PCLM-D-24-00071

Assessing effects of agriculture value added, industry value added and imports value added percentage to GDP on CO2 emissions in Bangladesh: An ARDL and NARDL approach.

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Amin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’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 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 climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ 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 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'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Abdul Rehman, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. Please upload all main figures as separate Figure files in .tif or .eps format only. For more information about how to convert and format your figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/figures 

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

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 (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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 Climate 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: No

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: In the introduction section, clearly state the problem statement, contribution, significance of the study and objective of the study.

Discussion on results needs revision. Discuss the results of short and long-run estimates in detail and compare them to past studies.

In conclusion, instead of interpreting the coefficient values conclude your findings.

Improve the policy recommendation section and suggest the policies based on your findings only.

Follow the APA format for references.

The draft needs proofreading

Reviewer #2: Dear Author/s,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read your paper. The paper “Assessing effects of agriculture value added, industry value added and imports value added percentage to GDP on CO2 emissions in Bangladesh: An ARDL and NARDL approach” is interesting for journal readers. But following changes should be done before the consideration to improve the quality of the paper:

#Abstract should have at least one sentence per each: context and background, motivation, hypothesis, methods, results, conclusions. Need to reorganize…

#The introduction not very attractive; need improvements to cite more latest literature (2024), under context of SDGs, ESG and climate globally

#Theoretical Site: ESG very related measurement for the companies and close relation to SDGs. I suggestion authors see following papers to improve intro and theorical part. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2977; https://doi.org/10.58251/ekonomi.1450860; https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2910; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2024.04.014 and for the impact of climate please see; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.08.019; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121177

#Literature: There is a need to do a more rigorous and systematic literature review. And need clear, well explained literature gap in this part. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.105025; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.131250

I would recommend the authors to provide a more detailed explanation for methodology

#The explanation of the findings is weak need to explain more by comparing the findings with previous published studies. Additionally, based on the findings from the study, here are some country/industry-specific policy implications

#Discussion part is not well, poor in the text, expand it deeply more. And compare with similar case and papers…

#The authors should discuss the practical implications of their findings.

#Need clear future recommendation/implementation in the context of uncertainty (climate policy, war, covid, monetary etc). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-023-02452-x; https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816619888346

If this revised paper is sent to me for re-review, the first thing I will check the references.

Finally check the references according to author guideline and There is need for professional proofreading or consult English native support

Reviewer #3: The article entitled “Assessing effects of agriculture value added, industry value added and imports value added percentage to GDP on CO2 emissions in Bangladesh” finds that industrialization significantly increases CO2 emissions in Bangladesh, while agriculturalization contributes to a rapid reduction in emissions, with imports also having a considerable impact. Although authors perform a good work, however, I have few comments to further improve the quality of manuscript before it goes to publication.

The introduction section can be improved by providing more specific data and clearer context about global CO2 emissions, particularly differentiating between developed and developing countries' contributions and impacts. Additionally, integrate more detailed references to Bangladesh's industrial and agricultural sectors, highlighting their specific roles and contributions to CO2 emissions. Streamline the introduction by clearly outlining the research objectives and the significance of examining the combined effects of industrialization, agriculture, and imports on Bangladesh's CO2 emissions. This will set a comprehensive and focused tone for the study.

The methodology is performed well, however, I did not see any defending and beneficial of adopting those econometric techniques. Authors are suggested to include material that should portray why they select these kinds of econometric techniques.

The conclusion and policy implication section can be further improved.

There are several typos and grammatically errors in 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.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

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. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PCLM-D-24-00071R1

Assessing effects of agriculture value added, industry value added, and imports value added percentage to GDP on CO2 emissions in Bangladesh: An ARDL and NARDL approach.

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Amin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’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 Sep 06 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 climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ 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 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'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Abdul Rehman, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

PLOS Climate 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: Dear Author/s,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read your paper. The paper “Assessing effects of agriculture value added, industry value added and imports value added percentage to GDP on CO2 emissions in Bangladesh: An ARDL and NARDL approach” is interesting for journal readers. But following changes should be done before the consideration to improve the quality of the paper:

#Abstract should have at least one sentence per each: context and background, motivation, hypothesis, methods, results, conclusions. Need to reorganize…

#The introduction not very attractive; need improvements to cite more latest literature (2024), under context of SDGs, ESG and climate globally

#Theoretical Site: ESG very related measurement for the companies and close relation to SDGs. I suggestion authors see following papers to improve intro and theorical part. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2977; https://doi.org/10.58251/ekonomi.1450860; https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2910; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2024.04.014 and for the impact of climate please see; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.08.019; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121177

#Literature: There is a need to do a more rigorous and systematic literature review. And need clear, well explained literature gap in this part. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.105025; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.131250

I would recommend the authors to provide a more detailed explanation for methodology

#The explanation of the findings is weak need to explain more by comparing the findings with previous published studies. Additionally, based on the findings from the study, here are some country/industry-specific policy implications

#Discussion part is not well, poor in the text, expand it deeply more. And compare with similar case and papers…

#The authors should discuss the practical implications of their findings.

#Need clear future recommendation/implementation in the context of uncertainty (climate policy, war, covid, monetary etc). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-023-02452-x; https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816619888346

If this revised paper is sent to me for re-review, the first thing I will check the references.

Finally check the references according to author guideline and There is need for professional proofreading or consult English native support

Reviewer #3: accepted

**********

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.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

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. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Assessing the effects of agriculture and industry on CO2 emissions in Bangladesh: An ARDL and NARDL Approach

PCLM-D-24-00071R2

Dear Mr. Amin,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Assessing the effects of agriculture and industry on CO2 emissions in Bangladesh: An ARDL and NARDL Approach' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Climate.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

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 climate@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Climate.

Best regards,

Abdul Rehman, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):