Does the Inclusive Financial Policy Innovation Promote Rural Revitalization—A Synthetic Control Test of a National Pilot Zone for Inclusive Financial Reform

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is well written and documents interesting results.

The methodology employed is sound and the results are clear, significant and robust.

I recommend publication of the paper with a minor revision: It is necessary to logically present the hypothesis development based on previous studies. I suggest the authors make a hypothesis or some hypotheses.

Author Response

Please see the attached file named “reviewer 1”.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is written very well and have a novelty. I suggest a major revision before final publication.

1. Please start abstract with main objectives of the study.

2. The empirical results especially related to financial Policy Innovation Promote Rural Revitalization should include in the abstract without numbering.

3. Introduction is fine, but please include a structure of article at the end of introduction. It will be easier for readers to follow the paper.

4. In section of methodology, I am concern with random error term (?). You have only written one assumption of random error term that is zero mean value. How about the variance?

In the revised paper, I strongly suggest you to modify this assumption with given studies [1,2] as “??? represents the unobservable short-term random disturbance term with a mean value of zero and constant variance [1,2].

[1] Causal inference." Causal Inference. Yale University Press, 2021

[2] Extreme weather events risk to crop-production and the adaptation of innovative management strategies to mitigate the risk

[3] Can the informal groundwater markets improve water use efficiency and equity? Evidence from a semi-arid region of Pakistan

5. Study limitations should include at the end of conclusion.

6. Recommendation for future study should write at the end of conclusion section.              

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attached file named “reviewer 2”.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

The idea of the manuscript is interesting in the context of the creation of pilot areas, which would benefit from state support with the aim of revitalising rural areas. I am sending you below a list of aspects that I do not understand concerning the content of the manuscript and which need substantial improvement. The document needs to be rearranged according to the requirements of the journal in order to provide flow.

 

1. Keywords: keywords too long

2. Introduction: the authors start from the assumption that the reader knows the new and old situation in China. China is indeed the most attractive place to analyse rural areas, but a proper introduction should be made, even for the reader who is not familiar with the rural situation of this country. I stress the need to explain certain expressions, which other readers may not be familiar with. For example: 'the fourteenth five-year plan'. It is also not clear to me what measures have been taken to revitalise (concretely). You can link to that "platform and four systems".

3. When reviewing the literature, perhaps you should also research other measures adopted by other countries in observing the measures and results achieved and whether they are comparable to your case.

4. An illustrative map with the positioning of the provinces would help considerably. Also, what was the basis for selecting these regions over other regions in China?

5. In section 2, the hypotheses should be interspersed with those passages in the text from which the hypotheses can be drawn.

6. The political aspects should be kept to a minimum, and much of the introduction gives me the impression of repetition.

7. To provide a flow to the manuscript, use the instruction manual on drafting and sectioning the paper into introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion and conclusions.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attached file named “reviewer 3”.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Although the authors provided the response to point 4 (comment 4); however, the statement/assumption is not justified by previous studies. Any statement without justification is considered vague. Therefore, I highly recommend updating the given statement with the following studies [1-3] i.e., “??? represents the unobservable short-term random interference term with zero mean and constant variance”

[1] Causal inference." Causal Inference. Yale University Press, 2021

[2] Extreme weather events risk to crop-production and the adaptation of innovative

management strategies to mitigate the risk

[3] Can the informal groundwater markets improve water use efficiency and equity?

Evidence from a semi-arid region of Pakistan

Author Response

Please see the attached file named “reviewer 2”.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

The changes made to the manuscript are good enough for it to be accepted in this form. However, it would have been interesting to introduce similar or relatively similar measures that have been taken by other countries to revitalise rural areas, as this is a widespread problem.

 

Author Response

Please see the attached file named “reviewer 3”.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper can be accepted for publication in its present form