ArticlePloS one2024
Retracted: Unveiling the synergy: Green finance, technological innovation, green energy, and carbon neutrality.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The race against carbon footprint: how China's green technological innovation, tourism development and financial policies shape its ecological future.Carbon balance and management · 2025Article
- Sustainable development of national green innovation capacity: a qualitative comparative analysis based on dynamic public data.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Retraction: Unveiling the synergy: Green finance, technological innovation, green energy, and carbon neutrality.PloS one · 2025Article
- Strategic planning as a catalyst for sustainability: A mediated model of strategic intent and formulation in manufacturing SMEs.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2025-10-23Concerns/Issues about Authorship/Affiliation · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Objections by Author(s) · · See also: https://pubpeer.com/publications/F9781264551FAC6A82BAAD78AAC9AE
- Retracted
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates the pivotal role of green strategies in achieving carbon neutrality by exploring the synergistic contributions of green finance, green technological innovation, and green energy adoption. The study has implemented several panel data estimation techniques including second generation panel unit root test commonly known as CADF and CIPS, an error correction-based panel cointegration test, for documenting the elasticities of GF, GTI, and GE on carbon neutrality through Continuously-Update Fully Modified[CUP-FM], Continuously-Update Bias-Corrected [CUP-BC], and Dynamic Seemingly Unrelated Regression [DSUR]. The asymmetric coefficients have exploded with the implementation of a nonlinear framework, which is well known as NARDL. Our findings underscore the significance of green finance mechanisms in mobilizing resources for sustainable initiatives, including renewable energy projects and energy-efficient technologies. Study shed light on the catalytic impact of green Technological innovation in driving technological advancements, reducing emissions, and fostering economic growth. Furthermore, our study delves into the transformative potential of clean energy adoption, elucidating how it can substantially reduce carbon footprints and bolster the transition to a low-carbon economy. This study contributes to the growing body of knowledge on the critical nexus of green strategies and carbon neutrality, offering a roadmap for a more sustainable and environmentally responsible future. In a world grappling with the pressing challenges of climate change, our research offers valuable insights into the strategies that institutions, policymakers, and businesses can employ to facilitate the transition toward carbon neutrality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.