1. For the current topic, it can be further optimized and simplified.

2. The format of the entire text needs to be unified according to the needs of the publication, for example, some literature does not have a unified citation format, and for example, reference 47 needs to be adjusted.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 24 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,

Fuyou Guo, (Ph.D.

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:

This paper establishes a mediating effect model and a threshold effect model and empirically analyzes 2009-2020 panel data covering 113 resourcebased cities in China as an example. Now the revisions are all ok.

1. For the current topic, it can be further optimized and simplified.

2. The format of the entire text needs to be unified according to the needs of the publication, for example, some literature does not have a unified citation format, and for example, reference 47 needs to be adjusted.

[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 #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: This paper establishes a mediating effect model and a threshold effect model and empirically analyzes 2009-2020 panel data covering 113 resourcebased cities in China as an example. Now the revisions are all ok.

1. For the current topic, it can be further optimized and simplified.

2. The format of the entire text needs to be unified according to the needs of the publication, for example, some literature does not have a unified citation format, and for example, reference 47 needs to be adjusted.

**********

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 #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Do Government Innovation Preferences Enhance Ecological Resilience in Resource-Based Cities?--Based on mediating effect and threshold effect perspectives

PONE-D-23-31556R3

Dear Dr. Yang,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Xingwei Li, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: This paper establishes a mediating effect model and a threshold effect model and empirically analyzes 2009-2020 panel data covering 113 resourcebased cities in China as an example. Now the revisions are all ok, so I suggest to acdept it.

**********

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 #3: No

**********