PONE-D-24-32451Investigating the Dynamics of Climate Finance Disbursements: A Panel Data Approach from 2003 to 2022PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nor,

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 Dec 01 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 [https://c05y1x9s.r.us-east-2.awstrack.me/L0/https:%2F%2Fjournals.plos.org%2Fplosone%2Fs%2Fsubmission-guidelines%23loc-laboratory-protocols/1/010f0191fece1910-218e346b-f190-4c7a-8b76-fd70cad2da64-000000/4o0OP5yvL4o-2ahUqEHJlurltBs=17] .

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 [https://c05y1x9s.r.us-east-2.awstrack.me/L0/https:%2F%2Fplos.org%2Fprotocols%3Futm_medium=editorial-email%26utm_source=authorletters%26utm_campaign=protocols/1/010f0191fece1910-218e346b-f190-4c7a-8b76-fd70cad2da64-000000/gOvLT3C65Q01X_kLQr3xSs9OG80=17 ]

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Xiaoxuan Kao

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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 the following financial disclosure: "Center for Research and Development (CRD), SIMAD University." Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information. 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.

[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: 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: 1. The Introduction section lacks organization, and it is recommended to extract key information;

2. Please provide a comprehensive and in-depth review of the literature review in order to extract key arguments, reveal the current status and trends in the research field, and provide a solid theoretical foundation and direction for subsequent research.

3. Fixed effects are used to study the impact of core variables on the dependent variable. When using fixed effects, please indicate whether they are bidirectional fixed or time or individual fixed.

4. The Hausman test can cite research to prove the validity of this test.

5. After the regression results of the three benchmarks, it is recommended to conduct a robustness test and heterogeneity test to test whether the regression results are robust and analyze the reasons for the existence of heterogeneity.

6. Lack of innovation, the entire research process is relatively simple, including whether the data has multicollinearity and how to solve multicollinearity, which was not mentioned in the article. Please supplement.

Reviewer #2: COMMENTS:

1) Create specific section for METHOD and organize into sub-sections as follows (1) Type and Source of Data (example, this study employs largely secondary data....) (2) Research Method and Model Specifications etc.

2) Change Discussion section to RESULTS AND ANALYSIS (DISCUSSION) - Must tally with the aims/purposes of the study - Please explain more on the issue of inclusivity (environmental justice framework) which involved community access and participation in climate change initiatives.

3) So many IN-TEXT CITATIONS but not addressed in the References section

4) Most of the FIGURES and TABLE do not have their sources cited.

5) Some REFERENCES are not formatted properly and have missing details (year, pages, publisher, DOI)

6) The CONCLUSION of the study is somewhat disorganized, especially regarding the implications. It would be more effective to structure it into distinct sub-sections, such as Practical/Governance Implications, Policy Implications, and Theoretical Implications. Please explain how could the issue of inclusivity i.e community participation and equitable access to climate change initiatives can be addressed by governments at all levels. Several key concepts can also be included in this issues notably multi-stakeholder engagement, empowering local governance, and implementing inclusive policy designs that prioritize vulnerable populations. . Please provide some best practices and suggestions for improvement in this study (as stated earlier as the aims of this study). Based on the limitations of the study, please add suggestion for Future Studies.

7) The major reference from which the DATASET was obtained, notably the Climate Funds Update (CFU), is not properly cited in the References section at least please provide the website link/DOI link (if it's retrieved from jounals or official documents)

8) It is stated in the ABSTRACT "The FORECASTING results indicate a positive trend in disbursements from 2023 to 2027, with potential fluctuations driven by external factors, but missing reporting in the content.

**********

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.

Investigating the Dynamics of Climate Finance Disbursements: A Panel Data Approach from 2003 to 2022

PONE-D-24-32451R1

Dear Dr. NOR,

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,

Xiaoxuan Kao

Guest 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 #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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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 #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 #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 #2: I am fully satisfied with the revisions made by the author(s). Each section is now well-organized and seamlessly connected, with improved English that enhances the article's readability and overall comprehension. The most commendable aspect of the revision is the strengthened Conclusion as commented, which now includes more thorough and comprehensive implications, suggestions for future studies, and a clear direction for the way forward.

**********

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 #2: No

**********