Dear Dr. Xing,

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 23 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.

• 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 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,

Taiyi He

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 in your Funding Statement:

[This research was supported by the Ministry of Education of China Humanities and Social Sciences Youth Fund Project “Refining Local Legislation on Social Credit: An Examination of Fifteen Local Regulations” (Grant No. 21YJC820023).].

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: 

[The authors declare no conflict of interest.].

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

5. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Luo Huanqi.

6. Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include author Luo Huan qi.

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:

Please do more in-depth analysis based on the empirical results and check the details carefully.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The manuscript is well-structured and makes a useful contribution. Only minor presentation edits are required prior to acceptance. Please consider the following points.

1. The existing title is overly broad. To emphasize the study’s firm-level focus, please consider a revision such as “Patient Capital and Green Total Factor Productivity: Evidence from Chinese listed Companies.” You may adopt a different wording, but the final title should explicitly reference firms or enterprises.

2. throughout the manuscript—including main text, tables, figure captions, and footnotes—replace any full-width double quotation marks with standard half-width English double quotation marks (" ") to ensure consistent formatting.

3. Items 36–39 are not in APA format. Convert each to the journal’s required APA style.

4. The abstract should be limited to 300 words in a single paragraph, with no citations. It must briefly outline the research objectives, data and methods, key results, and policy implications, while avoiding lengthy background information or unnecessary abbreviations.

5. Replace Roman numerals (I, II, III …) in headings and sub-headings with Arabic numerals (1, 2, 3 …) to align with journal style.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well organized and logically cohesive, and its research content is already comprehensive. To further enhance layout and readability, I recommend only the following minor formatting and stylistic tweaks, none of which affect the study’s core conclusions.

1. The current abstract is informative but slightly wordy. Please condense it by tightening phrasing and eliminating non-essential background so key objectives, methods, and findings stand out more clearly.

2. The current description of the study’s marginal contribution is somewhat verbose. Please focus on the two or three most innovative points and shorten the section accordingly to make the argument more concise and persuasive.

3. The section outlining the study’s limitations and future research directions would benefit from greater concision. Please summarize the key points in a more streamlined paragraph.

4. Proofread for minor grammar slips (e.g., “reveal that a one–standard-deviation increase … raises,” not “raise”).

Reviewer #3: Overall, the manuscript is well organized, empirically robust, and policy-relevant, and it is already close to being publishable. Only a few minor adjustments are needed to further enhance its completeness and readability.

First, refine the introduction by pinpointing the specific research gap that the current literature has not yet addressed and by stating the core questions this study answers, avoiding overlap with existing reviews.

Second, enrich the theory section with the most recent studies on patient capital and green innovation, and end that discussion by clearly stating the incremental contribution of this paper relative to prior work.

Third, compress the abstract and conclusion so they cover only the four essentials—research purpose, data and methods, key findings, and policy implications—omitting background material that is already well explained in the text.

Fourth, add a brief institutional‑background paragraph to the theoretical framework that summarizes the evolution of China’s capital market, the green‑finance policy landscape, and the regulatory impetus of the “dual‑carbon” goals, and explain how these external conditions shape the formation and effects of patient capital.

Fifth, strengthen the explanation of the positive feedback loop between lower financing costs and green R&D: clarify how patient capital reduces refinancing risk, encourages longer‑horizon green projects, and in turn attracts additional patient capital, creating a virtuous cycle.

Sixth, make the policy section more actionable by proposing concrete tools—such as tax incentives, disclosure guidelines, and long‑term investment rewards—and tailoring recommendations to firms of different sizes and ownership types.

Seventh, integrate a corporate‑governance perspective by discussing how disclosure practices, performance metrics, and board incentives can work in tandem with patient capital to advance effective green transitions.

Eighth, standardize terminology and formatting throughout the manuscript, eliminate any Chinese–English mixtures, and ensure that all references fully comply with the journal’s style guidelines.

With these minor revisions in place, the paper should be ready for publication.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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

Patient Capital and Green Total Factor Productivity: Evidence from Chinese Listed Companies

PONE-D-25-29830R1

Dear Dr. Xing,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Taiyi He

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Good jobs!

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors have made systematic and substantive revisions in response to the previous review. The literature review has been updated; the theoretical framework is more rigorous; the model specification and identification strategy are clearly articulated; robustness checks and endogeneity tests are largely complete; and the statements of conclusions and policy implications are appropriately calibrated. The major concerns raised earlier have been effectively addressed. Overall logic and writing quality have improved markedly, and the manuscript now meets the journal’s publication standards. I only suggest, at the final stage, further harmonizing terminology, standardizing figures/tables and reference formatting, and proofreading a few minor wording issues—none of which affects the conclusions or contributions. In sum, I recommend acceptance for publication.

Reviewer #2: The authors' revisions effectively address the reviewers' comments, significantly enhancing the theoretical rigor and logical clarity of the manuscript. Specifically, notable improvements have been made in clearly defining the research questions and articulating the theoretical mechanisms, resulting in a more coherent and internally consistent structure. Additionally, the newly added robustness tests effectively strengthen the reliability of the study’s conclusions, and the policy implications section now provides more concise and targeted recommendations. Overall, this revision adequately resolves the issues raised previously, and I recommend the manuscript for acceptance.

Reviewer #3: The revised manuscript is substantively improved and, in my view, ready for publication: the research question is now sharply defined; the theoretical framework is coherent with clearly testable hypotheses; the identification strategy is transparent with well-documented sample and variable construction; and the added robustness exercises (parallel-trend diagnostics, placebo tests, alternative measures, and sample restrictions) consistently support the main findings. Potential endogeneity concerns are addressed with appropriate treatments yielding stable results, while the mechanism and heterogeneity analyses are focused and aligned with the theory. The abstract, conclusions, and policy implications are concise and consistent with the evidence, and data-availability and reference formatting are largely compliant. Only minor editorial issues remain (e.g., harmonizing axis labels/decimal places and a final check of reference page numbers/DOIs), which can be handled at proof stage. I recommend acceptance without further substantive revision.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: No

**********