Digital Rural Construction and Farmers’ Income Growth: Theoretical Mechanism and Micro Experience Based on Data from China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
need a sharper analysis related to existing policies and each discussion needs to be elaborated more deeply so that it is strongly related to the proposed framework, so that it connects with the conclusions. Tables need to be made simpler and neater
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your review. Your comments will be great help to the revision of the paper and my future research work. I have revised the paper according to your comments. For the sake of clarity, the reviewers’ comments are labeled with a (Point), and our responses to those comments are labeled with an (Response) to these comments. Thanks!
Point 1: need a sharper analysis related to existing policies and each discussion needs to be elaborated more deeply so that it is strongly related to the proposed framework, so that it connects with the conclusions.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion and we are aware of the importance of this section and we have tried to make changes in the following blocks.
First, we have added a discussion section. In this piece we focused on the marginal contribution of this paper compared to existing studies; we also added the limitations of this study.
Second, we improved the conclusions and policy implications. We removed the introduction of the digital village construction background and research methodology from the conclusion section, and reported the study conclusions directly.
Third, in parts 5 and 7, we combine the analysis with the digital village policy and research hypotheses, which makes our study more strongly related to the proposed framework.
Point 2: Tables need to be made simpler and neater
Response 2: We thank the reviewers for their suggestions for changes. We have revised the tables in the article one by one in order to make them simpler and neater.
In Table 1, we combined the variable name and variable definition columns into one column; modified the names of the three variables to make them more concise; and removed the column reporting the sample size for each variable.
In Table 2, we deleted the first column of data results, which is the Since fixed effect (UnControlled). We consider that the results of this column do not affect Baseline Regression.
In Tables 3 to 13, we also made a lot of changes, such as: changing the comments and adjusting the variable names.
In addition, we also used Layout editing from MDPI. which makes our tables more standardized.
Point 3: what is the reason for specifying 30-60 samples
Response 3: Our sampling plan is as follows: 2–4 counties (districts) were selected from each province, 2 administrative villages (communities) were selected from each county (district), and us-ing a proportion of 10%-30% according to the size of the resident population, 30–60 farmer households were randomly selected from each administrative region (community) to conduct questionnaire interview. Thanks!
Point 4: the contribution of the statement needs to be strengthened based on the comparison of previous research
Response 4: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We moved the contribution statement of this paper to the discussion in Section 8, and we also reworked the editorial contribution in comparison with existing research findings.
First using the county digital village index as a proxy variable for digital village develop-ment overcomes the endogeneity of reciprocal causation between digital rural construc-tion and farmers’ income growth.
Second, this study investigates the effects of digital rural construction on farmers’ total income and income from different sources, and explores the respective underlying mechanisms.
Third, this study examines the ef-fects of digital rural construction on farmers’ income growth at the household, village, and re-gion levels un-der different conditions, and thereby confirms to some extent that the same level of digital village development provides different benefits to different farmers, leading to higher reli-ability of the conclusions being drawn.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is an actual original scientific work with a clear logical structure, adequate research methods and meaningful results. It is possible to note small recommendations for the authors. In the current version of the article, already in the introduction, the authors present their conclusions based on the results of the study. It seems more reasonable to leave the statement of the research question and the purpose of the study in the introduction, and in conclusion to give more detailed conclusions based on the results of theoretical and empirical analysis. Along with highlighting the recommendations in the context of digitalization policy (policy implications), it also makes sense to outline in more detail the limitations of current work and directions for further research.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is an actual original scientific work with a clear logical structure, adequate research methods and meaningful results. It is possible to note small recommendations for the authors. In the current version of the article, already in the introduction, the authors present their conclusions based on the results of the study. It seems more reasonable to leave the statement of the research question and the purpose of the study in the introduction, and in conclusion to give more detailed conclusions based on the results of theoretical and empirical analysis. Along with highlighting the recommendations in the context of digitalization policy (policy implications), it also makes sense to outline in more detail the limitations of current work and directions for further research.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your review. Your comments will be great help to the revision of the paper and my future research work. I have revised the paper according to your comments. For the sake of clarity, the reviewers’ comments are labeled with a (Point), and our responses to those comments are labeled with an (Response) to these comments. Thanks!
Point 1: The article is an actual original scientific work with a clear logical structure, adequate research methods and meaningful results.
Response 1: We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers for our article, which was considered to be a meaningful study. We have revised the article in various ways, for example. added discussion section, refined conclusions and policy implication、 improved the language expression, made tables simpler and neater, enriched references. These efforts would make our papers more standardized and complete.
Point 2: It is possible to note small recommendations for the authors. In the current version of the article, already in the introduction, the authors present their conclusions based on the results of the study. It seems more reasonable to leave the statement of the research question and the purpose of the study in the introduction, and in conclusion to give more detailed conclusions based on the results of theoretical and empirical analysis.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestions, to which we have made the following changes.
First, in the introduction, we removed the marginal contribution content of the paper; briefly reported the findings and focused on the research questions and the purpose of the study.
Second, in the conclusion and policy implications section, we delete the contents of the research background and research methodology, and focus on reporting the findings of this paper and explaining the policy implications specifically.
Third, we add a discussion section that reports the marginal contributions of this study as well as limitations.
Point 3: The article is an actual original scientific work with a clear logical structure, adequate research methods and meaningful results.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. In Section 8 we add a discussion section for presenting the marginal contributions of this paper and the limitations of this study. For limitations of the study: First, this study not examines the effect of digital rural construction at the village level on farmers’ income growth. However, the level of digital rural construction varied greatly among villages. Moreover, only one year of data was used. Therefore, a more comprehensive and extensive analysis is needed in future re-search. Second, digital rural construction needs to adapt to factors such as local economic development and rural mode of production and lifestyle. Therefore, the results of this study are more suitable for developing countries. Lastly, digital rural con-struction not only affects farmers’ income growth, but also affects their income gap, relative poverty, and subjective well-being. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct interdisciplinary research combining economics and sociology in the future. Combined with the ideas of this article, it can provide a definite direction for the construction and development of digital villages.
Kind regards,
Your sincerely, the authors
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The review of sources focuses more on the research of Chinese authors. Attention should also be paid to other studies, for example, by European scientists, US scientists, etc.
2. It is not entirely clear to whom the recommendations made in the conclusions aimed at the development of digital villages are addressed.
3. The author should point out the limitations of the study and its conclusions. To what extent the conclusions can be used to form smart villages in other countries. Or can these conclusions be used exclusively for Chinese villages? What should be the basic conditions for the implementation of the proposed recommendations?
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your review. Your comments will be great help to the revision of the paper and my future research work. I have revised the paper according to your comments. For the sake of clarity, the reviewers’ comments are labeled with a (Point), and our responses to those comments are labeled with an (Response) to these comments. Thanks!
Point 1: The review of sources focuses more on the research of Chinese authors. Attention should also be paid to other studies, for example, by European scientists, US scientists, etc.
Response 1: We added literature closely related to the research topic, some literatures with weak correlation were deleted. We also enriched references from different regions such as: Africa, Asia. thanks.
Point 2: It is not entirely clear to whom the recommendations made in the conclusions aimed at the development of digital villages are addressed.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. In this article, China, as an example of the study, has good demonstration effect. For digital rural construction needs to adapt to factors such as local economic de-velopment and rural mode of production and lifestyle. Therefore, the results of this study are more suitable for developing countries.
Point 3: The author should point out the limitations of the study and its conclusions. To what extent the conclusions can be used to form smart villages in other countries. Or can these conclusions be used exclusively for Chinese villages? What should be the basic conditions for the implementation of the proposed recommendations?
Response 3: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We added the limitations of the study: First, this study not examines the effect of digital rural construction at the village level on farmers’ income growth. However, the level of digital rural construction varied greatly among villages. Moreover, only one year of data was used. Therefore, a more comprehensive and extensive analysis is needed in future re-search. Second, digital rural construction needs to adapt to factors such as local economic development and rural mode of production and lifestyle. Therefore, the results of this study are more suitable for developing countries. Lastly, digital rural con-struction not only affects farmers’ income growth, but also affects their in-come gap, rela-tive poverty, and subjective well-being. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct interdiscipli-nary research combining economics and sociology in the future. thanks.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much for the author who has responded well, and the revision of the manuscript has shown comprehensive results. the elaboration of the existing conditions, policy implications and research deficiencies have also been well described in the discussion sub-chapter.
