The Spatial Spillover Effect of Logistics and Manufacturing Co-Agglomeration on Regional Economic Resilience: Evidence from China’s Provincial Panel Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Summary: This paper studies the spatial dimensions of logistics and manufacturing coordination-cum-agglomeration on the resilience of different Chinese provinces.
General Comments: I find the conclusion particularly infirm because it does not apply to countries other than China. Can the same conclusion be applied to India? It also seems like the literature review is written by two persons with some overlapping, and the coauthors are advised to reorganize it according to the distinctive contributions.
I do not accept annual growth rate of GDP as a metric to gauge economic resilience, because it is a measure of economic growth and not corroborated by the literature. I think resilience should be measured by higher order moments of changes in GDP, such as (moving averages) of standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis, to see if external shocks would make regional economies more volatile, unbalanced, and unstable, by which you may contemplate ARIMA model of lagged variables.
Specific Comments: [.] denotes the specific line number(s).
[10] You should double check all grammar. For example, the “data is consisted of” should employ passive voice, because the data is passively described by you.
[15,376,428] I would say “promoting effects” are subjective because you aim to show off the good side of it. On the flip side, “stimulating effects” to be more objective.
[26] “social demand” itself is awkward. Hire an English reader to proofread your text.
[33] Make sure you don’t have the same word “improving” two times in a row.
[35] Should it read as “and as a result” where a connective is missing out?
[37] “war” is too restrictive, and as an alternative, you should say “armed conflict”.
[39] The same pervasive problem of missing a connective here; please double check.
[42] If it attracts attention from the academia, then why I see no citations related to it?
[45] “return” has the sense of going back that is not always the case; use “reorient”.
[51] “helps” is a transitive verb in this context; so my advise is to remove “to”.
[56] This is where “and” must be inserted because your sentence appears too long!
[58] It is imperative to cite 3 to 5 references on theoretical and practical grounds.
[62,439] This should be seamlessly integrated into the next paragraph not standing alone so that it follows naturally from the flow of your article.
[63] This is too much over to say “it deserves”, but I would say “sparse attention”.
[71] The third one is not a contribution per-se if you check the literature thoroughly.
[74] If you mention a novel model, provide citations the first time you mention it.
[86] I think “revert to” is more accurate than “restore to its original growth path”.
[107,147] Can you make sure all your citations follow the most appropriate format?
[124-127] Should your contribution here be agglomerated into lines 62 to 75?
[162] “… is heterogenous in different regions”.
[185] Why “informatization level” is double counted?
[186] Should the constant term C be italicized?
[196,198,199] Why the time index t is not italicized?
[197] Why would there be an empty space in between?
[201] Why you use a larger font for this sentence?
[202,241,332,338,339,368,369,423,431] You either use “and” or end with a full-stop.
[217] I think it should be “pay raise” not “wage rise”.
[218] … hence forcing … and encouraging …
[222] If it is a policy, you must cite statutory documents.
[235] Beyond defining this variable, why it merits to serve as a control in your model?
[243] What is PIM method? Before you ever abbreviate, you must define clearly.
[244] Please clarify the base of the logarithm. Is natural logarithm being used?
[249] I don’t understand what “releasing domestic demand” means; please clarify.
[253] If you say “main variables”, are there any auxiliary variables that you use? If not, please redefine the caption as “… of dependent and independent variables”.
[255] Can you paraphrase so that “whether” does not appear two times in a row?
[260] Why you choose not to show the results in the table? At least in an appendix!
[268] Can you search the literature to see the closest application of the same test?
[277-80,391] I find it unwelcoming to have inconsistent fonts in texts and formulas.
[279,333,335,338] Can you clarify whether it’s spatial Dubin or Doberman model?
[295] Taiwan is not part of the data, so please remove the mentioning of this place.
[299] Where have you defined the Eastern, Central, and Western region by provinces?
[323] Can you add a random effect model as column (5) for robustness check?
[332] You should say “applied to the data”.
[349] You should use “respectively” to separately relay the results.
[351] Why would there be a redundant borderline beneath column 2?
[359] Can you show them in a map to better the understanding of broader readers?
[368] You are puffing off by “very well developed”; use “are sophisticated”.
[371] How to interpret “outside world”; do you mean countries outside China?
[377] What do you mean by “country overall”; do you mean “the entire nation”?
[383] Do you mean “a significant factor”?
[385] Do you intend to say “it does not exhibit a similar effect…”
[418] The models do not degenerate by themselves but “be degenerated”.
[454] For each point, please provide a plethora of policy studies to back up.
[464] “… because of the lack of …”
[466] Can you hint some “other methods” to aide future researchers?
Author Response
Please see the revision report in the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
General Remarks:
The manuscript used spatial econometric models to empirically analyze the impact of LMCA (Logistics and manufacturing industries’ collaborative agglomeration) on EcoResi (economic resilience) with provincial panel data, explores the spatial spillover effect of LMCA on EcoResi, providing a theoretical basis for improving EcoResi. The paper is a bit scattered in its focus. The author needs to provide a clearer explanation of the methodology section. In my opinion the focus of the article should be on the spatial Dubin model to explore the impact between LMCA and EcoResi.
Major Comments:
Besides several minor comments detailed below, I suggest to perform major revisions focusing on the following four main aspects:
1. Improve your English writing throughout the manuscript, preferably with the help of a native speaker.
2. The article emphasizes that: “in the literature there are relatively few studies that specifically focus on LMCA.” However, this is not enough as a beginning of a research. Try to discuss more about the necessity of separating the logistics business from the manufacturing industry and more practical research implications.
3. The manuscript needs to be reorganized. Especially the third section.
4. The article uses many tables to describe the results, but the tables look laborious. Can you add some figures to describe the results? I believe that in this way, the readability of the articles will be better.
Specific comments:
Lines 67-71：I think the second point is the research content of the article, not the main contribution of the article. I suggest deleting or modifying it.
Line 335 and line 338: There are two different expressions. Is it the “spatial Doberman model” or “spatial Dubin model”? Please unify this word throughout the article.
Lines 181-186：I don't seem to see an explanation of α and β in this lines.
Lines 197-200：Please carefully check for any formatting errors here.Whtat’s the meanning of “is calculated by location entropy”?
Lines 206-209：What are the specific reasons for chossing these nine control variables? As you mentioned earlier, EcoResi has many influencing factors. Why did you choose these nine factors? Is it because of the reference to the research of Tang et al’s research?
Lines 316-322：I'm sorry that I didn't see any explanation about the "time fixed effect model" and "individual fixed effect model" earlier, so I can't understand what the specific approach here is.
Lines 357-359：The analysis in sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 has already divided the study area, so why is the specific division mentioned here? Please make structural modifications.
Lines 289-196: It is recommended to place the data sources of 3.2 before 3.1, as the foundation of the data is the subsequent method analysis.
Line 262: Table 2 already shows the Moran coefficient, while section 3.1.5 explains how to calculate the Moran index. The content of this section is not clear, and it is recommended to revise it again.
Author Response
Please see the revision report in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1) The paper highlights its contributions regarding agglomeration and regional economic resilience. It has important contributions. However, sectoral linkages, role of sectoral growth, their backward and forward linkages and the importance of it...All these topics are discussed and are central in development economics. Authors could have been unaware of it and I believe that extending the paper in terms of economic development theories and also regional development links would be very important. As of it is, I see that this is missing. The paper must be improved both in the introduction, literature and in addition in a discussion and conclusion, with this respect. For that, I suggest a research with keywords balanced unbalanced sector Hirschman. In this literature, Hirschman, Rosenstein-Rodan, Tinbergen, Nurkse are important contributions. The paper must be improved with their theories by linking the paper to economic development and the proposals of the paper regards to sectoral coworks, links, regional development.
2) Just above 2. Literature Review, the sections of paper should be stated in a very short 2 sentence paraghraph.
3) Some of the variables such as FDI could be country specific or they are understood as they are. Regional variables are preferred in a spatial model. I assume they are regional because annotation is FDIR, where R stands for it. However, it is not in the description of the variable.
4) Similar to above, openness.
5) Calculation of LNK resembles beta convergence. It it the purpose? If not, it should be discussed. Also relation to spillover effects between regions should be discussed.
6) What does p25... stand for in Table 1? No explanation made.
7) Data sources is at the very end, it should be before Descriptive statistics part.
8) Spatial unit root tests and spatial dependence tests are missing. They are necessary to continue the analysis. Example papers:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25146519
https://www.princeton.edu/~umueller/SPUR.pdf
As noted in the final paper above, "...t spurious regression is as much a problem with spatial I(1) data as it
is with time series I(1) data..."
Without unit root testing, the results would be spurious regressions. Further analysis with regression results cannot be justified without them.
9) In line 259, authors stated that "The 259
other variables also passed spatial autocorrelation test but the results don’t show in the 260
table." It could have been added in the appendix since they are central to form the regression models' specification in spatial econometrics.
10) Adjusted R square must be reported. Tables note standard R square. Low R square should be further discussed. What other factors are omitted and why? Are there omitted variable biases due to these variables? Test results should be added. In the paper, missing.
11) There is a (7) above line at 391. Must be typo.
12) Divide Discussion and Conclusion into two sections. Discussion in a seperate sub heading, followed by the final capital heading of conclusion. In the discussion, bridges to existent literature is missing or not enough. It should be extended to this end. Do you confirm any results of others? Contradict any? What are the implications on the regional development following the contrasting results obtained in this study? By discussing it, the contribution and difference of the paper could be further highlighted.
After that, a shortened conclusion section is preferred. Policy recommendations should be added.
13) The final paragraph between lines 462-467 states what we can do as authors of this paper in the future or it is what is is understood by the reader. It should be revised. Instead of we as authors (as they), authors should make suggestions for future studies that other researchers are suggested to do.
Because, as of it is, it sounds as if the paper is not finished in the meaning that we had more to do in mind but we cannot do it, we plan to do it in another paper. This type of approach could be accepted in a conference paper.
14) The following papers could be used to be cited and to be used in the discussion section. In turnitin, each yielded 2% similarity. (Total similarity is 22% of the paper). By using these papers and citing them, the percentage should be decreased below 20% which I suggest.
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/6/5543
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/16/10434
Author Response
Please see the revision report in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 201: "... the following ... "
Line 205: "... in the base year as an indicator ... "
Line 223: "... in the nation that also serves as a ..."
Line 274: "poor" is derogatory; consider using "scarce".
Line 283: you are not "lagging regions" but "regions that are lagging behind".
Line 383: the word "double" is misspelt
Line 384: "..., and the results ..."
Line 386: "... significantly and positively correlated ..."
Line 478: Weird to say "personality characteristics"; simply, "characteristics".
Line 480: "linking various links" paraphrased into "forming linkages between"
Line 554: I would say "field study with questionnaire surveys, ..."
Line 559: It may not "aim to expand" but "pave the road for expanding.. "
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam,
We would like to thank you for the constructive comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript and carefully addressed all your comments and requests. We hope you find the revisions satisfactory; however, if there are further questions and suggestions, we are more than happy to make further revisions. Please find the revision report in the attachment.
Sincerely yours,
Haojun
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
All my major concerns have been addressed, but I still have one suggestion. In the Conclusion section, please write your main findings and key conclusions directly. Lines 525-559 can be moved to the discussion section in the current conclusion.
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam,
We would like to thank you for the constructive comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript and carefully addressed all your comments and requests. We hope you find the revisions satisfactory; however, if there are further questions and suggestions, we are more than happy to make further revisions.
Sincerely yours,
Haojun
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
the paper is revised following all of the critiques directed. All points are addressed and integrated to the last version of the paper. My decision is positive.
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for the positive decision!
We would like to thank you again for your constructive comments and suggestions, which help us significantly improve the manuscript.
All the best,
Haojun
