How the Rural Digital Economy Drives Rural Industrial Revitalization—Case Study of China’s 30 Provinces

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The entropy value method was used to assess the comprehensive level of development of the rural digital economy and industrial revitalization. Based on the agricultural and rural development data of 30 provinces in China from 2014 to 2019, we construct a dual-fixed effect model to empirically analyze the internal mechanism of the digital economy to drive rural industrial revitalization. The results show that, first, the digital economy promotes the revitalization of rural industries through the following main approaches: optimal allocation and utilization of rural resources, effective docking of urban-rural markets and industrial integration development; second, using the benchmark regression test, it can be concluded that if the development level of the digital economy is increased by 10 percent, the development of rural industrial revitalization will increase by 66 percent, indicating that the development of the digital economy can significantly drive the revitalization of rural industries. Third, the driving effect of the digital economy on the revitalization of rural industries is heterogeneous in different regions and industrial structures. The effect of the digital economy on the revitalization of rural industries in the western region and the region with a high proportion of the output value of the primary industry is higher than that in the east and central regions with a low proportion of the output value of the primary industry.

The paper content valuable data but too many mistakes. It could be published after major revision as below.

 

General Remarks

Conclusions are too long and could be shortened by 40-50%

 

The goal of research should be added at the end of Introduction

 

Detailed remarks

 

1.        Point 3. Theoretical analysis and point 3. Materials and Methods ???

2.        Point 2 and 3 should be introduced in point 1. Introduction.

3.        Point 3. Theoretical analysis…. There’s no references. These should be added.

4.        Points 3.1; 3.2; 3.3.1; 3.3.2;3.3.4. There’s no references. These should be added.

5.        Line 315-317. Where are such values in Table 3? Please clarify.

6.        Point 4.3. Some references should be added

7.        Table 6 title should be in proper line

8.        Table 2,3,4,5,6  should be self-explaining. Please add proper information.

9.        Figure 2 should be self-explaining. Please add proper information.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

We appreciate valuable suggestions and comments from the anonymous reviewers. We have revised our manuscript following their helpful suggestions.

1. General Remarks: Conclusions are too long and could be shortened by 40-50%; The goal of research should be added at the end of Introduction.

Response 1: We sincerely thank you for your suggestions. Based on your suggestions, we have adjusted the Conclusions section to make it more streamlined. The introduction section has been logically reworked according to a clear line of research background, literature review, research gaps, and research contributions.

2. Detailed remarks:

• Point 3. Theoretical analysis and point 3. Materials and Methods ?
• Point 2 and 3 should be introduced in point 1. Introduction. 
• Point 3. Theoretical analysis…. There’s no references. These should be added.
• Points 3.1; 3.2; 3.3.1; 3.3.2;3.3.4. There’s no references. These should be added.
• Line 315-317. Where are such values in Table 3? Please clarify. 
• Point 4.3. Some references should be added.
• Table 6 title should be in proper line.
• Table 2,3,4,5,6  should be self-explaining. Please add proper information. 
• Figure 2 should be self-explaining. Please add proper information.

Response 2: We appreciate the valuable comments and have made the following changes to the manuscript:

(1) Point 3 has been corrected to The Materials and Methods section.

(2) The introduction section was rewritten to include parts of points 2 and 3.

(3) More references on logical framework have been added into the Theoretical Analysis and Hypotheses section in the revised manuscript.

(4) More references on model construction have been added into the Materials and Methods section in the revised manuscript.

(5) Values in Table 3 have been more clearly stated in the revised manuscript.

(6) More references have been added into the Results and Discussion section in the revised manuscript.

(7) Table 6 title have adjusted in proper line.

(8) Tables 2,3,4,5,6 were changed, more information was added to improve its content.

(9) Figure 2 has been revised to make it clearer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

General:

Please, try to synchronize the title, aims in introduction, method, results, and discussions!

 Specific:

Introduction: The synthesis must be clear, correlated and define aim and objective. I think cap 1 and cap 2 can be together and integrated in previous idea. You can use one of the „classic” definitions of digital economy from references. Please, do not use conclusions in introduction (rows 62-67 must use citation, otherwise there are conclusions, or seems to be pure assertions).

 Methodology is not systematic presented. Hypothesis (cap. 3) must be included in methodology. Also, if try to justify the hypothesis, please, use references (citation). Some parts of arguments are already critiqued in other references. I think is better to concentrate this part. Please, keep in mind the results are reproducible based on the details given in the methodology section. The study can be presented more clear, re-structured on technical logical flow.

Please use SI measure units for all indicators (example table 1, etc.).

Results must be presented correlated with methodology. If the title and aims are considered, table 2 must be introduced at results. The correct title of chapter must be „results and discussions”. The results and discussions must compare own results with others from references.

Conclusion and Suggestion must be personally, of the authors.

Author Response

We appreciate valuable suggestions and comments from the anonymous reviewers. We have revised our manuscript following their helpful suggestions.

1. General:Please, try to synchronize the title, aims in introduction, method, results, and discussions!

Response 1: We sincerely thank you for your suggestions. Based on your suggestions, we have changed the title to synchronize it with the introduction, methodology, results, and discussion.

2. Specific:

• Introduction: The synthesis must be clear, correlated and define aim and objective. I think cap 1 and cap 2 can be together and integrated in previous idea. You can use one of the “classic”definitions of digital economy from references. Please, do not use conclusions in introduction (rows 62-67 must use citation, otherwise there are conclusions, or seems to be pure assertions).
• Methodology is not systematic presented. Hypothesis (cap. 3) must be included in methodology. Also, if try to justify the hypothesis, please, use references (citation). Some parts of arguments are already critiqued in other references. I think is better to concentrate this part. Please, keep in mind the results are reproducible based on the details given in the methodology section. The study can be presented more clear, re-structured on technical logical flow.Please use SI measure units for all indicators (example table 1, etc.).
• Results must be presented correlated with methodology. If the title and aims are considered, table 2 must be introduced at results. The correct title of chapter must be “results and discussions”. The results and discussions must compare own results with others from references.
• Conclusion and Suggestion must be personally, of the authors.

Response 2: We appreciated the valuable comments, and have made the following changes to the manuscript:

(1) We revised the structure of the article into 5 parts: 1. Introduction; 2. Theoretical Analysis and Hypotheses; 3. Materials and Methods; 4. Results and Discussion; 5. Conclusion. The introduction section has been logically reworked according to a clear line of research background, literature review, research gaps and research contributions. We have used “G20” definitions of the digital economy from references while deleted all statements with subjective assertions.

(2) We re-read the entire article, identified all statements with subjective assertions, and made the following modifications: deleted sentences with subjective assertions, adding references for support. We adjusted the structure and content of the Theoretical Analysis and Hypotheses section to make it clearer. In the Materials and Methods section, we re-structured on technical logical flow, readjusted the aesthetics and clarity of chart, modified the indicators by SI measure units to make the study can be presented clearer.

(3) An in-depth discussion has been added into the Results section to provide a clearer argument, and we have changed the title of Chapter 4 to Results and Discussion. In addition, we have readjusted the Results and Discussion section to be presented correlated with methodology in two aspects: Firstly, we introduced Table 2 in the Results and Discussion section. Secondly, we describe results in terms of exact values based on the methodology.

(4) We have adjusted the Conclusions section to make it more streamlined. In addition, a personal reflection on the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research trends are provided. Specifically see: lines 522-530.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.      Authors could carefully consider the title of your paper, abstract and keywords. Increasingly, papers are read after people have used search engines to find topics.

2.      Introduction section lacks depth. It could be strengthened to highlight motivation behind the study and novelty of the research. Few research questions also could be provided.

3.      Literature section could have sub sections highlighting previous works on digital economy; rural industrial revitalization and entropy method. Literature section could also evaluate the past studies to identify the gap in the research. The research gap and its connection to the contribution needs to be more explicit

4.      Section 3 should be renamed as Theoretical Analysis and Hypotheses.

5.      Please, reformulate each hypothesis in a more precise way.

6.      I do not see any section discussion, A discussion section that  provide a clearer argument in what are the new findings and insights, comparing to the current literature could be provided.

7.      Conclusion section is a mere summary of the research. It should be made more specific and should highlight how research questions were answered or research objectives were achieved.

8.      Provide a deeper reflection on the research limitations and suggestions for future studies

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

We appreciate valuable suggestions and comments from the anonymous reviewers. We have revised our manuscript following their helpful suggestions.

1. Authors could carefully consider the title of your paper, abstract and keywords. Increasingly, papers are read after people have used search engines to find topics.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. According to your suggestion, we have changed the title, abstract and keywords to synchronize it with the topics.

2. Introductionsection lacks depth. It could be strengthened to highlight motivation behind the study and novelty of the research. Few research questions also could be provided.

Response 2: We sincerely thank you for your suggestions. To make the introduction more in-depth, we have logically reworked it according to a clear line of research background，literature review, research gaps and research contributions.

3. Literature section could have sub sections highlighting previous works on digital economy; rural industrial revitalization and entropy method. Literature section could also evaluate the past studiesto identify the gap in the research. The research gap and its connection to the contribution needs to be more explicit

Response 3: We appreciate the valuable comments. We revised the literature review from the following aspects: (1) We have analyzed the advantages of the entropy method and explained in detail the reasons for its adoption. (2) We have analyzed two gaps in the current research to evaluate the past studies. Moreover, we propose two approaches to fill the research gaps and make them correspond to research contributions. (3) More references on logical framework and model construction have been added into the revised manuscript.

4. Section 3 should be renamed as Theoretical Analysis and Hypotheses.

Response 4: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. According to your suggestion, we have revised the structure of the article into 5 parts:1. Introduction; 2. Theoretical Analysis and Hypotheses; 3. Materials and Methods; 4. Results and Discussion; 5. Conclusion. 

5. Please, reformulate each hypothesis in a more precise way.

Response 5: We sincerely thank you for your comments. We have reformulated each hypothesis in a more precise way.

6. I do not see any section discussion, A discussionsection that  provide a clearer argument in what are the new findings and insights, comparing to the current literature could be provided.

Response 6: We appreciate the valuable comments. Based on your suggestions, an in-depth discussion has been added into the Results section to provide a clearer argument, and we have changed the title of Chapter 4 to Results and Discussion.  Moreover, we have summarized the possible usefulness of our study for other studies in the Results and Discussion section and made more specific and feasible suggestions for the rural digital economy to drive rural industrial revitalization.

7. Conclusion section is a mere summary of the research. It should be made more specific and should highlight how research questions were answered or research objectives were achieved.

Response 7: We sincerely thank you for your suggestions. Based on your suggestions, we have adjusted the Conclusions section to make it more streamlined. Specifically see: lines 500-521.

8. Provide a deeper reflection on the research limitations and suggestions for future studies

Response 8: We sincerely thank you for your comments. A personal reflection on the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research trends are added into the Conclusions section. Specifically see: lines 522-530.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised work is better. It could be published

Reviewer 3 Report

could be accepted in current form