Research on the path of green technology innovation driven by the Environmental Protection Tax Law: Based on data of heavy polluting enterprises

Wei Tao; Jian-ya Zhou; Ye-ling Zhao

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0308215

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 22, 2024
4 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Bingnan Guo, Editor PONE-D-24-20667Research on the green technology innovation-driven path regulated by the Environmental Protection Tax Law in the post-epidemic eraPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhao, 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 Aug 16 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, Bingnan Guo 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. 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 3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. Additional Editor Comments: 1. the Introduction and Literature Review sections do not do a good job of highlighting the marginal contributions of this paper and need to be reworked. 2. the model has a lot of independent variables and is very prone to the problem of multicollinearity, and the article lacks relevant tests. 3. only the correlation coefficient values are shown in Table 3, usually, the t-value statistic or standard deviation of the coefficient values are also needed to be shown, which is recommended to be added.Other forms have the same problem. 4. the recommendations of the article are a bit long and it is recommended to analyse them in conjunction with the conclusions. 5. the reviewer's recommended literature is optional, if it is not relevant, there is no need to force the citation of irrelevant literature. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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: No Reviewer #2: 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: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This paper is interesting. My comments are as below 1. Introduction of the paper is weak and does not have flow, 2. Abstract needs to rewrite 3. Discussion part is required to rewrite, author is expected to discuss the inferences of analysis 4. Literature may be updated by including following studies https://doi.org/10.1177/00194662211062428 https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2797 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139355 https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X231183921 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-02-2019-0007 https://doi.org/10.1177/2278682117713577 https://doi.org/10.1108/WJSTSD-01-2018-0007 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25317-w https://doi.org/10.1177/0974929217744462 https://doi.org/10.1080/00927678.2019.1639003 https://doi.org/10.1177/2278682116649844 Language is required through revision. Reviewer #2: For this article, I have the following suggestions: Title The title "Research on the Path of Green Technology Innovation Driven by the Post-pandemic Era under the Regulation of the Environmental Protection Tax Law" is too broad. The author is advised to reflect the research object and specific content in the title, such as "Research on the Path of Green Technology Innovation Driven by the Environmental Protection Tax Law based on Data of Heavily Polluting Enterprises", to better reflect the actual research content of the article. Abstract The abstract still does not accurately summarize the content of the article. The author is advised to re-edit the abstract, highlighting the innovation points of the research, the research methods, and the main findings, while controlling it within 200 words. Theoretical Basis The analysis of environmental regulation behavior and environmental regulation effect is relatively comprehensive, but too general. The author is advised to simplify and focus the theoretical basis in combination with the research background and data objects of the article. At the same time, the introduction to environmental tax law can be properly simplified. Research Design (1) In terms of sample selection, the author's approach of having executives of heavily polluting enterprises fill out questionnaires is reasonable, but the description of sample characteristics is too simple. The author is advised to supplement more descriptive statistical data of the samples. (2) In terms of variable setting, the control variables only consider the size and attributes of the enterprise. The author is advised to further expand the scope of control variables, such as regional differences and industry differences, to improve the accuracy and credibility of the research. (3) In terms of model construction, the author considers the two levels of environmental regulation behavior and effect, and the research ideas are clear. However, the details of specific variable setting and model formula are not sufficiently elaborated. The author is advised to further explain and improve this part. Empirical Results (1) The results reporting is not rigorous enough. The author directly lists the coefficient values of the model regression results, but lacks necessary statistical explanations of these values, such as the significance level of the coefficients. (2) The results analysis lacks depth. The author only makes a simple description of the regression results, without in-depth discussion of the mechanism of action of different variables and their economic significance. (3) The setting of the robustness test is relatively reasonable, but the interpretation of the results is also insufficient. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations (1) The conclusion part summarizes the empirical findings comprehensively, but the author is advised to grade the importance of each conclusion point, and better highlight the main findings. (2) The policy recommendations part puts forward some reasonable insights, but overall the policy recommendations are still thin, lacking necessary details and quantitative analysis support. (3) Although the innovation points are summarized, the discussion is not concise enough. The author is advised to refine the innovation points in 1-2 core sentences. Language and Format (1) There are some problems with the format of data expression and formula numbering, and the author is advised to unify the format. (2) The normative of the cited references needs to be further improved. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308215.r001
Revision 1
16 Jul 2024 Author Response Additional Editor Comments: 1. the Introduction and Literature Review sections do not do a good job of highlighting the marginal contributions of this paper and need to be reworked. 2. the model has a lot of independent variables and is very prone to the problem of multicollinearity, and the article lacks relevant tests. 3. only the correlation coefficient values are shown in Table 3, usually, the t-value statistic or standard deviation of the coefficient values are also needed to be shown, which is recommended to be added.Other forms have the same problem. 4. the recommendations of the article are a bit long and it is recommended to analyse them in conjunction with the conclusions. 5. the reviewer's recommended literature is optional, if it is not relevant, there is no need to force the citation of irrelevant literature. Amendments 1.The author has revised the introduction and literature review. 2.Before the study of model testing, multicollinearity tests were carried out, and both were described in the paper. For fear of too much space, the correlation table was not placed in the paper. 3. After the relative value, the p-value is indicated, which also indicates significance and has the same effect as the T-value. 4.The author has rewritten the conclusions and countermeasures. 5.The author makes reference to some relevant literatures. Reviewer #1: This paper is interesting. My comments are as below 1. Introduction of the paper is weak and does not have flow 2.Abstract needs to rewrite 3.Discussion part is required to rewrite, author is expected to discuss the inferences of analysis 4. Literature may be updated by including following studieshttps://doi.org/10.1177/00194662211062428 https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2797 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139355 https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X231183921 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-02-2019-0007 https://doi.org/10.1177/2278682117713577 https://doi.org/10.1108/WJSTSD-01-2018-0007 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25317-w https://doi.org/10.1177/0974929217744462 https://doi.org/10.1080/00927678.2019.1639003 https://doi.org/10.1177/2278682116649844 Language is required through revision. Amendments 1. The author has revised the introduction to achieve higher quality. 2.The author has rewritten the abstract. 3.The author reorganizes the discussion part and analyzes the economic significance behind it. 4.The author has adjusted the references and partially cited the references provided. 5.The author has adjusted the language to meet the requirements of language quality. Reviewer #2: For this article, I have the following suggestions: Title The title "Research on the Path of Green Technology Innovation Driven by the Post-pandemic Era under the Regulation of the Environmental Protection Tax Law" is too broad. The author is advised to reflect the research object and specific content in the title, such as "Research on the Path of Green Technology Innovation Driven by the Environmental Protection Tax Law based on Data of Heavily Polluting Enterprises", to better reflect the actual research content of the article. Abstract The abstract still does not accurately summarize the content of the article. The author is advised to re-edit the abstract, highlighting the innovation points of the research, the research methods, and the main findings, while controlling it within 200 words. Theoretical Basis The analysis of environmental regulation behavior and environmental regulation effect is relatively comprehensive, but too general. The author is advised to simplify and focus the theoretical basis in combination with the research background and data objects of the article. At the same time, the introduction to environmental tax law can be properly simplified. Research Design (1) In terms of sample selection, the author's approach of having executives of heavily polluting enterprises fill out questionnaires is reasonable, but the description of sample characteristics is too simple. The author is advised to supplement more descriptive statistical data of the samples. (2) In terms of variable setting, the control variables only consider the size and attributes of the enterprise. The author is advised to further expand the scope of control variables, such as regional differences and industry differences, to improve the accuracy and credibility of the research. (3) In terms of model construction, the author considers the two levels of environmental regulation behavior and effect, and the research ideas are clear. However, the details of specific variable setting and model formula are not sufficiently elaborated. The author is advised to further explain and improve this part. Empirical Results (1) The results reporting is not rigorous enough. The author directly lists the coefficient values of the model regression results, but lacks necessary statistical explanations of these values, such as the significance level of the coefficients. (2) The results analysis lacks depth. The author only makes a simple description of the regression results, without in-depth discussion of the mechanism of action of different variables and their economic significance. (3) The setting of the robustness test is relatively reasonable, but the interpretation of the results is also insufficient. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations (1) The conclusion part summarizes the empirical findings comprehensively, but the author is advised to grade the importance of each conclusion point, and better highlight the main findings. (2) The policy recommendations part puts forward some reasonable insights, but overall the policy recommendations are still thin, lacking necessary details and quantitative analysis support. (3) Although the innovation points are summarized, the discussion is not concise enough. The author is advised to refine the innovation points in 1-2 core sentences. Language and Format (1) There are some problems with the format of data expression and formula numbering, and the author is advised to unify the format. (2) The normative of the cited references needs to be further improved. Amendments 1.The author changed the title to reflect the research content. 2. The author has rewritten the abstract. 3.In the introduction of Section 1, the relevant content is simplified. 4.The data of sample descriptive statistical analysis were supplemented. 5. In order to further improve the accuracy and credibility of the study, regional difference was added as a control variable in the robustness test, and the research model was re-tested. 6.The details of the model formula and the attributes of the variables have been explained in detail in Table 1 Variable characteristics. 7.The significance levels of the coefficients have been described and illustrated using p-values. If you use words to elaborate, it will make the paper appear bloated. 8.The author completed the discussion of the result analysis by supplementing the discussion part. 9. The results are explained in the discussion section. 10. The authors reframe the conclusion, highlighting the main findings. 11.The author made some changes to the countermeasure part and rewrote it according to the opinions of other reviewers. 12. The author re-summarizes the innovative points to make it more concise. 13.The authors unify the format of data expression and formula number. 14.According to the requirements of the journal, the author has perfected the standard of the cited references. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308215.r002
19 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Bingnan Guo, Editor Research on the path of green technology innovation driven by the Environmental Protection Tax Law: Based on data of heavy polluting enterprises PONE-D-24-20667R1 Dear Dr. Zhao, 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, Bingnan Guo Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308215.r003
Formally Accepted
22 Jul 2024 Acceptance Letter - Bingnan Guo, Editor PONE-D-24-20667R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhao, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Professor Bingnan Guo Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308215.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .