Note from the PNAS Editorial Office: Was ethical approval required for your study? If so, please add a brief statement identifying the IRB that approved your study. If your study was reviewed and deemed exempt by your IRB, please amend your Materials and Methods to clarify.
PNAS 编辑部提示：您的研究是否需要伦理审批？如需，请补充简要声明，注明批准该研究的机构审查委员会（IRB）。若您的研究经 IRB 审核认定豁免，请相应修改材料与方法部分予以说明。

Editor Comments:  编辑意见：
Revise in the light of the critique from Reviewer #1 ideally with help of a native speaker.
根据审稿人#1 的批评意见进行修改，最好能获得母语人士的帮助。

Reviewer Comments:  审稿人意见：
Reviewer #1:  审稿人#1：

Suitable Quality?: No  质量合格？：否
Sufficient General Interest?: Yes
具有普遍兴趣？：是
Conclusions Justified?: Yes
结论是否合理？：是
Clearly Written?: No  表述是否清晰？：否
Procedures Described?: Yes
是否描述了程序？：是
Supplemental Material Warranted?: Yes
是否需要补充材料？：是
Sufficient data/samples?: Yes
数据/样本是否充足？：是

This manuscript addresses a vitally important question: how have initiatives by the US Government to target Chinese science and scientists affected collaboration with China and the benefits that flow to science (and the US) from those collaborations. The novelty of the study is the use of the DOJ China Initiative (which really should be called the anti-China initiative) as a treatment instrument and efforts to measure impacts via a giant bibliometric database.
本手稿探讨了一个至关重要的问题：美国政府针对中国科学及科学家的举措如何影响了与中国的合作，以及这些合作为科学（及美国）带来的益处。该研究的新颖之处在于将司法部“中国行动计划”（实则应称为“反中国计划”）作为处理工具，并尝试通过庞大的文献计量数据库来衡量其影响。

The question is important; the results mostly align with expectations (yet are important). Whether the paper is viable, however, hinges on whether the TWFE DID method is applied and interpreted correctly. It would be extremely important to get careful reviews on that.
问题本身具有重要意义；研究结果大体符合预期（但仍具重要性）。然而，论文的可行性取决于 TWFE 双重差分法的应用与解释是否正确。获取对此方法的严谨评审意见极为关键。

I have three concerns.
我有三点担忧。

First, the paper is not well-written. Starting with the abstract there are, throughout, loopy and sprawling sentences that make no sense. The writing makes it nearly impossible to grasp the paper’s core ideas (and limitations) quickly. In terms of structure, as well, the paper is highly repetitive. I can appreciate that English is not the native language of the authors, but this problem needs to be fixed for a high level English language journal to be a viable route to publication.
首先，论文写作欠佳。从摘要开始，全文充斥着冗长且逻辑混乱的句子，令人费解。这样的写作风格几乎让人无法迅速把握论文的核心观点（及其局限性）。在结构上，论文也显得高度重复。我理解英语并非作者母语，但若要在高水平的英文期刊上发表，这一问题必须得到解决。

Second, the paper has very little discussion of the larger context for the key findings, such as: Why should we expect differential impacts of US-China bilat compared with trilateral cooperation? What are the limitations of the research and methods (e.g., how does the choice of using cases from the research integrity actions by DoJ affect the incentives for scientists to respond)-at present, the discussion section says practically nothing about limitations.
其次，论文对关键发现的更广泛背景讨论极少，例如：为何我们应预期美中双边合作与三边合作的影响存在差异？研究及方法的局限性有哪些（比如，选用司法部科研诚信行动案例如何影响科学家回应的动机）——目前讨论部分几乎未提及任何局限性。
What are the plausible causal explanations for the findings. Step four in the methods involve causal inference that connects DoJ actions to observed outcomes, but what might explain why those actions have the observed outcomes?
对于这些发现，有哪些合理的因果解释？方法中的第四步涉及将司法部行动与观察到的结果相联系的因果推断，但哪些因素可以解释这些行动为何会产生所观察到的结果？
What explains variation across different fields and subfields of science. For example, the discussion points to biochemisty having bigger impacts than fields traditionally implicated by national security concerns-is that because of something about biochemistry collaboration, or perhaps because (contrary to the statements by the authors) biochemisty is, in fact, now key to national security? None of this gets unpacked or explored in the discussion section.
是什么解释了不同科学领域及子领域间的差异？例如，讨论指出生物化学的影响比传统上因国家安全问题而受牵连的领域更大——这是因为生物化学合作本身的特性，还是因为（与作者陈述相反）生物化学实际上已成为国家安全的关键？这些在讨论部分均未得到展开或探讨。

Third, less acute and hopefully readily fixed: the policy implications seem slapdash and not well asseed in terms of practicality. There are three policy ideas advanced on the last full page of the article. One is “safe zones” for science-that idea is robust, but others have written in some detail about it. The other two-knowledge sanctuaries and also the creation of a science trust fund, with a big role for UNESCO in both-seem a lot less viable. If the problem is action by the US (demonstrated by DOJ during Trump 1.0) and reactions from other places (e.g.,
第三点，虽不那么尖锐且希望易于修正：政策影响显得草率，且在实用性方面评估不足。文章最后一整页提出了三个政策构想。其一是为科学设立“安全区”——这一构想坚实有力，但已有他人详细论述过。另外两个——知识庇护所及设立科学信托基金，两者中联合国教科文组织都扮演重要角色——可行性似乎低得多。若问题在于美国的行为（特朗普第一任期内司法部已有所展示）及其他地区的反应（例如，

China) then why would these governments agree to allow these policy responses to advance?
中国）那么这些政府为何会同意推进这些政策应对措施？

Reviewer #2:  审稿人#2：

Suitable Quality?: Yes  质量合格？：是
Sufficient General Interest?: Yes
具有普遍兴趣？：是
Conclusions Justified?: Yes
结论是否合理？：是
Clearly Written?: Yes  表述清晰？：是
Procedures Described?: Yes
程序描述清楚？：是
Supplemental Material Warranted?: No
需要补充材料吗？：否

This study introduces the concept of “weaponized interdependence” to explain how security concerns compromise global public goods. Its policy recommendations - including UNESCO-administered “knowledge sanctuaries” and tripartite PhD programs - offer practical pathways to safeguard open science while addressing legitimate security needs. The findings underscore the urgent need for governance frameworks that prevent geopolitical tensions from undermining humanity’s collective capacity to address existential challenges like climate change and pandemics. It also calls for further research into institutional adaptation strategies and the long-term epistemic consequences of collaboration fragmentation.
本研究引入“武器化的相互依存”概念，解释安全关切如何损害全球公共产品。其政策建议——包括由联合国教科文组织管理的“知识庇护所”和三方博士项目——为在满足合理安全需求的同时保护开放科学提供了可行路径。研究结果强调了迫切需要建立治理框架，以防止地缘政治紧张削弱人类共同应对气候变化和大流行病等生存挑战的能力。同时呼吁进一步研究机构适应策略及合作碎片化带来的长期认知后果。

Sufficient data/samples?: Yes
数据/样本是否充足？：是

This study provides rigorous empirical evidence on the disproportionate impact of the U.S. China Initiative on Sino-American scientific collaboration, particularly in traditionally non-sensitive fields like chemistry and materials science. Employing robust difference-in-differences (DID) analysis of global-scale bibliometric data, the study documents significant publication declines (4.1-22.1%) while revealing the persistent resilience of multilateral research collaborations.
本研究通过严谨的实证分析，揭示了“中国行动计划”对中美科学合作，特别是在化学与材料科学等传统非敏感领域的非对称性影响。基于全球规模文献计量数据的双重差分法（DID）分析表明，相关领域论文发表量显著下降（4.1%-22.1%），同时凸显了多边科研合作持续的韧性。

High resolution figure files are required for the final version of your manuscript. PNAS figure preparation guidelines state that no specific feature within an image may be enhanced, obscured, moved, removed, or introduced. The grouping or consolidation of images from multiple sources must be made explicit by the arrangement of the figure and in the figure legend. Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable if they are applied to the whole image and if they do not obscure, eliminate, or misrepresent any information present in the original, including backgrounds. Please note that our production editors may flag figures that are not in compliance with our figure policy, resulting in delays. For more information on submitting high resolution figures please review the <ahref=“https://www.pnas.org/pb-assets/authors/digitalart.pdf”>PNAS digital art guidelines</a>.
您的稿件最终版本需要提供高分辨率的图件。根据《美国国家科学院院刊》（PNAS）的图件准备指南，图像中的任何特定特征均不得被增强、模糊、移动、删除或添加。来自多个来源的图像组合或整合，必须通过图的布局和图注明确说明。若调整亮度、对比度或色彩平衡，需应用于整个图像，且不得掩盖、消除或歪曲原始图像中的任何信息（包括背景）。请注意，若图件不符合我们的图件政策，生产编辑可能会标记，从而导致延误。有关提交高分辨率图件的更多信息，请查阅PNAS 数字艺术指南。

Authors are invited to submit scientifically interesting and visually arresting cover illustrations (see the <a href=“https://www.pnas.org/content/by/year”>PNAS cover archive</a>. Cover images must be original, and exclusive rights to publish will convey to PNAS. Cover images may be used in promotional materials, including but not limited to brochures, advertisements, and posters. Cover submissions should include a brief laylanguage caption (50-60 words), credit information (e.g., photograph courtesy of…), and the manuscript number, author name, phone, and email. Images should be 21.59 cm wide by 27.94 high. Files should be .eps or .tif and in RGB (red, green, blue) color mode. Please submit electronic files with your revised manuscript in the <a href=“https://www.pnascentral.org”>PNAS online submission system</a> or to <a href="mailto:PNASCovers@nas.edu">PNASCovers@nas.edu</a> as soon as possible. If you cannot submit electronic files, or if your files are too large to email, contact the PNAS office. See the <a href=“https://www.pnas.org/author-center/submitting-your-manuscript#journal-cover-images”>Information for Authors</a> for details. Covers are selected from papers that have been assigned to an issue, after authors have returned proofs.
我们诚邀作者提交科学趣味性强且视觉冲击力强的封面插图（参见PNAS 封面档案）。封面图像必须原创，且独家出版权将授予 PNAS。封面图像可用于宣传材料，包括但不限于手册、广告和海报。封面投稿需包含简短的通俗说明（50-60 字）、图片来源信息（如“照片由…提供”）、稿件编号、作者姓名、电话及邮箱。图像尺寸应为宽 21.59 厘米，高 27.94 厘米。文件格式需为.eps 或.tif，并采用 RGB（红、绿、蓝）色彩模式。请尽快通过PNAS 在线投稿系统或发送至PNASCovers@nas.edu提交电子文件。若无法提交电子文件或文件过大无法通过邮件发送，请联系 PNAS 办公室。详情请参阅作者信息。 封面选自已分配至某一期且作者已返回校样的论文。