Digital Economy, Clean Energy Consumption, and High-Quality Economic Development: The Case of China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

This paper analyzes the impact mechanism of the digital economy on China's high-quality economic development by sorting out the mechanism of the digital economy on high-quality economic development and explores the mediating effect of cleaner energy consumption based on the panel dataset of 30 provinces and municipalities.

The authors framed the research on a proper structure.

Optimization of the text with respect to font and spacing is necessary.

Table 8. Instrumental variable regression results – need reconsideration. Need “-“ or “0.00” for empty spaces and Control variables/ Fixed effects must have YES for both columns.

 In the conclusions section, the authors must also reflect on the validation of the 4 hypotheses.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corretions to our previous manuscript, the detailed corrections are listed below. All revisions to the manuscript are marked up using the "Track Changes" fuction.

(1)Optimization of the text with respect to font and spacing is necessary.
The changes we made: we have optimized this, adjusting the size of formulas and special symbols in the article to make it more comfortable to look at.

(2)Table 8. Instrumental variable regression results – need reconsideration. Need “-“ or “0.00” for empty spaces and Control variables/ Fixed effects must have YES for both columns.
The changes we made: we filled in the empty spaces with "-" as you suggested, and filled in both columns with YES in Control variables/ Fixed effects.

(3)In the conclusions section, the authors must also reflect on the validation of the 4 hypotheses.
The changes we made: we reorganize the research results and their corresponding policy implications, and discuss them point-to-point in combination with the research hypothesis.(line:664-725)

On behalf of all the contributing authors, I would like to express our sincere appreciations of your constructive comments concerning our article entitled "Digital Economy, Clean Energy Consumption and High-Quality Economic Development"(Manuscript No.2544047). These comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our article. Also, We found an English editing service and made grammatical changes to the manuscript.Once again, we would like to express our sincere thanks to you and hope you will be satisfied with our revised manuscript.

Best regards,
Jie Zhang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Dear Authors,

the research problem addressed in the manuscript is very up-to-date, interesting and presents valuable research results. To increase its value to readers, the following amendments are suggested:

1. Due to the scope of research, it is worth adding "the case of China" in the title

2. Section 2. Theoretical basis and research hypothesis should be developed. I suggest dividing the theoretical basis into subsections relating to "the relationship and transmission mechanism of digital economy, cleaner energy consumption and high-quality economic development". It is also worth developing each of the hypotheses separately, because at this point it is difficult to understand the basis for formulating each of them.

3. Results should be discussed in relation to the results of the literature review presented in section 2.

4. In Conclusiosn, it is worth pointing out future research directions

I hope these suggestions will be helpful in improving your article.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corretions to our previous manuscript, the detailed corrections are listed below. All revisions to the manuscript are marked up using the "Track Changes" fuction.

(1)Due to the scope of research, it is worth adding "the case of China" in the title
The changes we made: we add "the case of China" in the title. 

(2)Section 2. Theoretical basis and research hypothesis should be developed. I suggest dividing the theoretical basis into subsections relating to "the relationship and transmission mechanism of digital economy, cleaner energy consumption and high-quality economic development". It is also worth developing each of the hypotheses separately, because at this point it is difficult to understand the basis for formulating each of them.
The changes we made: in the section of "2.Theoretical basis and research hypothesis", we reviewed the relevant literature and put forward the research hypothesis according to the relevant literature to make it more clear.(line:121-193)

(3)Results should be discussed in relation to the results of the literature review presented in section 2.
The changes we made: we conducted an in-depth analysis and sorting of the empirical results again, and cited relevant literature for analysis to enrich the discussion of the research results combined with literature review, and further discussed the impact of digital economy and clean energy consumption on global carbon emissions, expanded the current status of carbon economy inequality between developing and developed countries caused by ICT, and explored the formulation of emission reduction strategies by comparing the total carbon emissions of various countries.(line:450-501,565-610)

(4)In Conclusiosn, it is worth pointing out future research directions
The changes we made: we reorganize the research results and their corresponding policy implications, and discuss them point-to-point in combination with the research hypothesis, and put forward some ideas about the possible directions for future research.(line:667-731)

On behalf of all the contributing authors, I would like to express our sincere appreciations of your constructive comments concerning our article entitled "Digital Economy, Clean Energy Consumption and High-Quality Economic Development"(Manuscript No.2544047). These comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our article. Also, We found an English editing service and made grammatical changes to the manuscript.Once again, we would like to express our sincere thanks to you and hope you will be satisfied with our revised manuscript.

Best regards,
Jie Zhang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

This manuscript aims to explore the relationship between digital economy, cleaner energy consumption and high-quality economic development using the spatial Durbin model and mediation effect model. The topic is interesting and relevant to the journal readers of Sustainability. Overall, the method and data are clearly explained, the empirical results are reported logically, and the discussion and conclusions are supported by the results. However, in presentation, this manuscript can be largely largely improved in organization, results analysis, and readability.

A few recommendations for improvement are listed below.

1. Title and Abstract:

(1)   Title: replace “Cleaner Energy Consumption” with “Clean Energy Consumption”.

(2)   Abstract: “the spatial Durbin model and mediation effect model 12 to carry out empirical tests on the paths of their influence. The spatial Durbin model and the medi-13 ation effect model are used to test their influence paths empirically.”, you metioned “spatial Durbin model” and “mediation effect model” twice here, and thus can be refined.

(3)   Abstract: The empirical finding are poorly presented. The authors need to present the most significant and interesting results concisely. In addition, the authors can highlight the policy implications of the study in the Abstract. Please check that.

2. Introduction and Literature Review:

(1)   Some citation format of the references in the Introduction section is incorrect, e.g., Guo Feng et al [10], Luo Z L et al [11], Wang F et al [12]. Please use APA format for citation.

(2)   The literature review of the study can be improved and enriched. Especially on how digital economy/ICT will affect energy consumption, and carbon emissions, some recently published works had examined the relationship for China from a macro-level or meso-level, as the authors claimed. For example, “A framework to analyze carbon impacts of digital economy: The case of China. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 2022”, “How information and communication technology drives carbon emissions: A sector-level analysis for China. Energy Economics, 2019”, “How does information and communication technology affect China’s energy intensity? A three-tier structural decomposition analysis, Energy, 2018”, “Carbon-economic inequality in global ICT trade, iScience, 2022”, etc. Please review the papers and justify your research hypothesis and discussions.

(3)   In the last two paragraph of the introduction, the author should first summarize the work they have done in this study clearly, i.e., first, second, third, and so on. Second, they should claim the novelty of this study clearly, separating from the introduction of main work this study has done. For example, the new methodology and new evidences from digital economy. Please highlight your contributions to the literature and new knowledge.

3. Methodology and Data

(1)   The data source and treatment have been somewhat neglected by the authors. Please add literature support for the data and show the data treatment in detail, i.e., how to derive the data regarding high-quality level of economic development, digital economy, from the China’s statistics yearbooks. As far as I know, The high-quality level of economic development is a complex indicator, and its composition indicator data can not be directly collected from one statistical yearbook.

(2)   Section 3.3 is more about empirical results. Therefore, it is more appropriate to place it with the results analysis in the fourth section rather than with empirical methods and model design.

 

4. Results and discussion:

(1)   The subtitles in this section,e.g., 4.1 and 4.2 are too long for readers. Please refine them.

(2)   The authors should analyze and discuss the results thoroughly. The authors could make some comparative analyses with previous studies.

(3)   Maybe, “4.2.3 Tests for mediating effects in different regions” should be merged with “The Spatial Heterogeneity Analysis“. They are both Heterogeneity Analysis, and can be tested after mechanism or meditation effect analysis.

(4)   In addition, the authors limited their discussions to the results, but not extended to the practical background of other countries’s digital economy, clearn energy consumption, and carbon emissions. This weakens the significance of this study.

 

5. Conclusions and policy implications

(1)   The main findings, as well as policy implications, should be presented more clearly in separated paragraphs in conclusions. For example, first, second, third, and so on.

(2)   The policy implications can be refined. Tell how to do but not should do what.

 

6. References. There are many Chinese papers published in Chinese journals in the reference literature. Please check that and replace them with recently published English papers.

There are many grammar and typo mistakes in this manuscript. Please ask some native English writers to help you improve this paper. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corretions to our previous manuscript, the detailed corrections are listed below. All revisions to the manuscript are marked up using the "Track Changes" fuction.

1. Title and Abstract:

(1)Title: replace “Cleaner Energy Consumption” with “Clean Energy Consumption”.
The changes we made: the title and all references in the article have been replaced “cleaner energy consumption” with “clean energy consumption”.

(2)Abstract: “the spatial Durbin model and mediation effect model 12 to carry out empirical tests on the paths of their influence. The spatial Durbin model and the medi-13 ation effect model are used to test their influence paths empirically.”, you metioned “spatial Durbin model” and “mediation effect model” twice here, and thus can be refined.
The changes we made: the repetitive statements have been removed.(line:11-13)

(3)Abstract: The empirical finding are poorly presented. The authors need to present the most significant and interesting results concisely. In addition, the authors can highlight the policy implications of the study in the Abstract. Please check that.
The changes we made: the abstract has been refined to supplement the policy implications of this study on the basis of a concise presentation of the findings.(line:13-20)

2. Introduction and Literature Review:

(1)Some citation format of the references in the Introduction section is incorrect, e.g., Guo Feng et al [10], Luo Z L et al [11], Wang F et al [12]. Please use APA format for citation.
The changes we made: references in the text have been revised to APA format for citation.

(2)The literature review of the study can be improved and enriched. Especially on how digital economy/ICT will affect energy consumption, and carbon emissions, some recently published works had examined the relationship for China from a macro-level or meso-level, as the authors claimed. For example, “A framework to analyze carbon impacts of digital economy: The case of China. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 2022”, “How information and communication technology drives carbon emissions: A sector-level analysis for China. Energy Economics, 2019”, “How does information and communication technology affect China’s energy intensity? A three-tier structural decomposition analysis, Energy, 2018”, “Carbon-economic inequality in global ICT trade, iScience, 2022”, etc. Please review the papers and justify your research hypothesis and discussions.
The changes we made: The literature review section of this paper has been refined and supplemented again.(line:45-101,121-193)

(3)In the last two paragraph of the introduction, the author should first summarize the work they have done in this study clearly, i.e., first, second, third, and so on. Second, they should claim the novelty of this study clearly, separating from the introduction of main work this study has done. For example, the new methodology and new evidences from digital economy. Please highlight your contributions to the literature and new knowledge.
The changes we made: the last paragraph of the introduction has added and refined the purpose and contribution of our research.(line:102-120)

3. Methodology and Data

(1)The data source and treatment have been somewhat neglected by the authors. Please add literature support for the data and show the data treatment in detail, i.e., how to derive the data regarding high-quality level of economic development, digital economy, from the China’s statistics yearbooks. As far as I know, The high-quality level of economic development is a complex indicator, and its composition indicator data can not be directly collected from one statistical yearbook.
The changes we made: data sources and processing processes for high-quality economic development and digital economy have been improved.(line:207-225,227-245)

(2)Section 3.3 is more about empirical results. Therefore, it is more appropriate to place it with the results analysis in the fourth section rather than with empirical methods and model design.
The changes we made: section 3.3 has been moved to section 4.1.(line:313-398)

4. Results and discussion:

(1)The subtitles in this section,e.g., 4.1 and 4.2 are too long for readers. Please refine them.
The changes we made: the subtitles in this section has been refined.(line:400,556)

(2)The authors should analyze and discuss the results thoroughly. The authors could make some comparative analyses with previous studies.
The changes we made: we conducted an in-depth analysis and sorting of the empirical results again, and cited relevant literature for analysis to enrich the discussion of the research results.(line:450-501,565-610)

(3)Maybe, “4.2.3 Tests for mediating effects in different regions” should be merged with “The Spatial Heterogeneity Analysis“. 
***Thank you very much for your nice suggestion. However, since the spatial mediation effect has not formed its own theoretical system for the time being, most of the references we have reviewed have drawn on the non-spatial mediation effect approach, which we have also adopted in our study. We are very sorry that we are unable to combine "4.3.3 Tests of mediating effects in different regions" with "4.2.4 Analysis of spatial heterogeneity" for two reasons: (1) In our current experiments, the spatial heterogeneity of the intermediary effect cannot be directly obtained from the spatial econometric model, but can only be inferred through the results of the mediation effect test in different regions; (2) considering the basic empirical process and research sequence, we conducted the study of the mediating effect of clean energy consumption in the two after analyzing the spatial effect of digital economy on the high-quality of the economy, and the spatial heterogeneity of the former is the regression of the splitting of the relative spatial weight matrix, which is different from the latter. Therefore, we hope that we can keep these two parts, 4.2.4 and 4.3.3, and we sincerely hope for your understanding.

(4)In addition, the authors limited their discussions to the results, but not extended to the practical background of other countries’s digital economy, clearn energy consumption, and carbon emissions. This weakens the significance of this study.
The changes we made: we further discussed the impact of digital economy and clean energy consumption on global carbon emissions, expanded the current status of carbon economy inequality between developing and developed countries caused by ICT, and explored the formulation of emission reduction strategies by comparing the total carbon emissions of various countries.(line:565-610)
 

5. Conclusions and policy implications

(1)The main findings, as well as policy implications, should be presented more clearly in separated paragraphs in conclusions. For example, first, second, third, and so on.
The changes we made: we reorganize the research results and their corresponding policy implications, and discuss them point-to-point in combination with the research hypothesis.Also, we put forward some ideas about the possible directions for future research.(line:664-725)

(2)The policy implications can be refined. Tell how to do but not should do what.
The changes we made: We refined the policy recommendations based on the research results of this paper.(line:726-778)
 
6. References. There are many Chinese papers published in Chinese journals in the reference literature. Please check that and replace them with recently published English papers.
The changes we made: most of the Chinese references have been replaced with recently published English references.

On behalf of all the contributing authors, I would like to express our sincere appreciations of your constructive comments concerning our article entitled "Digital Economy, Clean Energy Consumption and High-Quality Economic Development"(Manuscript No.2544047). These comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our article. Also, We found an English editing service and made grammatical changes to the manuscript.Once again, we would like to express our sincere thanks to you and hope you will be satisfied with our revised manuscript.

Best regards,
Jie Zhang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Dear Authors,

I am satisfied with all amendments and accept the paper in the present form.

Good luck with your publication!

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

I have carefully reviewed the changes made in response to the previous reviewer comments, and I am pleased to see that you have addressed them satisfactorily. The quality of the manuscript has significantly improved in organization, results analysis, and readability. 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks to the authors for their submission. The paper presents what the authors called the digital economy in China and reflections on decarbonization and economy. The paper is in a poor-quality situation and hasn't given something of high scientific merit for the journal. The following comments might be useful to the authors to realize the weakness in the paper:

1- The paper is not well-written, for example, in the abstract, the first line, it has been written that:  Based on the typical fact that digital economy has become an important force driving China's socio-economic development!!

Actually, digital economy is not a driving force for China's socio-economic development, there have been many correlation factors that influence  socio-economic development, where the digitalization is just among one of them.

Another confusing sentence in line 86"Energy is the cornerstone of the country's smooth economic operation and an indispensable material foundation for social prosperity"!!!

Another strange sentence in line 100 "China's current energy consumption structure is still dominated by coal"!!!

consumption or production? 

For this and many other writing issues , the paper English vocabulary, writing style and grammar are considered to be serious flaws in the paper.

 2- There is no literature review in the paper. 

3- The contribution is not reflected in the paper. For example, the 2nd point in the "contribution" part, it has been written that: 

"innovatively incorporating the low carbonization of energy consumption structure into the study of the influence path between the digital economy and high-quality economic development, which enriches the study of the influence path between the two"

However, this point is not reflected in paper context. 

4- The paper has been filled in, as if rushed of,  several analysis test sections without comprehensive and clear explanation of why that should be done. 

English has been very poor. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corretions to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below. Our response is given in normal front and changes to the manuscript are given in yellow highlighted font. All revisions to the manuscript are marked up using the "Track Changes" fuction.

Point 1:
①line 8-9 has already revised to a more appropriate expression.
②"Energy is the cornerstone of the country's smooth economic operation and an indispensable material foundation for social prosperity"-This sentence is very inappropriate. We sincerely thank you for your suggestion and we have removed it.
③line 43-93,line 157 has already revised to “China's current energy production structure is still dominated by coal”

Point 2:
Line 43-93 supplement the literature review.

Point 3:
Based on your valuable suggestions and those of another reviewer, the contributions and Conclusions section of the article has now been moved to 5.1.Conclusions

Point 4:
We feel sorry for our careless, and many corrections have been made in the resubmitted manuscript. Thanks  for your careful checks. Based on your comments, we have made the corrections to make the purpose of the paper more clearer.

On behalf of all the contributing authors, I would like to express our sincere appreciations of your constructive comments concerning our article entitled "Digital economy, decarbonization of energy consumption structure and quality economic development"(Manuscript No.2451014). These comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our article. Once again, we would like to express our sincere thanks to you and hope you will be satisfied with our revised manuscript.

Best regards,
Jie Zhang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read the paper. It is an interesting toping and I consider it fits to the journal. The article reports on a very interesting study that may reach large audiences.

I have just some suggestions:

Literature review has been treated with superficiality. It must be presented according to the concepts approached: digital economy, decarbonization, energy consumption structure, quality economic development.

Table 3 has no reference in the text.

I believe that the bibliography should be improved by adding other specialized articles.

Rows 80-84:

In this regard, the following hypotheses are proposed in this paper:

H1: In total effect, the digital economy can significantly drive the high-quality economic development; in direct effect, the digital economy can also significantly drive the high-quality economic development.

I recommend reformulation for hypothesis 1. Also, hypotheses should be defined together.

Rows 402-406:

The test results of Bootstrap method verify both the research hypotheses H3 and H4 of this paper: decarbonization of energy consumption structure can significantly promote high quality economic development; decarbonization of energy consumption structure in the digital economy and economic the results of the Bootstrap method verify both hypotheses H3 and H4 of this paper.

I recommend reformulating the text.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corretions to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below. Our response is given in normal front and changes to the manuscript are given in yellow highlighted font. All revisions to the manuscript are marked up using the "Track Changes" fuction.

Point 1:
Based on your valuable suggestions, the literature review has been added for line 43-93.

Point 2:
Table 3 was misplaced due to a format change and has now been moved to the correct location.

Point 3:
Line 166-167 and 456-460 has already reformulated the text.

On behalf of all the contributing authors, I would like to express our sincere appreciations of your constructive comments concerning our article entitled "Digital economy, decarbonization of energy consumption structure and quality economic development"(Manuscript No.2451014). These comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our article. Once again, we would like to express our sincere thanks to you and hope you will be satisfied with our revised manuscript.

Best regards,
Jie Zhang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

 I am very pleased to review such an interesting article. I have only minor remarks that may increase its value for readers.

1.      1.The Abstract should clearly indicate the aim of the article (in line with the Introduction) and its theoretical and/or practical impact.

2.    2.  The Introduction should be reinforced with recent references to build the context for your research. There are many studies supporting your statements on the impact of the digital economy on decarbonization in general and in relation to the structure of energy consumption.

3.     3. Contributions from Introduction should be moved to Conclusions. However, in this section it is worth to outline the structure of the article.

4.      4. Sections 2.1 and 2.2 should be more strongly supported by references of previous research results - this will allow you to discuss your results.

5.      5. After the Results, it is worth adding a Discussions section to compare your results with the results of the literature review in sections 2.1 and 2.2.

6.      6. Conclusions should address limitations and future research directions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corretions to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below. Our response is given in normal front and changes to the manuscript are given in yellow highlighted font. All revisions to the manuscript are marked up using the "Track Changes" fuction.

Point 1:
Based on your valuable suggestions, the abstract has revised in lines 8-23.

Point 2:
Line 43-93 supplement the literature review.

Point 3:
The contributions and Conclusions section of the article has now been moved to 5.1.Conclusions, and briefly outlines the structure of the paper in lines 109-120.

Point 4:
Sections 2.1 and 2.2 are integrated into one section, and new literature reviews has been added.

Point 5&6:
Thanks for your great suggestion. Section 5 has been revised. A discussions section has been added in lines 580-590 where the limitations and future research directions has been addressed.

On behalf of all the contributing authors, I would like to express our sincere appreciations of your constructive comments concerning our article entitled "Digital economy, decarbonization of energy consumption structure and quality economic development"(Manuscript No.2451014). These comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our article. Once again, we would like to express our sincere thanks to you and hope you will be satisfied with our revised manuscript.

Best regards,
Jie Zhang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I reviewed this paper before and already have given my recommendation.

I am still convinced it is very weak and it needs a lot of work and clarity to be appreciated for publication in this journal. 

Also, the authors didn't answered my comments in a professional manner. 

The paper is not well-written.