PONE-D-24-43217The role of export competitiveness in driving Renminbi cross-border settlement: Micro-level evidence from ChinaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. JIANG,

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 Jan 13 2025 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,

Xiaoyong Zhou, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

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

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

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

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

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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 idea and objective is important. The sample reached is significantly important. However, the panel analysis of the companies lacks proper formation and interpretation falls short of expectations. The general economic view of internationalisation and improtance of economic gain for exports in national currency was used withour proper scientific support. Tehrefore results and suggestions are also too general.

To emphasize again, the onjective and processing is important especially for china but the analytical process and inferences need to be overviewed. The exchange rates of significant trade partners' or at lease usd itself could be considered as an explanatory.

Reviewer #2: Dear Author,

I have listed some constructive comments to criticize the weaknesses of the paper as below.

Constructive Comments:

1. At first glance, the aim, objectives, and methodology of the paper seem a bit vague. There are little adequate clarifications.

2. In introduction section, the authors can reflect the relevant literature review in a more systematic way. In the current form, there is a great mess in the paper. In addition, the follow-up questions can be listed in the introduction to attract the attention of the readers.

3. I recommend to the authors to clarify their methodology in detail, making sure that their planned methods/research tools are fully detailed. They ought to give attention to justifying the chosen methodology in terms of demonstrating applicability, adjustment, and usefulness in the paper.

4. Theory-practice nexus is a good tool for a “thesis vs. counter-thesis = synthesis” approach. In this context, the way how you support and proof your argument and falsify your counterarguments can be more effective to keep up being focused on your story. So that the central research questions and the “argument vs. counter-arguments interactions” are streamlined in a way that addresses the research inquiries in a systematic and effective manner.

5. Referencing needs to be improved very carefully. The authors can enrich the literature review section through adding some up-to-date and relevant scientific materials.

6. I strongly recommend the researchers to detect their scientific work via iThenticate / CrossCheck or Turnitin plagiarism software. Regarding the improvement of the quality of a scientific work in frame of scientific & ethical criteria, my advice to the authors would be to register to some free online interactive e-training courses which are listed as such: i) Making sense of science stories; ii) Publishers: Origins, roles and contributions; iii) The journal publishing cycle; iv) How do Editors look at your paper?; v) Preparing your manuscript; vi) Structuring your article; vii) Successful grant applications getting it right; viii) How to review a manuscript; ix) How to get published structuring your article; and x) Ethics responsibilities for Reviewers. The authors will learn about much more information (e.g., salami slicing, least publishable units, plagiarism, falsification, duplication, fabrication and so on) which are associated with preparing an excellent manuscript for a peer review journal.

7. In fact, I appreciate there has been a lot of reading and ground covered, but this will not appeal to readers if the paper lacks a strong focus, compelling argument and discussion, and an indication of why the paper holds value to the readership of PLOS ONE.

Some Technical Critiques and Recommendations for the Author:

1) The author should strictly adhere to submission guidelines of the journal.

2) There are several grammatical errors and instances of badly worded/constructed sentences. Please check the manuscript and refine the language carefully. I suggest using proof reading papers before submission.

Reviewer #3: This paper attempts to address the issue concerning China’s efforts to internationalise its currency, Yuan. Good exports volume and export competitiveness promote a country’s own currency. In this case, China’s trade with the world constitutes a larger share of world exports, of which China is using its RMB to settle cross-border trade agreements. This also signifies the growing importance of China’s Renminbi (RMB) as an important currency of global trade and commerce.

The paper is analytic and informative, and stresses on the export competitiveness and the impact it has on internalisation of RMB. The authors have engaged in an analytical research and have used extensive datasets to test their hypothesis. It also stresses the role of currency in trade settlement across international borders. The authors have duly reviewed the literature and have drawn examples citing past studies on this topic.

The statistical analyses thus performed are robust, with multimodal framework designed to test the role of export competitiveness on promoting a nation’s currency. The theoretical analyses address both the microeconomic level and macro level picture depicting the choice of currency in cross-border trade settlement.

The authors have provided the datasets based upon which they have performed rigorous statistical analyses. They have also performed robustness test in line with the main objective of the paper to validate the hypotheses.

The authors firmly stuck to the core analysis to figure out what factors could strengthen cross-border used of RMB as means for settling cross- border trades and transactions. It has shed more knowledge on this frontier which could be taken up for further analysis to validate the theory of export competitiveness and how it promotes a country’s own currency, in this case, China.

**********

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:  Dorian Aliu

Reviewer #3: Yes:  SIDHARTA CHATTERJEE

**********

[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: PONE-D-24-43217_rev1.pdf

The role of export competitiveness in driving Renminbi cross-border settlement: Micro-level evidence from China

PONE-D-24-43217R1

Dear Dr. JIANG,

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,

Xiaoyong Zhou, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

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 #1: The paper seems to be throughly revised. Available literature seems to be enriched as well. The lacking information on analyses and inferences were provided. The inference on low r2 may be re-checked of its level can be justified with reference to available literature.

Reviewer #2: Dear Author,

The paper seems like an interesting job. Thus, I consider the paper suitable for being published in the PLOS ONE. I support this research that is deemed a good contribution to the journal’s future achievements. The revision that has been made by the authors is satisfactory. My decision is to accept the paper. Apparently, the current version of the manuscript has convinced me. I affirm the revised version. To me, no further revision is needed.

I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the authors for their scientific efforts during the revision process. Great job. Congratulations!

Reviewer #3: The authors have diligently addressed the issues raised in the previous review. Th paper seems appropriate for publication, as it will stimulate further research in this domain, and since not many papers have addressed similar topic related to export competitiveness and its impact on exchange rate and domestic currency, in this case, Chinese Renminbi. Similar research may be conducted by other countries to asses the nature and levels of their individual export competitiveness and strength of their own currency that are used for cross-border settlement.

**********

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:  Dorian Aliu

Reviewer #3: Yes:  SIDHARTA CHATTERJEE

**********