Assessing the impact of environmental laws and technological advancements on carbon dioxide mitigation in China’s mining industry

Dongxiao Xu; Weijun Chen; Yunzhe Chen; Jing Wen

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0318030

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 10, 2024
10 Aug 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318030.r001
15 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Asif Khan, Editor PONE-D-24-34068Assessing the Impact of Environmental Laws and Technological Advancements on Carbon Dioxide Mitigation in China's Mining IndustryPLOS ONE Dear Dr. wen, 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 Oct 30 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, Asif Khan, PhD Law 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. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement. 3. 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. 4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Reviewer 01 The title and abstract can be refined for conciseness and clarity, with the abstract requiring simplification to make the key findings more accessible. The introduction effectively sets the context but includes some repetition that could be eliminated, and the novelty of the study should be highlighted more clearly. The literature review is thorough but overly detailed, necessitating a more focused discussion on the most relevant studies and the gap this research addresses. In the methodology section, adding justification for the chosen statistical methods and a brief discussion on potential limitations would strengthen the study's credibility. The results and discussion are well-structured, though simplifying technical explanations and expanding on comparisons with similar studies could enhance reader understanding. the conclusion could be more concise, explicitly mention future research directions, and reinforce the study's contributions. the article writing style would benefit from simplification to improve readability, consistency in technical terminology. Reviewer 02 Assessing the Impact of Environmental Laws and Technological Advancements on Carbon Dioxide Mitigation in China's Mining Industry 1. Clarity of Research Objectives: The article sets an important objective to evaluate the impact of environmental regulations and technological advancements on carbon mitigation in China's mining industry. However, the research objectives could be made more specific. It would be beneficial to clearly outline the key questions the study aims to answer and how these align with existing gaps in the literature. 2. Literature Review: While the article references several important works on environmental regulations and carbon mitigation, it would benefit from a more comprehensive review of recent developments in both international and Chinese mining sectors. For instance, it would be helpful to include a discussion on how international treaties, like the Paris Agreement, influence China's domestic policies and technological innovations in the mining sector. 3. Methodology: The article does not provide sufficient details regarding the methodology used to assess the impact of environmental laws and technology. A clear explanation of the data sources, selection criteria for technological advancements, and any empirical or qualitative methods employed would strengthen the overall rigor of the study. 4. Integration of Environmental and Technological Aspects: While the article discusses both environmental laws and technological advancements, the connection between the two remains somewhat disjointed. The study could be improved by explicitly linking how specific technological innovations in the mining industry are directly influenced by environmental policies and how these, in turn, contribute to carbon dioxide mitigation. 5. Case Studies and Examples: To enhance the article’s practical relevance, it would be useful to include more case studies or real-world examples from China's mining industry. For instance, specific technological interventions (e.g., carbon capture and storage technologies, or renewable energy integration in mining operations) and their measurable impacts on carbon mitigation should be discussed in greater depth. 6. Quantitative Analysis: The article could benefit from a more robust quantitative analysis. Incorporating statistics on carbon emissions reduction rates, technological adoption rates, and the effectiveness of environmental laws could provide a clearer picture of the mining industry's progress toward carbon mitigation. 7. Discussion and Policy Recommendations: While the article identifies important trends in China’s efforts to mitigate carbon emissions, the discussion would be stronger with a more in-depth analysis of the challenges and opportunities ahead. What policy recommendations can be made based on the findings? Are there any barriers to technological adoption in the mining industry that need addressing? These considerations would add depth to the conclusion. 8. Conclusion: The conclusion effectively summarizes the study, but it could be improved by more directly addressing the research question. It would also be helpful to outline potential future areas of research, particularly in the context of evolving technologies and tightening environmental regulations in China. Overall, the article is a valuable contribution to understanding carbon mitigation in China’s mining industry but would benefit from more specific data, case studies, and a stronger linkage between the environmental and technological aspects discussed. [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: The title and abstract can be refined for conciseness and clarity, with the abstract requiring simplification to make the key findings more accessible. The introduction effectively sets the context but includes some repetition that could be eliminated, and the novelty of the study should be highlighted more clearly. The literature review is thorough but overly detailed, necessitating a more focused discussion on the most relevant studies and the gap this research addresses. In the methodology section, adding justification for the chosen statistical methods and a brief discussion on potential limitations would strengthen the study's credibility. The results and discussion are well-structured, though simplifying technical explanations and expanding on comparisons with similar studies could enhance reader understanding. the conclusion could be more concise, explicitly mention future research directions, and reinforce the study's contributions. the article writing style would benefit from simplification to improve readability, consistency in technical terminology. Reviewer #2: General Feedback: The manuscript demonstrates thorough research and provides a comprehensive analysis of the topic. The argument is well-structured, and the use of evidence is strong in most sections. However, there are a few areas that require attention to improve clarity and enhance the reader’s understanding. Strengths: The introduction provides a solid foundation and clearly sets up the context for the discussion. The argument is logically developed, and the use of data is convincing. The language is formal and appropriate for the target audience. Areas for Improvement: Clarity in Argumentation: In certain sections, the argumentation could be refined for better clarity. Some points are repeated, and a more concise presentation would make the overall narrative stronger. Depth of Analysis: While the evidence is well-chosen, certain areas lack depth. Consider expanding on key arguments to fully explore their implications. Transitions Between Sections: The flow between sections feels abrupt at times. Smoother transitions could help guide the reader more effectively. Conclusion: The conclusion is somewhat brief. It could benefit from a stronger summary of the key findings and a discussion of their broader implications. Recommendations: Rework certain sections for better clarity and conciseness. Deepen the analysis in critical parts of the argument. Ensure that transitions between sections are smooth to maintain a logical flow throughout the manuscript. ****** 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Dr Gilani Review.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318030.r002
Revision 1
29 Nov 2024 Author Response Response Reviewer # 1 1) We appreciate the comments. The title and abstract were revised to be more concise, clear, and easy to understand, with an emphasis on the main findings to make them more readable. To improve the introduction's ability to communicate the study's innovation and significance, we cut out unnecessary details and focused on its innovative contributions. These revisions improved the paper's flow and made it more effective. 2) We greatly appreciate your feedback. The revised literature review is more targeted, drawing attention to the most pertinent studies while making the research gap that this study addresses simple to understand (Literature last paragraph). 3) We appreciate your insightful feedback. In response, we expanded the methodology section to explain why the statistical methods used were suitable for addressing the research question and producing reliable results. 4) Discussion section increased and essential details are provided by comparing with similar studies. Robustness and diagnostic tests are applied (section 4.2) to make our results more accurate than previous studies. 5) Thanks for the helpful comments. The conclusion has been modified to be shorter; more explicit recommendations for future research were pointed out, and the study's contributions were emphasised. Further steps were taken to enhance readability by simplifying the language and ensuring that technical terminology was consistent throughout the paper. These changes clarified the text as a whole and responded to the concerns highlighted. Reviewer #2 1) Thanks for your feedback. We revised the contribution section to address all issues. Literature section is also revised to understand how our work is different from previous studies. Study gap is provided in literature reviews last paragraph. 2) Thank you for your helpful comments. Consequently, we broaden the scope of our literature study to incorporate current events in both the global and Chinese mining industries, with an emphasis on the ways in which international accords, such as the Paris Agreement, impact China's internal policies. We discuss how these deals stimulate technical advancements in China's mining industry with the goal of decreasing carbon emissions and environmental damage. 3) We greatly appreciate your feedback. We updated the methodology section to better explain the process of evaluating the effects of environmental regulations and technological advancements in response. We defined the data sources and selected technological advancements (e.g., their impact on carbon mitigation, reliability, and significance). 4) Your feedback is greatly appreciated. Our response was to revise the work so that it more clearly linked environmental law to mining technology developments. By describing how these technologies directly contribute to carbon dioxide mitigation, we further demonstrated the causal relationship between policy-driven innovation and its environmental impact. With these modifications, we hope to give a more unified narrative and strengthen the study's main point. 5) Your insightful feedback is greatly appreciated. In response, we strengthened the article's practical significance by adding more case studies and real-world examples from China's mining industry in the literature and discussion section. Among the particular technical interventions we explored were the use of renewable energy sources in mining and carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems. A closer look was given to these instances, with an emphasis on the quantifiable effects they had on carbon mitigation. 6) Thanks for your suggestion. Discussion section increased and essential details are provided by comparing with similar studies. Robustness and diagnostic tests are applied (section 4.2) to make our results more accurate than previous studies. 7) We greatly appreciate your feedback. In response, we rewrote the article to give a more comprehensive overview of the possibilities and threats China faces in its fight against mining-related carbon emissions. In addition, we discussed the policy suggestions that emerged from our research, which emphasized the importance of encouraging sustainable mining practices and stronger enforcement of environmental laws. 8) We appreciate your comment. To resolve this issue, we revised the last section to address the research question more explicitly and highlight how our results assist in achieving a balance between regulations, environmental concerns, and economic objectives in China's mineral resource extraction. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318030.r003
8 Jan 2025 Decision Letter - Asif Khan, Editor Assessing the Impact of Environmental Laws and Technological Advancements on Carbon Dioxide Mitigation in China's Mining Industry PONE-D-24-34068R1 Dear Dr. Chen, 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, Asif Khan, PhD Law 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: I am writing to confirm that the article titled "Assessing the Impact of Environmental Laws and Technological Advancements on Carbon Dioxide Mitigation in China's Mining Industry" has been thoroughly reviewed and is deemed suitable for publication. ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr Syed Raza Shah Gilani ******** Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Review.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318030.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Asif Khan, Editor PONE-D-24-34068R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Chen, 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. Asif Khan Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318030.r005

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 .