A Mechanistic Study of the Impact of Digital Payments on Rural Household Development Resilience

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, I congratulate you on your choice of research topic. It is important both for the dynamics of scientific research and for practical use. However, I believe that some additions are necessary:

The abstract can be detailed and it is advisable that it provides as much relevant information as possible about the research presented in this article.

The abstract should be restructured in a way that also clearly includes the following elements: the context of the research, the researched population and the new contribution of the research.

In the introductory part detail the characteristics of the area and the population researched.

I am not sure that you have specified in the introduction 1. the social and economic importance and justification of the research results, 2. the importance and necessity of the intention to undertake in this area.

Detail the status of research in the area researched by the article. Add other references.

Specify the conformity of the results with other research with the same objectives. This will also improve the bibliography.

Do not identify in the article the limitations of the research and recommendations for future research. If there are none, it would be good to make these points.

The article is well structured on objectives and hypotheses. The conclusions should respond to each of these objectives.

Finally, I believe that the bibliography could be supplemented with relevant articles to frame the research in the current scientific context of the field.

I congratulate you on your valuable research! For the most part, this research would be well worth replicating in other areas and populations.

Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Professor, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper constructs the index of "Resilience of Rural Households" based on the family well-being model. The research outcome is very interesting. However, I have the following observation that can help improve the paper further:

1. Throughout the introduction section, I couldn't find any citations. Without citation, it is very difficult to verify the facts. 

2. The research gaps are not identified properly.

3. In line number 144; what are "T+0, T+1, D+0, and D+1"?

4. The basis of the hypothesis is not conclusive. The author should justify the proposed association in light of past studies.

5. The citation style is not uniform.

6.  The goodness of fit (GoF) of the model presented in Table 2 is doubtful as the R-square value is very low (0.089).

7. A saparate discussion section can be useful to discuss the study results with the subsequent study and derive the academic contribution.

8. The conclusion section should contain the limitations and future scope of the study.

. 

Author Response

Dear Professor, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All the suggestions are addressed,