Digital Rural Construction and Rural Household Entrepreneurship: Evidence from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper aims to understand the relationship between Digital Rural Construction (DRC) and rural household entrepreneurship. The hypotheses are clearly stated, and the theoretical background is well-established. 

I have outlined my scientific critiques and suggestions for this article below.

1. The paper should delve deeper into what DRC means in the context of rural China. While the paper does touch upon this, a more comprehensive understanding would provide readers with a clearer picture.

2. The article uses several statistical models, including Probit and Tobit. It would be beneficial to elaborate more on why these specific models were chosen over others and how they are particularly suited to this research.

3. The paper should discuss potential biases in the data, especially given that some of the data comes from the Alibaba Group, which might have vested interests in promoting digital rural development.

4. While the paper does touch upon heterogeneity at the household head level and region level, it might be beneficial to explore other potential sources of heterogeneity, such as gender, age, or educational background.

5. The literature review could be expanded to include more recent studies, especially those post-2019, to ensure that the paper's findings are contextualized within the most current research landscape.

6. Some terms, like "digital village," might be unfamiliar to readers outside of this specific research area. Providing clearer definitions or examples would be helpful.

7. Every research has its limitations. The paper would benefit from a dedicated section discussing its limitations and potential areas for future research.

8. While the paper does provide policy recommendations, it might be beneficial to delve deeper into the practical implications of these recommendations. For instance, how might they be implemented? What are the potential challenges?

9. The paper should discuss the extent to which its findings can be generalized beyond the specific context of rural China.

10. Given concerns about data privacy and transparency in research, it would be beneficial for the authors to provide more information about how the data was collected, stored, and processed.

11. It might be interesting to compare the situation in China with other countries that have similar digital rural initiatives to see if the findings hold in different contexts.

By addressing these points, the paper could offer a more comprehensive, clear, and scientifically robust exploration of its topic.

Some sentences have omissions or minor errors that need rectification. The article should undergo a thorough English review.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 I recommend minor revision to improve the manuscript.

1. Additional related works should be cited to support the research results and discussion.

2. The implication of the study can be highlighted in the conclusion.
3. Limitations of the study should also be included.

The language is not very standard. It should be more scientific. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The keywords ‘opportunity identification; resource 26 acquisition’ are not clear… redefine.

The 'Introduction' section is clear and well-reasoned with internal consistency.

The section ‘Background and theoretical hypotheses’ is well organized and shows support, which shows quality. It is also clear and objective.

The section ‘Data and variable’: The authors present two proposals that they defend and clarify. The data presented helps to understand the context.

The section ‘Model and regression results’: Statistical options are well presented and are in line with the objectives. The different statistical tests that show the authors' desire to demonstrate scientific rigor are also valued. the interpretation of the results is correct and easy to understand.

The conclusions are correct but seem a little synthetic... there could (perhaps) be more critical reflection in this section. But it is important to point out that they agree with my personal interpretation.

I congratulate the authors for a good literature review that is broad enough and up-to-date and in line with the topic.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have tried to make corrections by taking into consideration most of the criticisms. I believe that the article will have a widespread impact and contribute to science.