The Coupling Coordination Degree and Spatial Correlation Analysis of the Digital Economy and Sports Industry in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author/s,

 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read your paper. The paper “The Spatial and Temporal Evolution and Spatial Correlation Pattern of the Integration and Development of the Digital Economy and Sports Industry in China” is interesting for journal readers. But following changes should be done before the consideration to improve the quality of the paper:

 Title is too long, make it shorter and sharper…

Abstract: I suggest authors to rewrite the abstract to make it more constructive. Abstract should have at least one sentence per each: context and background, motivation, hypothesis, methods, results, conclusions. Need to reorganize the abstract..

) The introduction part of the study needs improvement and story flow and the authors need to give proper contributions to their study.
2. I noticed that the novelty of this paper is not described in detail. This should be put in the introduction section properly.
3. There is a need to do a more rigorous and systematic literature review. The authors should clearly mention the literature gap.
4. I would like to suggest that authors should update the introduction, literature, and results part. Specifically, the latest research trends, and in order to highlight the academic frontier of the research, the references of the recent year need to be referenced.
5. How did the authors get from the theoretical model to the empirical one? Behind the model there need to be a complete and well-thought-out theoretical grounding. This part of the article shouldn't include any citations or references; rather, it should be structured according to the authors' reasoning. The empirical model will come when this part has been completed.
6. The authors have only presented the findings, with no explanation of their economic reasoning. Do these findings validate or disprove the current policy framework? Are any new policy measures planned as a result of the findings? Discussion of the findings, which is conspicuously absent here, is meant to spark debate on policy. If the results don't offer anything new in terms of theory or policy, then a simple comparison with the literature won't prove their originality.
7. It would be appropriate to indicate future research directions and limitations of this at the end of the conclusion section just before references. Need clear future recommendation/implementation in the context of uncertainty. Please visit also https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816619888346

8. Poor references format: authors should address this issue in the revised draft. Kindly follow the right style of citation (references) throughout the manuscript by checking the guidelines of journal or any previously published paper in the journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your comments on our manuscript (sustainability-2031066). The comments have provided excellent suggestions and helped us to improve the manuscript. We have revised this manuscript and update the abstract, introduction, literature, conclusion, added the contribution, structure of the work, limitations and future research. Because the above changes, the former title “The Spatial and Temporal Evolution and Spatial Correlation Pattern of the Integration and Development of the Digital Economy and Sports Industry in China” has been changed into “The Coupling Coordination Degree and Spatial Correlation Analysis of the Digital Economy and Sports Industry in China” in the revised manuscript. All revisions to the manuscript have marked up using the “Track Changes” function.

Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript. Our point-by-point responses to your comments are listed below. If you have any questions about this paper, please let me know.

We are looking forward to receiving your final decision.

Best wishes

Ya-wei Wang

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your comments on our manuscript (sustainability-2031066). The comments have provided excellent suggestions and helped us to improve the manuscript. We have revised this manuscript and update the abstract, introduction, literature, conclusion, added the contribution, structure of the work, limitations and future research. Because the above changes, the former title “The Spatial and Temporal Evolution and Spatial Correlation Pattern of the Integration and Development of the Digital Economy and Sports Industry in China” has been changed into “The Coupling Coordination Degree and Spatial Correlation Analysis of the Digital Economy and Sports Industry in China” in the revised manuscript. All revisions to the manuscript have marked up using the “Track Changes” function.

Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript. Our point-by-point responses to your comments are listed below. If you have any questions about this paper, please let me know.

We are looking forward to receiving your final decision.

Best wishes

Ya-wei Wang

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article submitted to «Sustainability» journal, but it not reflected sustainability.

The abstract is weak. Kindly enhance it by including novelty and need of the study.

Please, show why your topic will be interesting not only to Chinese readers, but also to readers of other countries.

The relevance of the topic is weak in the introduction, the connection with previous studies on this and related topics is poorly shown.

What does a quantitative guideline for decision-making mean?

The purpose of the study is far from the title of the article.

Include research questions and hypotheses.

The paper does not mention any theoretical or anecdotal evidences which actually justify the selection of the variables in the context of used economy.

The authors applied the Entropy Weight Method, but did not explain what other methods could be used and why they chose this method. Entropy Weight Method is often criticized (https://www.hindawi.com/journals/mpe/2020/3564835/).

Three years is too short a time to draw conclusions about evolution. We can only talk about changes. Perhaps the authors will choose another term?

Add links p. 3, p. 6, p. 8, p. 10, p. 14, p. 18, p. 19

The connection between the digital economy and the sports industry is poorly disclosed In paragraph 1.3.2.

Check the brackets in Table 2, Coupling Coordination Degree Value.

The Figure 3 repeated twice, on page 13 and on page 14.

The result and discussion section are very much disorganized. The authors should clearly state which studies are in line with their findings and which contradicts.

 In paragraph 4.1, expand in more detail what the combined development of the digital economy and the sports industry means

The result and discussion section are very much disorganized. The authors should clearly state which studies are in line with their findings and which contradicts.

What new results were obtained.

Include more limitations and future research directions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your comments on our manuscript (sustainability-2031066). The comments have provided excellent suggestions and helped us to improve the manuscript. We have revised this manuscript and update the abstract, introduction, literature, conclusion, added the contribution, structure of the work, limitations and future research. Because the above changes, the former title “The Spatial and Temporal Evolution and Spatial Correlation Pattern of the Integration and Development of the Digital Economy and Sports Industry in China” has been changed into “The Coupling Coordination Degree and Spatial Correlation Analysis of the Digital Economy and Sports Industry in China” in the revised manuscript. All revisions to the manuscript have marked up using the “Track Changes” function.

Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript. Our point-by-point responses to your comments are listed below. If you have any questions about this paper, please let me know.

We are looking forward to receiving your final decision.

Best wishes

Ya-wei Wang

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,
Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript.

The purpose of this manuscript is to provide a quantitative decision-making reference for the integration of the digital economy and sports industry to improve the quality and efficiency of the sports industry. To achieve this purpose, the authors analyzed: (i) the spatial and temporal evolutionary characteristics of the integration of the digital economy and sports industry in China; and (ii) the correlation and spatial agglomeration effect of the integration of the digital economy and sports industry in 30 provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the central government of China. It follows that the paper addresses a very interesting and topical issue, with a very interesting empirically analysis. However, from my point of view, the authors must:

-emphasize and highlight their main contribution;

-explain the results based on the literature; and

-convince the reader about the value added to their results.

Overall, I evaluate the study very positively and I recomend the publication after revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your comments on our manuscript (sustainability-2031066). The comments have provided excellent suggestions and helped us to improve the manuscript. We have revised this manuscript and update the abstract, introduction, literature, conclusion, added the contribution, structure of the work, limitations and future research. Because the above changes, the former title “The Spatial and Temporal Evolution and Spatial Correlation Pattern of the Integration and Development of the Digital Economy and Sports Industry in China” has been changed into “The Coupling Coordination Degree and Spatial Correlation Analysis of the Digital Economy and Sports Industry in China” in the revised manuscript. All revisions to the manuscript have marked up using the “Track Changes” function.

Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript. Our point-by-point responses to your comments are listed below. If you have any questions about this paper, please let me know.

We are looking forward to receiving your final decision.

Best wishes

Ya-wei Wang

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

accept

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have done the needful on all the comments raised. I am pleased to recommend. I am pleased to recommend the paper for publication. 

Congratulations!

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors done good job. Article is better then early and can be published.