Study on the Innovation-Driven Effect of Digital Economy on Real Economy—A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis from an R&D Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study constructs a theoretical analysis model to explore the innovation-driving effect of the digital economy on the real economy from an R&D perspective in both sectors. 

Our review report summarizes the main commments to improve your manuscript as follows:

1. Abstarct/ summary:  Authors sould  follow this methodololgy ( Purpose; Aim/objectif of the study;  Method used ;  Findings ; implication policy ; Original value)

2. Introduction : It should be more improved ( join aleast three parapgraphs). The structure of the paper is very significant for the read to understand the body/ contente f the manuscript.

3. Literature review : ( spellover effect)

* ''This study employs Romer and other scholars' R&D model as a theoretical foundation to investigate the innovation-driven effect of the digital economy on China's real economy'' : Why this choice? explain more compared to other recent theoritical models?

* Figure 1. Is  it your theoritical conceptuel research model ?

* Hypothesis : Cobb-Douglas (C-D)

  We can not find your H0/H1..Hn? These hypotheses will be discussed on the base of your resullts in the disscussion section (To be supported by your findings /or rejected).

* The literature section should be improved with a least 10 new research papers/ references form Scopus and Web sciences (Sustanability MDPI, Economies MDPI, ScienceDirect, Springer, Emerald, etc). For help, these related studies can help your literature section: Luigi A.; Mohsen, B.; Xihui, C.; Concetto, P.V.Knowledge spillovers and technical efficiency for cleaner production: An economic analysis from agriculture innovation,Journal of Cleaner Production,2021,Vol.320,128830,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128830.

Aldieri, L.; Brahmi, M.; Bruno, B.& Vinci, C.P. 2021. Circular Economy Business Models: The Complementarities with Sharing Economy and Eco-Innovations Investments,Sustainability,13(22),12438.https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212438

4. "Innovation-Driven Index of the Digital Economy and Real Economy" (IDIDR) : Join cited references to this index ( authors who used this index)

5. Variables description :  add new clair tabl to descript you variables.

6. Empirical analysis:

* Analysis of data smoothness and cointegration :  Unit root test results of the three methods (for the three methods TESTs LLC ADF-Fisher PP-Fisher used, you should provide the theoritical criteria for each Test in order to compare with your results in this table).

* Results of the F-test and Hausman test:provide the theoritical criteria for each Test in order to compare with your results in this table)

*The "insufficient driven" and "reverse driven" regions consist of four provinces : Why are these regions and other not?

7. Limitation section : try to add this before the conclusion.

8. The general conclusion needs more to impove.

9. References : 

* The new research papers must be add in this section with the DOI for each cited reference.

 

-

Good luck

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Spelling and grammar to revise.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for your valuable time and comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly.

Best regards,

A.Prof. Chengjiang Li

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read and reviewed the paper entitled ‘Study on the Innovation-Driven Effect of Digital Economy and Real Economy—— A theoretical and empirical analysis from a R&D perspective’. This paper performs well in terms of figures,

but the logic of the article is not rigorous enough, and many contents lack specific introductions. So there is still a lot of work needs to be done to publish the written expression. Some technical issues also need to be clarified. The specific issues are as follows：

 

1.The introduction should clearly explain the research background and the main purpose of this study? As you mentioned, this research has made some contributions. Generally, at the end of the introduction, you should clearly emphasize your research motivation as much as possible.

 

2.The third part of the manuscript conducted a systematic model construction, and the argumentation process was very rigorous. However, there seems to be some ambiguity in the presentation of the research results in 3.2.1, which requires further adjustment and modification.

For example, (1) About data sources: The paper selected 22 provinces as the research objectives. What are the criteria for selecting these provinces and why are other cities or provinces in China not be referred to?

(2) What are the standards for dividing the regions into Northern and Eastern, Central and southern, and western in table 8? It is needed to be explained in the text.

(3) The use of the map in Figure 2 is not standard. The map in the paper must use the standard map base map of the Geographic Information Bureau of the National Bureau of Surveying and Mapping, and the boundaries of the base map used must be completely unmodified.

Also, indicate under the title of the map, “Note: This map is based on the standard map with the review number GS (2016) xxxx downloaded from the Standard Map Service website of the National Bureau of Surveying and Mapping Geographic Information, and the base map has not been modified.”

 

3. In the part of epilogue, the author did not deepen the research results, and the conclusions are general. The conclusion should highlight the research focus, what problems the article has solved, why the research content is important, what theoretical basis it has provided, what value it has achieved, and what help it has given to decision makers, rather than general suggestions.

 

4. There are many problems in the author's overall language expression. It is suggested that the author should make more use of scientific and technological language to express the conclusion and improve the accuracy of the article. The citation format of the article's references is not unified. The references should be proofread and modified according to the requirements of the Journal.

 

5. In addition, the literature review should be more systematic and rich. At present, the literature in the article is relatively simple and representative. It is necessary to add more references to support each statement in each part of the paper.

In overall, I would not recommend the article for publishing in Journal of sustainability.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have read and reviewed the paper entitled ‘Study on the Innovation-Driven Effect of Digital Economy and Real Economy—— A theoretical and empirical analysis from a R&D perspective’. This paper performs well in terms of figures,

but the logic of the article is not rigorous enough, and many contents lack specific introductions. So there is still a lot of work needs to be done to publish the written expression. Some technical issues also need to be clarified. The specific issues are as follows：

 

1.The introduction should clearly explain the research background and the main purpose of this study? As you mentioned, this research has made some contributions. Generally, at the end of the introduction, you should clearly emphasize your research motivation as much as possible.

 

2.The third part of the manuscript conducted a systematic model construction, and the argumentation process was very rigorous. However, there seems to be some ambiguity in the presentation of the research results in 3.2.1, which requires further adjustment and modification.

For example, (1) About data sources: The paper selected 22 provinces as the research objectives. What are the criteria for selecting these provinces and why are other cities or provinces in China not be referred to?

(2) What are the standards for dividing the regions into Northern and Eastern, Central and southern, and western in table 8? It is needed to be explained in the text.

(3) The use of the map in Figure 2 is not standard. The map in the paper must use the standard map base map of the Geographic Information Bureau of the National Bureau of Surveying and Mapping, and the boundaries of the base map used must be completely unmodified.

Also, indicate under the title of the map, “Note: This map is based on the standard map with the review number GS (2016) xxxx downloaded from the Standard Map Service website of the National Bureau of Surveying and Mapping Geographic Information, and the base map has not been modified.”

 

3. In the part of epilogue, the author did not deepen the research results, and the conclusions are general. The conclusion should highlight the research focus, what problems the article has solved, why the research content is important, what theoretical basis it has provided, what value it has achieved, and what help it has given to decision makers, rather than general suggestions.

 

4. There are many problems in the author's overall language expression. It is suggested that the author should make more use of scientific and technological language to express the conclusion and improve the accuracy of the article. The citation format of the article's references is not unified. The references should be proofread and modified according to the requirements of the Journal.

 

5. In addition, the literature review should be more systematic and rich. At present, the literature in the article is relatively simple and representative. It is necessary to add more references to support each statement in each part of the paper.

In overall, I would not recommend the article for publishing in Journal of sustainability.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

On behalf of all the co-authors, I would like to thank you for your kind review. We noticed you did not recommend this manuscript to the journal, but we still respect your valuable time and comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Thank you!

Best regards,

A. Prof. Chengjiang

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled “Study on the Innovation-Driven Effect of Digital Economy and Real Economy—— A theoretical and empirical analysis from a  R&D perspective” is interesting. Here are my comments:

Comment 1: The abstract section of this manuscript lacks logic and standardisation in its elaboration and does not do a good job of stating the specific innovations and salient findings of this study, and the authors are advised to revise this.

Comment 2: One of the keywords is "Innovation-Driven Index of the Digital Economy and Real Economy", which is too complicated and should be more indirect to summarise the main content of this study.

Comment 3: Many of the key phrases in the citations are not labelled with their sources, and the corresponding references are not well labelled.

Comment 4: Figure 1 does not show the content of the process very clearly and, this research process lacks relevance and is applicable to any relevant research. It is recommended that the authors make a diagrammatic representation of the process for the content of this study and highlight the innovations of this study.

Comment 5: sections of Introduction and Model. There has already been a large amount of literatures discussing the panel method used in this paper. There is a need to better elaborate the description and contribution of the work to the existing literature. Please consider citing following papers entitled “Does urbanization redefine the environmental Kuznets curve? An empirical analysis of 134 Countries”; and entitled “Free trade and carbon emission revisited: The asymmetric impacts of trade diversification and trade openness”; and entitled “Linking trade openness to load capacity factor: The threshold effects of natural resource rent and corruption control”; and entitled “Digital economy and carbon dioxide emissions: Examining the role of threshold variables”.

Comment 6: The formatting of the models and serial numbers in this manuscript lacks standardisation, with each marker in a different position and inconsistent formatting of the equations and models, and it is recommended that the authors make changes to this.

Comment 7: The model and data part of this manuscript has done too much elaboration, occupying two-thirds of the content of this paper, and the article structure of this paper lacks normality and rigour. The content of data analysis should be added to this manuscript.

Comment 8: Figure 2 is not reasonable for the distribution of content reflected by the colours, and the excessive colours should be changed to make it clear to the reader at a glance and avoid ambiguity.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript titled “Study on the Innovation-Driven Effect of Digital Economy and Real Economy—— A theoretical and empirical analysis from a  R&D perspective” is interesting. Here are my comments:

Comment 1: The abstract section of this manuscript lacks logic and standardisation in its elaboration and does not do a good job of stating the specific innovations and salient findings of this study, and the authors are advised to revise this.

Comment 2: One of the keywords is "Innovation-Driven Index of the Digital Economy and Real Economy", which is too complicated and should be more indirect to summarise the main content of this study.

Comment 3: Many of the key phrases in the citations are not labelled with their sources, and the corresponding references are not well labelled.

Comment 4: Figure 1 does not show the content of the process very clearly and, this research process lacks relevance and is applicable to any relevant research. It is recommended that the authors make a diagrammatic representation of the process for the content of this study and highlight the innovations of this study.

Comment 5: sections of Introduction and Model. There has already been a large amount of literatures discussing the panel method used in this paper. There is a need to better elaborate the description and contribution of the work to the existing literature. Please consider citing following papers entitled “Does urbanization redefine the environmental Kuznets curve? An empirical analysis of 134 Countries”; and entitled “Free trade and carbon emission revisited: The asymmetric impacts of trade diversification and trade openness”; and entitled “Linking trade openness to load capacity factor: The threshold effects of natural resource rent and corruption control”; and entitled “Digital economy and carbon dioxide emissions: Examining the role of threshold variables”.

Comment 6: The formatting of the models and serial numbers in this manuscript lacks standardisation, with each marker in a different position and inconsistent formatting of the equations and models, and it is recommended that the authors make changes to this.

Comment 7: The model and data part of this manuscript has done too much elaboration, occupying two-thirds of the content of this paper, and the article structure of this paper lacks normality and rigour. The content of data analysis should be added to this manuscript.

Comment 8: Figure 2 is not reasonable for the distribution of content reflected by the colours, and the excessive colours should be changed to make it clear to the reader at a glance and avoid ambiguity.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for your valuable time and comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly.

Best regards,

A. Prof. Chengjiang Li

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.The introduction should clearly explain the research background and the main purpose of this study? As you mentioned, this research has made some contributions. Generally, at the end of the introduction, you should clearly emphasize your research motivation as much as possible. The introduction is very long without a clear structure, and not convincing when it explains the research problem justifying the need of this study. It is not interesting for the reader.

 

2.The second part of the manuscript conducted a systematic model construction, and the argumentation process was very rigorous. However, there seems to be some ambiguity in the presentation of the research results, which requires further adjustment and modification.

For example, (1) About data sources: What is the data source used in the article and what is the scope of calculation?

(2) In the conclusion part, the conclusions are not very closely related to the empirical part of the paper.  Please modify the manuscript.

3. In the part of epilogue, the author did not deepen the research results, and the conclusions are general. The conclusion should highlight the research focus, what problems the article has solved, why the research content is important, what theoretical basis it has provided, what value it has achieved, and what help it has given to decision makers, rather than general suggestions.

 

4. There are many problems in the author's overall language expression. It is suggested that the author should make more use of scientific and technological language to express the conclusion and improve the accuracy of the article. The citation format of the article's references is not unified. The references should be proofread and modified according to the requirements of the Journal.

 

5.The article lacks the discussion section, and what is the significance of this study for other countries. There are still unresolved issues that have not been discussed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1.The introduction should clearly explain the research background and the main purpose of this study? As you mentioned, this research has made some contributions. Generally, at the end of the introduction, you should clearly emphasize your research motivation as much as possible. The introduction is very long without a clear structure, and not convincing when it explains the research problem justifying the need of this study. It is not interesting for the reader.

 

2.The second part of the manuscript conducted a systematic model construction, and the argumentation process was very rigorous. However, there seems to be some ambiguity in the presentation of the research results, which requires further adjustment and modification.

For example, (1) About data sources: What is the data source used in the article and what is the scope of calculation?

(2) In the conclusion part, the conclusions are not very closely related to the empirical part of the paper.  Please modify the manuscript.

3. In the part of epilogue, the author did not deepen the research results, and the conclusions are general. The conclusion should highlight the research focus, what problems the article has solved, why the research content is important, what theoretical basis it has provided, what value it has achieved, and what help it has given to decision makers, rather than general suggestions.

 

4. There are many problems in the author's overall language expression. It is suggested that the author should make more use of scientific and technological language to express the conclusion and improve the accuracy of the article. The citation format of the article's references is not unified. The references should be proofread and modified according to the requirements of the Journal.

 

5.The article lacks the discussion section, and what is the significance of this study for other countries. There are still unresolved issues that have not been discussed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable time and professional comments. Please see attached file.

Best regards,

A.Prof. Chengjiang Li

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are still some occasional grammar errors through the manuscript, please make a spellchecking in addition to these minor issues.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are still some occasional grammar errors through the manuscript, please make a spellchecking in addition to these minor issues.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your kind review. Please see attached file.

 

Best regards,

A. Prof. Chengjiang Li

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have incorporated comments from the first round of review. My concerns from my previous review have been addressed. I would recommend the paper to be accepted for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors have incorporated comments from the first round of review. My concerns from my previous review have been addressed. I would recommend the paper to be accepted for publication.