PONE-D-24-07425Does Trade openness asymmetrically affect CO2 Emissions in Africa? An Investigation of the Heterogeneous and Mediating EffectsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kitila,

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 Apr 27 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,

Magdalena Radulescu

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. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 4,8,9 and 10 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

[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: No

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: Dear editor,

Thanks for given me the opportunity to review the article titled “Does Trade openness asymmetrically affect CO2 Emissions in Africa? An Investigation of the Heterogeneous and Mediating Effects” which is good study I enjoyed the reading through out the manuscript. However, before move forward there is need some changes which suggested as follows:

1. The paper lacks a clear and concise introduction that sets the stage for the research question and objectives.

2. The organization of the paper could be improved for better flow and readability.

3. The methodology section should be more detailed and structured to ensure reproducibility.

4. The data sources and collection methods should be thoroughly explained and justified.

5. The choice of variables and indicators used in the analysis should be clearly defined and justified.

6. Provide more information on the robustness of the results and the sensitivity of the model to different specifications.

7. The results should be presented clearly with appropriate tables, graphs, and statistical significance levels.

8. Discuss the practical implications of the findings in more depth and relate them to the existing literature.

9. The literature review should be comprehensive and up-to-date, providing context for the research.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.104731

https://doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3351468

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108078

https://doi:10.1142/S0218126624501536

https://doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.831549

10. Ensure that the discussion section aligns with the research objectives and hypotheses.

11. Ensure that all sources are properly cited and referenced.

12. Proofread the paper for language and grammar errors.

Reviewer #2: Theoretical background should be strengthened by providing more theoretical arguments.

Current literature review section ignores many most recent studies. Therefore, there is a need for revising the related section by including most recent papers. Following studies could be helpful on the enriching the literature review section by including recent papers:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2024.740769

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123109

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23351-8

Τhe authors need to improve the economic interpretation of the results and policy implications

**********

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.

PONE-D-24-07425R1Does Trade openness asymmetrically affect CO2 Emissions in Africa? An Investigation of the Heterogeneous and Mediating EffectsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kitila,

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 05 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,

Ngo Thai Hung, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Does Trade openness asymmetrically affect CO2 Emissions in Africa? An Investigation of the Heterogeneous and Mediating Effects

The manuscript explores the impact of trade openness on CO2 emissions in Africa. While the topic has been extensively studied in numerous previous articles, this paper's approach and methodology also seem dated. Therefore, I suggest several issues that the authors should address:

1. Motivations: The authors should clearly articulate the motivations for this study step by step and explain the significance of selecting African countries as the case study.

2. Contributions: The current contributions are insufficient for publication in PLOS ONE because the topic has been extensively covered in the existing literature. The authors must emphasize the novelty of their manuscript, both in terms of the literature reviewed and the methodology employed.

3. Data and Methodology: The novelty in the data and methodological approach needs to be highlighted.

4. Theoretical Frameworks: The theoretical frameworks employed are too classical. Many recent studies have utilized modern theories to address similar problems. The authors need to demonstrate how their work contributes to the field and integrates with or challenges existing theories.

5. Methodology: In terms of the methods used, I suggest incorporating more advanced techniques, such as Granger causality tests in nonlinear and time-varying approaches, to provide deeper insights.

Addressing these comments could significantly improve the quality of the manuscript.

[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: (No Response)

**********

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: Partly

**********

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: No

**********

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: PONE

Reviewer’s Comments

Title: ‘Does Trade openness asymmetrically affect CO2 Emissions in Africa? An Investigation of the Heterogeneous and Mediating Effects

Disclaimer: I notice that this is the R1 version of the paper but I’m reviewing it for the first time. I hope my comments would be useful and do not take authors aback. Thank you.

General Comments

1. The paper is carefully written and edited for language, clarity of expressions and grammar though proofreading is still required to fix a few errors.

2. The paper is concisely written avoiding unnecessary details.

3. The methodology deployed for the robustness seems inappropriate and there is no justification provided.

Abstracts

1. The abstract is a true reflection of the work, and it is well written.

Introduction

1. The introduction provides enough scope and a good and clear setting for the study.

2. All major themes pertaining to the study have been discussed in the introduction.

3. Moreover, the authors have explicitly showed the exact problem and motivation underlying the study.

4. Moreover, the contributions of the study are stated clearly in the introduction.

Literature review

1. The literature starts with some (one or two) of the initial works in the area and how they advanced and shaped research in that area. That’s great.

2. Also, there is clear logical links and various strands of thought. Authors have connected their study with the wider research literature and have consequently positioned their research appropriately.

3. Excellent empirical literature review.

Methodology

1. Authors have applied standard econometric procedures e.g., tests unit root before actual estimations but this should have been preceded by a test of cross-sectional dependence. In fact, it is the outcome of the cross-sectional dependence test that informs the of the appropriate unit root test technique.

2. Also, the authors could have conducted a cointegration test for long run relationships before estimating the panel quantile regressions.

Results and Discussion

1. Most of the findings are succinctly discussed and properly linked with the overarching objectives of the study. Furthermore, most of the findings are very interesting, practical and could potentially guide policy.

2. Authors have also provided economic justification for key findings.

3. Also, in discussing the findings, authors show how their findings compare with the literature they reviewed. But this is done sparingly. I urge authors to strengthen their comparisons with the literature.

Conclusions

1. This is well written, but you may also comment on the extent to which the approach taken in the research enables certain generalizations to be made.

2. Policy implications are relevant, pragmatic, and realistically implementable.

3. It is usual to include limitations of the study and the extent that the research has revealed further gaps in our collective knowledge and for further research.

References

1. Well written

**********

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: Yes: Solomon Aboagye

**********

[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.

Does Trade openness asymmetrically affect CO2 Emissions in Africa? An Investigation of the Heterogeneous and Mediating Effects

PONE-D-24-07425R2

Dear Dr. Kitila,

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,

Ngo Thai Hung, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: