Acquisition and Utilization of Chinese Peasant e-Entrepreneurs’ Online Social Capital: The Moderating Effect of Offline Social Capital
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study is quite interesting, and the outcomes of this paper are a valuable addition to the literature (after some changes/revisions). It requires copy editing and professional proofreading, throughout. Below are some comments to address:
Please strengthen the link of your study with sustainability that how it contributes towards sustainability in order to meet the journal's criteria. In this regard, consult the latest articles provided in comments for better understanding. I also suggest to carefully read and revise the lengthy sentences as some sentences are very long.
The introduction section has no fluency or clarity. The introduction section needs to be started with a broader area and issue or in a global context – then relate it with your topic, highlight the problems/issues in your area/context, and the proposed solution to address these issues.
Also, highlight the significance of the study in a precise and clear way in the introduction section. Please clarify your research objectives, background motivation, and theoretical and empirical motivation. You can do this by highlighting the weaknesses of prior studies as well. Authors should consult: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652621023179
Authors need to provide the paper structure.
The paper incorporated major literature but does not sufficiently cover recent research in the area. Helpful in this regard would be to include relevant research recently covered in top journals of similar scope. Further, work needs to be done to clearly support the findings based on the current literature, as a recent theory in the area is directly counter to what was found. Author(s) should consult: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504509.2022.2134230
and need to highlight how this research is contributing to the literature.
Please support the findings/results of the study through recent literature.
The conclusion should be precise and clear to summarize the study. It is suggested to write the conclusion in a precise and clear way. I suggest to improve the argument through latest reference in the discussion section.
The reviewer found that the authors have cited less recently published papers in this article, and the majority are very old. As a suggestion, the author must cite new articles (latest literature) to make a holistic discussion and sturdy paper with high readability.
I hope that the comments provided can help in this regard.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Sir
Thank you for inviting me to review this paper. In my opinion, this paper is good. And this paper can be considered for publication when the paper can follow some following comments.
1/ The introduction should have some sentences of structure of the research.
2/ this paper focuses on three kinds of social media behaviors of peasant e-entrepreneur: self-presentation, browsing and communication. Please cite for this. It can show briefly for the readers.
3/ Figure 1 should connect with the body by adding some bringing contents
4/ Section Methods should be Methologody, for broarder meaning.
5/ There are many missings on data collection. Please explain why?
6/ The results are lack of frequency statistics for the data sample.
7/ The discussions are quite poor. I cannot see any discussion on what similarities or differences between this paper and previous studies, especially in the case of China.
8/ More discussions on Moderating Effect Test. This test is so important, and the confirmation retrieved from this test should be further improved and connected with the main objectives of the study.
Thank you
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This article is an interesting approach to the study of online social capital and its translation into access to resources. The case study is original, however, the authors should provide more information concerning its relevance in terms of comparability with other social and geographic regions. Moreover, no particular attention to the peculiarity of the local configuration of the Internet access and services provided appear to be considered in terms of impact on the final result.
I would suggest revising the discussion and limitation of the study in order to better define the specificity of the case study and the transferability of the results
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for the opportunity to read the revised manuscript. This version of the paper is improved and clear. However, the paper needs proofreading, especially the title. For example, "the moderating of offline social capital" in the title and through. There should be moderating role /moderating effect etc. Section 4 Results discussion also needs to be corrected. Secondly, authors did not cite latest literature covering 2023 and 2022. I can see only 1 study (reference no 12) in 2022 and majority of the references are very old which is the weak point of the paper. It is strongly suggested to cite latest literature. Authors should get benefit from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-022-24842-4 and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504509.2022.2134230.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Sir
I agreed with this revision. Therefore, my decision: Acceptance.
Thank you
Author Response
Thank you for your recognition of this study. Best regards to you!
