The Impact of High-Speed Railway on China’s Regional Economic Growth Based on the Perspective of Regional Heterogeneity of Quality of Place

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

very interesting article. I have attached my thoughts below.

1. Could you please mention in your article something more about the administrative division of China? There are different divisions in each country and it is difficult for a reader from a different area to relate. In your summary, you mention prefectures. Are you able to relate it, for example, to the number of inhabitants or the surface of the area?
2. Point 1, last paragraph 1: I do not understand this paragraph (The significance of this study is to find out more about the High-Speed Rail of China, quality of place, an urban agglomeration, regional economic development of China.), could I ask you to write it down in a different form.
3. There is no reference in the content of the article to figure 4. Besides, it has not been described in the content, which makes its reception difficult - I would ask you to supplement the description of this figure in the article. The same remark applies to the remaining figures and tables. 
   
4. Point 3 - all of symbols that are variables should be italicized.
5. Point 3 - some of symbols in formula 1 and 2 are not described in the text. Please note that e.g. Cn is not the same as C_n^μ.
   
6. Point 4.3 - there is a formula without comment.
7. Point 5.1 and 5.7 - problem with references.
8. Point 5.2 and 5.3 - in the text there are some abbreviations, which are not describe in the text.
9. Numbering of figures in the text is incorrect.
10. All of references should be written in the same form.

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

Thank you for your review and comments.

Please see the attachment 

Regards

Prithvi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Brief summary.

The significance of this study is to find out more about the High-Speed Rail of China, quality of place, an urban agglomeration and regional economic development of China. The paper presents important economic and policy implications at the prefecture-level. 

Broad comments 

Recent top journal references support the literature review. Nevertheless, the variables used in the methodology are not supported by the theoretical background.

The theoretical model presented (equation 15) is not used in the construction of the empirical exercise. To avoid this incoherence, we suggest supporting the same research hypotheses on a robust theoretical framework directly linked to the methodology's variables.

Section 5.1 - too extensive and detailed.

Section 5.2 – the adequability of PSM to the data and its advantages compared to other techniques, deserves discussion.

Section 5.11 – A direct discussion of the results obtained from the empirical analysis is missing. The results are described but not analysed and truly discussed in this section.

Specific comments 

Several flaws, like "Error! Reference source not found", were found in the paper. A revised submission of the work is recommended.

Low-quality figures. 

Author Response

Respected Reviewer

Thank you for your review and comments.

"Please see the attachment."

Regards

Prithvi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper entitled “The impact of high-speed railway on China’s economic growth. Based on the perspective of regional heterogeneity of quality-of-place” examines the relationship between high-speed railway, quality of place and economic growth, focusing on the prefecture-level and covering the period 2008-2013. To this end, the paper utilizes propensity score matching, difference-in-difference analysis, and regression analysis. The paper contains original scientific work and is, certainly, welcomed in the literature.

The paper has a great potential. The narrative is well-written, the topic is more than relevant and interesting, the motivation is clearly stated, English language is solid, the chosen variables are adequate, and the findings are comprehensive. Here are some comments.

• The authors may select a more “attractive” title.
• The authors may better explain why they choose the period 2008-2013. Is there a lack of data for the more recent years? Is there some other particular reason?
• Does the methodology of the paper apply to developing countries only?
• There are some errors with respect to the parathesis of the references in the main text.

Author Response

Respected Reviewer

Thank you for your review and comments.

"Please see the attachment."

Regards

Prithvi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your response. Below is a reference to your answers.

1. I can't agree with your opinion that "Every researcher uses the prefecture level cities as there are less data for other areas." I do not use such a division because in my country it is different. The journal is international and so are the readers and reviewers. Not everyone needs to know the administrative division of China. The article should be understandable to a wide audience.

2. (Response 3) It is not known which part of the text refers to the figure 4 (and others) . There is no mention of this drawing (and the others) in the text of the article.
3. (Response 4) All of symbols that are variables still are not italicized.
4. (Response 5) Please show me in the formula (1) where is the variable "Cn" in the form "Cn". I see only "Cn^µ". It is not the same symbol.
5. (Response 6) Please show me where is the explanation of symbols like α, β₁ and others.
6. (Response 7): "Error! Reference source not found." in PDF file.

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

Thank you for your review and comments.

Please see the attachment

Regards

Prithvi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors improved the manuscript and were successful in answering the referee's questions.

Reviewer 3 Report

I believe that the current version of the paper is suitable for publication in Sustainability.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

-