Internet Development and Green Total Factor Productivity: New Evidence of Mediation and Threshold Effects
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
How can Internet development contribute to green total factor productivity improvement?
In this manuscript, the author examines the impact of Internet development on green total factor productivity and its mechanism of action using a two-way fixed effects panel model. Besides, based on the findings and conclusions, the author also put forward several valuable suggestions to the society. More importantly, this manuscript provides some weakness and additional work that should be completed in the future.
However, I suggest that the title of this manuscript had better not be a question but a statement, so I suggest should think twice on it.
To sum up, considering the overall quality and the standard of this journal, I suggest that this manuscript should be rejected.
As for the English grammar of the manuscript, there are some general issues which should be considered by the authors to avoid confusion. In my opinion, some sentences should be simplified making the text (which is not always clear) easier to understand. There are a lot of minor grammar mistakes/typos, which can be solved by the careful proof-reading. I strongly recommend the authors go through the manuscript very carefully to straighten these issues out.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper entitled “How can Internet development contribute to green total factor
productivity improvement?” is interesting to read and contributed significantly to the era of digital economy. The following suggestions should be carefully addressed by the author(s) in order to make the study more obvious in accordance with conventional research procedures and to raise the article's quality in accordance with the journal's research principles:
1. Abstract: Please add problem statement in first sentence.
2. Please check carefully for instance “the threshold effect finds that the threshold effect finds that” are twice in the abstract.
3. The author used “Internet development” in the abstract while in keywords “internet development” need to thoroughly proofread the manuscript.
4. Need to proper referencing as per journal style.
5. Increase the study's contribution and its uniqueness.
6. Improve the literature review section by including recent research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2023.106194
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2021.11.010
7. Some of the policy proposals are general; the author should provide recommendations that are unique to China.
8. Please make a separate table of abbreviations/acronyms.
9. English needs improvement.
Need improvement
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
sustainability-2508653-peer-review-v1
How can Internet development contribute to green total factor productivity improvement?.
In this paper, author shares a study on internet development contribute to green total factor productivity improvement. This is an ordinary manuscript. There is no strong result and application in this manuscript. Further, please consider some additional, specific comments such as:
1. In this paper, author attempts to The main question is to propose an internet development platform to green total factor productivity improvement, In the era of digital economy,
2. Page 1-2: In this paper, the author did not clearly identify the gap in the recent research in the topic, what is the new in the current article and add them at the end of the introduction. Author should update the introduction section deeply by stating the gaps of the existing study and then highlight the major results. The method is not just about lack of novelty, but it is far away from the research frontier in this field. The model is not for a scientific paper but for a classroom exercise
3. Page 17-20: The manuscript needs to be revised in some parts, in order to make an effective contribution for the knowledge advance in the research area. In other words, the reviewer has not sufficient elements to understand the real contribution of this work. More explanation about the methods used in this field and the advantages and disadvantages of each method, therefore, should be added in the introduction section.
4. Page 2-7: Author is advised to set up a clear Purpose as well as a detailed research methodology. The methodology section is weak. Author should clearly mention the methodology and reasons for using it, which is missing.
5. The conclusion section is not well-informed. In the current version, this section is very large, just like the introduction. Please revise it. Please mention the limitations of this model clearly and provide outlines to overcome those limitations.
6. The references are not formatted. Ref. [56, 59]. It reads like a mess. The references cited in the text don’t correspond to the references themselves. When this list gets too long, readers lose interest to read further. I also notice some references contain errors, missing or incorrect information, and inconsistent formatting. The authors should correct this with the best care.
7. Results and discussion section: The paper presented and explained all the key findings but they did not discuss the findings with the help of previous published papers. Author(s) discussed their results very well but in a scientific paper, it is required to cover all the aspects and provide and cite the similar work of other researchers. I think the author(s) need to polish this section, which will help to further highlight the researchers' work.
8. In the simulation part, more design parameters are recommended. A detailed discussion of the figures and tables are helpful to illustrate the results.
9. In the article, there is not a single figure. Obviously, this does not meet the requirements of high-quality journals. In addition, the author must use figures as much as possible to highlight their contributions.
***
The English and syntax of the article are not satisfactory.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Notes are attached below
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The present state of the manuscript is acceptable.
No.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. Based on your comment, we have used the language editing service provided by MDPI Journals and the ID is 69369. We believe that the manuscript has been greatly improved and hope it has reached your magazines' standard.
Reviewer 3 Report
The author has addressed almost all my comments in a professional manner. The same are also implemented in the revised manuscript. As a reviewer, I am satisfied with the reply of my comments and concerns.
Author Response
Dear Editor:
We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. Based on your comment, we have reviewed the paper again and fixed the grammatical errors. In addition, we have used the language editing service provided by MDPI Journals and the ID is 69369. We believe that the manuscript has been greatly improved and hope it has reached your magazines' standard.
