Evaluation of China’s Rural Industrial Integration Development Level, Regional Differences, and Development Direction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Hello, dear authors.
Thank you for the interesting article.
However, the work should consider the need to attract additional investments to ensure sustainable rural development. In addition, on the basis of the conducted research and taking into account the theoretical generalization, to determine the directions for improving the efficiency of the agricultural sector.
The issues of industrial integration of rural areas are complex and have been considered in many theoretical and applied studies, which is reflected in sufficient detail by the authors in the literary review.The work should take into account the need to attract additional investments to ensure sustainable rural development. In addition, on the basis of the conducted research and taking into account the theoretical generalization, to determine the directions for improving the efficiency of the agricultural sector.
The structure of the article is thought out, meets the requirements. The results of the empirical study confirm the author's conclusions and reflect the stated purpose of the study: "accelerating the integrated development of rural industries is the key to promoting rural revitalization"
The links are relevant and correspond to the logic of the presentation of the article
There are no additional comments to the tables and figures, there is enough illustrative material in the text of the article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The abstract seems uninteresting. Difficult. It needs to be significantly modified.
The introduction is short and does not introduce the reader to the issue. Important knowledge is missing. It is not defined at all why it is necessary to solve this topic. Alternatively, this information is poorly structured. I don't understand the structure of the introduction. Introduction, Novelty, Literature review, it must follow from the content, not name of section. The methodology also seems too inconsistent. Some information is missing, some is useless. The statistics are processed correctly. I miss the discussion. The authors tackle an interesting topic, but it seems to me that they are good at statistics, but not experienced at writing articles. It would be a shame to reject the article immediately, but it needs to be significantly modified.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript, the authors examined the development of villages in different regions of China. This manuscript is not suitable for this journal, the reasons briefly listed below:
First, no aspect of sustainability, which is the main theme of the journal, is seen in this manuscript.
Secondly, the sustainable development of villages was not examined and more was focused on modern development and industrialization, which is moving away from sustainability.
Thirdly, there is no special innovation in this manuscript, and when you reach the end, you will see that only the villages of different regions are classified according to the level of development and level of industrialization.
Fourthly, the findings have a local application and it does not seem to be attractive to an international journal and readers from all over the world.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I think that the structure of the article could be modified. I see the biggest problem in the results and discussion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I still believe in my opinions and believe that the manuscript is not acceptable. I saw the answers of the authors as just a justification, and I was not convinced. However, the final decision rests with the editorial board and the editor.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
It seems that the corrections made are enough to accept the article.
