Analysis of the impact of RCEP on the industrial and innovation chains of China’s textile and clothing industry

Li Yang; Pivithuru Kumarasinghe

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0309708

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 1, 2024
7 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Muhammad Hashim, Editor PONE-D-24-13065Analysis of the Impact of RCEP on the Industrial and Innovation Chains of China's Textile and Clothing IndustryPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kumarasinghe, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 22 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Muhammad Hashim, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This study received support from the Research project of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Education (Y202351899) and Zhejiang Federation of Humanities and Social Sciences Circles Base research projects (2014JDZ01)." Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Please 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. [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: 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 ****** 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: 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: your study is novel and interesting examining the impact of Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) on textile and apparel industry. The title, abstract and introduction are fine and valid. The methodology and results are fine too. you are suggested to use abbreviation with original text at first appearance and then use just the short one later throughout the manuscript. Try to convert some tables to attractive figures to gather attraction frim the readers. Also the figures have some overlapping text with the bars. minor corrections are suggested Reviewer #2: The article "Analysis of the Impact of RCEP on the Industrial and Innovation Chains of China's Textile and Clothing Industry" considers the impact of Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) on the textile and clothing industry, trade dynamics, innovation chains, and industrial integration. While there is research on the overall economic effects of RCEP, studies specifically examining its impact on individual industries like textiles are relatively limited. The article "Analysis of the Impact of RCEP on the Industrial and Innovation Chains of China's Textile and Clothing Industry" aims to fill a research gap by analyzing the specific impact of RCEP on innovation chains and industrial integration within the textile sector, going beyond just trade volume changes. Scientific Contribution: - Provides empirical evidence on the impact of RCEP on the textile industry, specifically focusing on innovation and industrial chains. - Offers insights into the potential benefits and challenges of RCEP for the textile sector in China and other member nations. - Contributes to the understanding of how trade agreements can influence innovation and industrial integration in specific industries. I'd recommend for the authors to consider incorporating ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) goal achievement into their research: 1. Aligning with Current Trends: ESG considerations are becoming increasingly important for businesses and investors globally. 2. Expanding the Scope: Adding an ESG dimension would broaden the analysis to encompass the social and environmental implications of RCEP on the textile industry. 3. Addressing Sustainability Concerns: Examining how RCEP can contribute to sustainable practices within the industry would be highly valuable. 4. Identifying Opportunities: The research could highlight how RCEP can facilitate the adoption of sustainable practices and create new business models. 5. Policy Recommendations: Incorporating ESG would allow the authors to provide more comprehensive policy recommendations for promoting sustainable growth within the textile sector. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Sergey Barykin ******** [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.0309708.r001
Revision 1
13 Jun 2024 Author Response 12th June 2024 Dear Editor and Reviewers, We want to express our heartfelt gratitude for your invaluable feedback on our manuscript titled " Analysis of the Impact of RCEP on the Industrial and Innovation Chains of China's Textile and Clothing Industry." We have carefully considered your insightful comments and made the necessary revisions. Our updated version has been resubmitted to the Journal of PLOS ONE, and we anticipate your feedback. We truly appreciate the time and effort you spent reviewing our work. Your constructive suggestions and observations were instrumental in improving the quality and clarity of our research. Your expertise and guidance throughout this process have been invaluable, allowing us to refine and present our work more effectively. Below, we have included a table outlining our changes to facilitate your review process. Once again, we extend our sincere appreciation for your time, effort, and invaluable feedback. We eagerly await your response. Best regards, Sincerely, Corresponding Author, P J Kumarasinghe Comments Response 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 We appreciate the reviewers' positive feedback, affirming our manuscript's technical soundness and the data supporting the conclusions. We thank you for thoroughly reviewing and validating our research methodology and findings. 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes We are grateful for the reviewers' acknowledgment that our statistical analysis has been performed appropriately and rigorously. Thank you for your careful evaluation and positive feedback. 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 We confirm that all data underlying the find-ings described in our manuscript are fully available without restriction. The data has been deposited in a public repository and can be ac-cessed at the following link: Kumarasinghe, Pivithuru; Yang, Li (2024), “RCEP on the Industrial and Innovation Chains of China's Textile and Clothing Indus-try”, Mendeley Data, V1, doi: 10.17632/sgvmg6c9zz.1 Thank you for your attention to this matter. 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: Yes We appreciate the reviewers' feedback regarding the clarity and language of our manuscript. We have reviewed the manuscript again to ensure it is presented understandably and written in standard English. Reviewer #1: 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: your study is novel and interesting examining the impact of Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) on textile and apparel industry. The title, abstract and introduction are fine and valid. The methodology and results are fine too. you are suggested to use abbreviation with the original text at first appearance and then use just the short one later throughout the manuscript. Try to convert some tables to attractive figures to gather attraction from the readers. Also the figures have some overlapping text with the bars. minor corrections are suggested We appreciate your positive feedback and constructive suggestions. To address your comments, we have made the following revisions: 1. Abbreviations: o We have ensured that all abbreviations are introduced with their original text at first appearance and then used consistently throughout the manuscript. 2. Tables and Figures: o Tables have been converted into more attractive figures to enhance reader engagement and visual appeal. o We have corrected the overlap-ping text in the figures to ensure clarity and readability. Reviewer #2: Reviewer #2: The article "Analysis of the Impact of RCEP on the Industrial and Innovation Chains of China's Textile and Clothing Industry" considers the impact of Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) on the textile and clothing industry, trade dynamics, innovation chains, and industrial integration. While there is research on the overall economic effects of RCEP, studies specifically examining its impact on individual industries like textiles are relatively limited. The article "Analysis of the Impact of RCEP on the Industrial and Innovation Chains of China's Textile and Clothing Industry" aims to fill a research gap by analyzing the specific impact of RCEP on innovation chains and industrial integration within the textile sector, going beyond just trade volume changes. Scientific Contribution: - Provides empirical evidence on the impact of RCEP on the textile industry, specifically focusing on innovation and industrial chains. - Offers insights into the potential benefits and challenges of RCEP for the textile sector in China and other member nations. - Contributes to the understanding of how trade agreements can influence innovation and industrial integration in specific industries. I'd recommend for the authors to consider incorporating ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) goal achievement into their research: 1. Aligning with Current Trends: ESG considerations are becoming increasingly important for businesses and investors globally. 2. Expanding the Scope: Adding an ESG dimension would broaden the analysis to encompass the social and environmental implications of RCEP on the textile industry. 3. Addressing Sustainability Concerns: Examining how RCEP can contribute to sustainable practices within the industry would be highly valuable. 4. Identifying Opportunities: The research could highlight how RCEP can facilitate the adoption of sustainable practices and create new business models. 5. Policy Recommendations: Incorporating ESG would allow the authors to provide more comprehensive policy recommendations for promoting sustainable growth within the textile sector. We appreciate the insightful feedback and recommendations. To address these comments, we have revised our manuscript to incorporate ESG considerations to a certain extent. The following sections have been added: 4.7. Integrating ESG Goals into the Analysis of RCEP's Impact on the Textile Industry. In this section, we discussed the suggested inclusion to a certain extent. Refer to Page number(s):21-22 Conclusion: - Expanded to highlight the integration of ESG goals and their impact on the textile industry under the RCEP framework. Refer to Page number(s):23 Limitations: - Adjusted to acknowledge that while we have incorporated ESG considerations to some extent, time constraints. Refer to Page number(s):23 This remains an area for future research and we are planning to do. Due to time constraints and the complexity of integrating all suggested ESG aspects comprehensively, we have not included some of the detailed suggestions. These limitations have been discussed and acknowledged in the revised limitations section of our manuscript. Thank you for your valuable feedback, which has significantly enhanced the depth and relevance of our study. 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Sergey Barykin We will not be publishing the peer review history of our article. Therefore, the identity of the reviewers will remain anonymous as per the default policy. Journal Requirements: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This study received support from the Research project of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Education (Y202351899) and Zhejiang Federation of Humanities and Social Sciences Circles Base research projects (2014JDZ01)." Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Please 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. 1. We have reviewed and revised our manuscript to ensure it meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. We have utilized the provided PLOS ONE style templates to format the main body, title, authors, and affiliations sections accordingly. 2. The statement is correct. "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." We will include this statement in the cover letter. Thank you for updating it in the online submission form on our behalf. 3. We have reviewed our reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. We have verified that none of the cited papers have been retracted. 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 <a href="mailto:figures@plos.org">figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. As requested, we have uploaded our figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool. All figures have been checked and meet the PLOS requirements. Also, replace the figures with the converted ones using Conversion Engine (PACE). Thank you for providing this tool, which has helped us ensure the quality and compliance of our figures. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309708.r002
19 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Muhammad Hashim, Editor Analysis of the Impact of RCEP on the Industrial and Innovation Chains of China's Textile and Clothing Industry PONE-D-24-13065R1 Dear Dr. Kumarasinghe, 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, Muhammad Hashim, PhD 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 #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: I have studied the revised manuscript and authors responses and suggest acceptance of the article in current form. Reviewer #2: Dear Author, Thank you for submitting exciting article. Please consider the sustainability concept regarding the research aim. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Asfandyar Khan Reviewer #2: Yes: Sergey Barykin ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309708.r003
Formally Accepted
23 Aug 2024 Acceptance Letter - Muhammad Hashim, Editor PONE-D-24-13065R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kumarasinghe, 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 Dr. Muhammad Hashim Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309708.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 .