PONE-D-24-10782Unveiling the Synergy: Green Finance, Technological Innovation, Green Energy, and Carbon NeutralityPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Salma Karim,

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 Jun 03 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,

Jitendra Yadav, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. Please upload a new copy of Figures 4 and 5 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/" https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/

4. We note that Figure 1 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 (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 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/

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: Comment 1: The introduction should clearly outline the specific objectives and research hypotheses that the study aims to address. This will provide readers with a roadmap of what to expect from the subsequent sections of the manuscript and ensure alignment with the broader goals of the study.

Comment 2: Certain terms and concepts introduced in the introduction, such as "green finance" and "green technologies," could benefit from clearer definitions or explanations to ensure that readers from diverse backgrounds can fully grasp the significance of these concepts in the context of carbon neutrality.

Comment 3: The manuscript extensively cites previous studies without critically analyzing the quality or relevance of these sources. The narrative lacks depth in terms of critical assessment, independent interpretation, or synthesis of diverse viewpoints from the literature. The repetition of similar claims and findings from different studies without a nuanced evaluation diminishes the originality and scholarly impact of the discussion.

The authors can chek these papers for my support:

- Khatib, S. F., Ismail, I. H., Salameh, N., Abbas, A. F., Bazhair, A. H., & Sulimany, H. G. H. (2023). Carbon emission and firm performance: The moderating role of management environmental training. Sustainability, 15(13), 10485.

- Khatib, S. F. (2023). The role of share repurchases for firms' social and environmental sustainability. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 183, 1-3.

Comment4: The discussion appears disjointed and lacks a clear organizational structure. It jumps between different concepts (green finance, GTI, green energy) without establishing strong thematic connections or transitions. Improving the coherence and flow of the narrative would enhance readability and comprehension for the audience.

Comment5: The justification of the study relies heavily on broad assertions about the importance of understanding the transition towards carbon neutrality and the role of green finance without providing specific context or research gaps that the study aims to address. The narrative lacks specificity in identifying the unique contributions or focus areas of the proposed research within the broader field of environmental economics or sustainable finance.

Comment 6: The policy recommendations are quite general and lack specificity. For instance, suggesting the establishment of "favorable policy frameworks" and "clear and ambitious targets" without detailing specific actions or measures can be perceived as overly broad and lacking actionable guidance.

Reviewer #2: Title: Unveiling the Synergy: Green Finance, Technological Innovation, Green Energy, and Carbon Neutrality.

This study investigates the pivotal role of green strategies in achieving carbon neutrality by exploring the synergistic contributions of green finance, green technological innovation, and green energy adoption. The study has implemented several panel data estimation techniques including second generation panel unit root test commonly known as CADF and CIPS, an error correction-based panel cointegration test, for documenting the elasticities of GF, GTI, and GE on carbon neutrality through Continuously-Update Fully Modified(CUP-FM), Continuously-Update BiasCorrected (CUP-BC), and Dynamic Seemingly Unrelated Regression (DSUR). The asymmetric coefficients have exploded with the implementation of a nonlinear framework, which is well known as NARDL. Our findings underscore the significance of green finance mechanisms in mobilizing resources for sustainable initiatives, including renewable energy projects and energy-efficient technologies. Study shed light on the catalytic impact of green Technological innovation in driving technological advancements, reducing emissions, and fostering economic growth. Furthermore, our study delves into the transformative potential of clean energy adoption, elucidating how it can substantially reduce carbon footprints and bolster the transition to a low-carbon economy. This study contributes to the growing body of knowledge on the critical nexus of green strategies and carbon neutrality, offering a roadmap for a more sustainable and environmentally responsible future. In a world grappling with the pressing challenges of climate change, our research offers valuable insights into the strategies that institutions, policymakers, and businesses can employ to facilitate the transition toward carbon neutrality.

Comments:

1. To underscore the importance and worth of this study, it is imperative to present a thorough justification for the research that highlights its pertinence and distinctive contributions to the ongoing scholarly conversation. This will strengthen the study's originality and scholarly impact. Following are useful suggested studies to get the benefit to update this part: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120027;

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356022197186 ;https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031054;https://doi.org/10.1007/s1135602117438x;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102730 ;https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-02-2021-0053; https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2073; https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-03-20210113;https://doi.org/10.1007/s1135602221929w;https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1009393;https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2529;https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.1068398;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122413; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20178-1

2. The authors are urged to furnish a comprehensive rationale for their selection of the current methodology, accompanied by an elucidation of its merits and superiorities compared to alternative approaches. Such an endeavor will enhance the study's research design's credibility and rigor.

3. To underscore the uniqueness and contribution of the present study, it is essential to delineate how it distinguishes itself from the existing body of literature. Consequently, the concluding section of the literature review should encompass a clear demarcation of the study from prior research.

4. I kindly request the authors to review the policy implications derived from the study's findings, ensuring their precision and alignment with the study's objectives.

6. In order to ensure the relevance and timeliness of the study’s cited sources, it is recommended that the authors review and update the references section.

7. The study appears to employ an excessive amount of acronyms, which may impede comprehension for the wider readership of the journal. Thus, it is recommended that the authors avoid excessive usage of acronyms and instead use the full form of terms to ensure ease of understanding for readers."

**********

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

**********

[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.

Unveiling the Synergy: Green Finance, Technological Innovation, Green Energy, and Carbon Neutrality

PONE-D-24-10782R1

Dear Dr. Salma Karim,

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,

Jitendra Yadav, 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

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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

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 #3: No

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 #3: No

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 #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All the queries and comments raised previously have been sufficiently incorporated. Meanwhile, the whole paper has been reevaluated and reported by me. I have evaluated the manuscript based on several criteria including the captivating title, concise abstract, detailed review of literature, relevant methodology, sound conclusion, and well-reported and articulated practice implications.

**********

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

Reviewer #4: Yes: Dr Lukman Raimi

**********