A Study on the Impact of Enterprise Digital Evolution on Outward Foreign Investments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Abstract and Introduction Clarity: Enhance the clarity and conciseness of the abstract and introduction sections. Clearly define key terms such as "enterprise digital evolution" and "outward foreign investments" early to ensure readers understand the context and significance of the study.

2. Literature Review Expansion: Expand the literature review to include a broader range of studies, especially focusing on the counterarguments or limitations found in previous research. This will strengthen the foundation of your hypotheses and highlight the contribution of your study to the existing body of knowledge. Suggested references:

[1] ESG Ratings and Green Innovation: A U-shaped Journey Towards sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment. Early View. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3692

[2] Examining the non-linear effects of monetary policy on carbon emissions. Energy Economics. 131, 107206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.107206

3. Methodology Details: Provide more detailed explanations of the methodologies used, including the selection criteria for the publicly listed manufacturing firms and the specific data analysis techniques. Clarifying these details will enhance the replicability and credibility of the study.

4. Hypotheses Justification: Offer a more comprehensive rationale for each hypothesis. Linking them more explicitly to the literature review can help demonstrate how they address gaps in current research or challenge existing assumptions.

5. Results Section Structure: Improve the organization of the results section. Use subheadings to distinguish between different aspects of the findings, such as the impact of digital evolution on outward foreign investments by region, company size, and industry type. This will make the results easier to follow and understand.

6. Discussion on Limitations and Implications: Expand the discussion to include a more in-depth analysis of the limitations of your study and how they might affect the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, discuss the practical implications of your research for business leaders and policymakers.

7. Conclusion and Future Research Directions: Strengthen the conclusion by summarizing the key findings more succinctly and suggesting specific directions for future research. This could include exploring the impact of digital evolution on different types of investments or in other industries.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Comments 1: Abstract and Introduction Clarity: Enhance the clarity and conciseness of the abstract and introduction sections. Clearly define key terms such as "enterprise digital evolution" and "outward foreign investments" early to ensure readers understand the context and significance of the study.

Response 1: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. The specific revisions are as follows:

First, the abstract part. We have refined the language of the findings. See page 1 of the paper for specific modifications.

Second, the introduction. The definition of enterprise digital evolution is clarified in the first sentence of paragraph 2 on page 2 of the paper. In the first paragraph of the introduction, the research background of this study is clarified to ensure that readers understand the background and significance of the research. For specific revisions, see page 1-2 of the paper.

Comments 2:  Literature Review Expansion: Expand the literature review to include a broader range of studies, especially focusing on the counterarguments or limitations found in previous research. This will strengthen the foundation of your hypotheses and highlight the contribution of your study to the existing body of knowledge. Suggested references:

[1] ESG Ratings and Green Innovation: A U-shaped Journey Towards sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment. Early View. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3692

[2] Examining the non-linear effects of monetary policy on carbon emissions. Energy Economics. 131, 107206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.107206

Response 2: Agree. We have modified Review of Literature to emphasize this point.The specific revisions are as follows:

First, the literature review on the mechanism of enterprises' digital evolution affecting enterprises' outbound investment is expanded. Expanding the scope of the review, the review is divided into two parts: the intermediary effect of enterprise digital evolution on enterprise digital evolution on enterprise outbound investment, and the regulatory effect of enterprise digital evolution on enterprise digital evolution on enterprise outbound investment. For detailed revisions, see pages 6-11.

Second, the review corresponds to each hypothesis. Devote 3-5 paragraph literature reviews to each hypothesis. For example, for hypothesis 2, a literature review was conducted in paragraphs 3-5, with specific revisions in pages 6-8.

Comments 3: Methodology Details: Provide more detailed explanations of the methodologies used, including the selection criteria for the publicly listed manufacturing firms and the specific data analysis techniques. Clarifying these details will enhance the replicability and credibility of the study.

Response 3: Agree.In response to your suggestions on the details of the methodology, we will provide a more detailed explanation of the methodology in the resubmitted manuscript, including the selection criteria for listed manufacturing companies and specific data analysis techniques. The specific amendments are as follows:

First, the selection criteria of listed manufacturing companies. As for the selection criteria, referring to the study of Yang Baibing et al. (2023), we selected listed companies by taking into account corporate factors, such as enterprise age, enterprise size, business income growth rate, and the combination of two positions.    

Second, the specific data analysis method. On the one hand, about explanatory variables. Referring to the research of Wu Fei et al. (2021), based on the Python crawler text recognition function and the annual reports of listed enterprises in Shanghai and Shenzhen, the method of keyword "search-match-sum" is adopted to describe the digital evolution level of enterprises. On the other hand, about the data analysis method of this paper. According to the data structure and through the Hausmann test, the bidirectional fixed effect model is determined to analyze the relationship between enterprise digital evolution and enterprise outbound investment. This point is mentioned in the introduction of this paper, and see the sixth line on page 3 of the manuscript for details.

Comments 4: Hypotheses Justification: Offer a more comprehensive rationale for each hypothesis. Linking them more explicitly to the literature review can help demonstrate how they address gaps in current research or challenge existing assumptions.

Response 4: Agree.Thank you for your review of our paper and your valuable suggestions. In response to your suggestions regarding hypothetical grounds, we have made the following revisions：

First, The literature review was expanded. A 3-5 paragraph literature review is provided for each hypothesis to make them more explicitly linked to the literature review, with specific revisions at pages 6-11.

Second, after 3-5 paragraphs of literature review, a brief summary of the above literature review is made to highlight the research in this paper. For detailed revisions, see pages 6-11.

Comments 5:  Results Section Structure: Improve the organization of the results section. Use subheadings to distinguish between different aspects of the findings, such as the impact of digital evolution on outward foreign investments by region, company size, and industry type. This will make the results easier to follow and understand.

Response 5: Agree.Thank you for your review of our paper and your valuable suggestions. In response to your suggestions regarding the structure of the results section, we have made the following amendments： First, the intermediary effect part. Four levels of headings have been added, namely:

• The mediating effect primarily centered around enterprise ESG performance.
• The mediating effect primarily centered around COD1, representing debt financing costs. To distinguish different aspects of the survey results. See page 21 for details.

Second, the regulation effect part. Four levels of headings have been added, namely:

（1）The moderating effect primarily centered around the age of the enterprise.（2）The moderating effect primarily centered around the debt financing cost COD2. To distinguish different aspects of the findings. See page 22 for details.

Comments 6: Discussion on Limitations and Implications: Expand the discussion to include a more in-depth analysis of the limitations of your study and how they might affect the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, discuss the practical implications of your research for business leaders and policymakers.

Response 6: Agree. In response to your suggestions regarding limitations and implications, we have revised the following:

First, the scope of discussion has been broadened. This study should start from the enterprise level and consider the factors affecting the digital evolution of the enterprise itself. However, in reality, the development of the enterprise is often affected by many factors, such as the policy environment and economic environment of the place where the enterprise is located. These influencing factors will have some impact on the research, but due to the length, this paper did not do too much control, there are certain limitations. In addition, we can continue to discuss the impact of digital evolution of enterprises on different types of outbound investment. See point 6 on page 25: Limitations of the study.

Second, about the practical implications of the study for business leaders and policymakers. This paper has been revised in the manuscript respectively, for details, see the last paragraph on page 24 and paragraphs 1-2 on page 25.

Comments 7: Conclusion and Future Research Directions: Strengthen the conclusion by summarizing the key findings more succinctly and suggesting specific directions for future research. This could include exploring the impact of digital evolution on different types of investments or in other industries.

Response 7: Agree.Thank you for your valuable advice.

We made the following changes: Future research directions of the study. In this study, deficiencies were added in the part of research revelation to strengthen the conclusions of this paper. See point 6 on page 25: Limitations of the study.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper uses a standardised analytical method to analyse the data of Chinese listed manufacturing firms from 2010-2021, the impact between the evolution of the examining figure and outward investment, and conducts the analysis of the mediating effect, the moderating effect, and the heterogeneity, etc., but the theoretical language narration part of the major problems, and needs to be revised.

 （1）The introduction should briefly describe the background, purpose and significance, basic ideas, etc., and clearly and accurately articulate the academic innovation of this paper from the perspectives of theory, methodology, and perspective.

 （2）Rather than a simple categorised narrative of the findings, the marginal contribution needs to be written about the research ideas and scholarly contributions of the paper.

 （3）The illustration below the IDEA in Figure 1 Technology Roadmap corresponds to the research methodology, while the illustration below Method corresponds to the specific methodology in the IDEA, which does not correspond in content. At the same time, the technology roadmap over-explains the variables and methods used and fails to highlight the relevant content of this paper. It tends to focus on the measurement method and ignores the research content.

 （4）The literature review lacks a summary of the theoretical foundations, research methods and main conclusions, and then comment on the shortcomings of this research area or the space for academic improvement, which is missing in the review of this paper.

 （5）The selection of variables is not based on literature and is somewhat subjective, so how can the scientific validity and accuracy of the research results be ensured?

 （6）In the heterogeneity analysis, digital evolution has a significant impact on outward investment in the East, and in the Northeast, the impact is also significant, so what are the possible reasons that cause it to be significant for the Northeast? Is there any support from previous literature?

 （7）Lack of relevant analyses of the similarities and differences between the findings of this paper and those of similar studies in terms of theory, methodology and conclusions, and the overall depth of the study needs to be improved?

 （8）Any study has certain shortcomings, is it possible that this study is just as likely to have some research shortcomings and directions for further research?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of English Language is good.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. The areas needing improvement have been revised in the resubmitted manuscript, and we have provided detailed responses to each of your comments. Here are the corresponding replies.

Comments 1:The introduction should briefly describe the background, purpose and significance, basic ideas, etc., and clearly and accurately articulate the academic innovation of this paper from the perspectives of theory, methodology, and perspective.

Response 1: Agree.Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have made revisions to the paper based on the suggestions you provided.The specific amendments are as follows:

First, the introduction should include background, purpose and meaning. For a brief explanation, see page 1, paragraph 1.

Second, the academic innovation of this paper. Paragraph 4-6 of the introduction is the marginal contribution of this paper, which is expanded in detail in this paper. I would like to make a brief reply to the academic innovation you mentioned in this paper from the perspective of theory, method and perspective: Theoretically, it has enriched the research on the impact of enterprise digital evolution on enterprises' outbound investment. This paper first analyzes the relationship between enterprises' digital evolution and enterprises' outbound investment, and then conducts heterogeneity test, and then analyzes the mediating effect and moderating effect. To a certain extent, this has enriched the research on the impact of enterprise digital evolution on enterprises' outbound investment. In terms of methods, the two-way fixed effect model is used to analyze the impact of digital evolution on enterprises' outbound investment, and the intermediary effect model and the regulatory effect model are further used to analyze the mechanism of digital evolution on enterprises' outbound investment. From the perspective of listed manufacturing enterprises in China, this paper considers the factors affecting digital evolution and foreign investment of enterprises, and makes a specific analysis.

Comments 2: Rather than a simple categorised narrative of the findings, the marginal contribution needs to be written about the research ideas and scholarly contributions of the paper.

Response 2: Agree. We agree with this comment. We have made revisions to the paper based on the suggestions you provided.The revision of this part is the same as in Response 1.

Comments 3: The illustration below the IDEA in Figure 1 Technology Roadmap corresponds to the research methodology, while the illustration below Method corresponds to the specific methodology in the IDEA, which does not correspond in content. At the same time, the technology roadmap over-explains the variables and methods used and fails to highlight the relevant content of this paper. It tends to focus on the measurement method and ignores the research content.

Response 3: Agree. We have made revisions to the paper based on the suggestions you provided. The technical roadmap reduces the explanation of measurement methods and increases the explanation of the research content of this paper. The following correspond to the main research content of this paper. See page 4 for the technology roadmap.

Comments 4: The literature review lacks a summary of the theoretical foundations, research methods and main conclusions, and then comment on the shortcomings of this research area or the space for academic improvement, which is missing in the review of this paper.

Response 4: Agree. We have modified literature review to emphasize this point. The specific revisions are as follows:

a 3-5 paragraph literature review is given to each hypothesis to make them more explicitly linked to the literature review, as detailed in pages 6-11. For example, for hypothesis 3, this paper carries out a 4-paragraph literature review, and paragraphs 2-4 on page 8 summarize the specific theories, methods and main conclusions of academic research on hypothesis 3. Evaluation of research gaps in this field in paragraph 1, page 9 (i.e. Based on the research on the relationship between enterprise digital evolution, outward investment, and debt financing costs, the following deficiencies are identified.......) On this basis, the research hypothesis 3 of this paper is proposed. Other hypotheses have been similarly modified, see pages 6-11.

Comments 5: The selection of variables is not based on literature and is somewhat subjective, so how can the scientific validity and accuracy of the research results be ensured?

Response 5: Agree.Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have made revisions to the paper based on the suggestions you provided.The specific revisions are as follows:

First, on the choice of variables. The selection of variables in this paper is based on the thesis rather than subjective selection. In the part of literature review, many relevant studies have been mentioned on the impact of enterprise digital evolution on enterprises' overseas investment relationship. For example, page 5, the literature review on the impact of digital evolution on enterprises' outbound investment. The literature review in this part is divided into three parts:Firstly, Exploring the Influencing factors of corporate digital evolution.

Secondly, exploring the economic outcomes of enterprise digital evolution.  

Thirdly, exploring the methods of achieving corporate digital evolution.

A number of factors that may influence the impact of digital evolution on outbound investment have been discussed in the literature review above. Therefore, the selection of many variables in this paper is based on literature selection, and scientific experiments have been carried out. In the experiments, the method of lagging variables, changing research time and instrumental variables have been further used to carry out robust testing of the model, and the results obtained are also consistent with the reality. We are confident that this will ensure the scientific and valid results of the study.

Comments 6: In the heterogeneity analysis, digital evolution has a significant impact on outward investment in the East, and in the Northeast, the impact is also significant, so what are the possible reasons that cause it to be significant for the Northeast? Is there any support from previous literature?

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out.Digital evolution does have significant implications for outbound investment in the east and northeast. There may be several reasons why this effect is also significant in the Northeast: 

First, market demand and potential opportunities. There may be specific market needs and potential opportunities in the Northeast that digital evolution can address and exploit. In recent years, the three Northeast provinces have responded to the call to develop science and technology, and continuously enhance the development vitality of the old industrial base in Northeast China [1]. For example, digital technology may provide innovative solutions to the resource, environmental, demographic and other needs unique to the Northeast region, thus attracting more outbound investment.

Second, resource structure and industrial layout. Digital evolution may trigger industrial restructuring and transformation and upgrading, and for the resource-rich northeast region, which is relatively backward in the development of traditional industries, digital evolution may provide new development opportunities and attract more foreign investment.

 In summary, the significance of the Northeast region for digital evolution may stem from its unique resource advantages, policy support, and market demand, which together make the region an important destination for outbound investment. We are aware of the lack of references to relevant literature in this paper, and we have revised it. For details, see the last sentence of the last paragraph on page 18 of the paper:Because of the advantages of its resource ..........the region has become an important destination for foreign investment.

References available:[1] Jiang Hong, Zhang Lei, Wang Dongping. Research on scientific and technological innovation ability of three provinces in Northeast China [J]. Taxation and Economics,2023(03):106-112. (in Chinese)

Comments 7: Lack of relevant analyses of the similarities and differences between the findings of this paper and those of similar studies in terms of theory, methodology and conclusions, and the overall depth of the study needs to be improved?

Response 7: Thank you for your suggestions for this article. The shortcomings you pointed out are really worthy of attention and will be very helpful to us in improving the quality of our research. In view of the shortcomings of the theory, method and conclusion you mentioned, we will take the following improvement measures: 

First, the strengthening of theoretical framework. In terms of theoretical analysis in this paper, many links between existing research findings and the findings of this study have been made in the literature review, and the applicability of the theoretical model is further discussed in the fourth part of this paper. Future research will also consider more theoretical perspectives to enrich the depth and breadth of the analysis. This is indeed the shortcoming of this paper, and we also hope to improve it in the future.

Second, the perfection of methods. Based on the data of China's listed companies from 2010 to 2021, the two-way fixed-effect model is used to analyze the relationship between enterprises' digital evolution and enterprises' outbound investment, and the robustness of the results is tested by lagging variables, changing research time and instrumental variables. See Table5 on page 18 for details.

Third, conclusion induction and summary. We will further summarize and summarize the research conclusions, clearly emphasize the similarities and differences with similar studies, and provide more in-depth discussion and analysis. This can increase the comparability and explainability of the research, and enhance the depth and credibility of the overall research. See page 23 for details: 5.1. Research Conclusions.

Through these improvement measures, we expect to improve the academic quality of this research, so that it can make more significant progress in both theory and practice. Thank you again for your valuable suggestions, which we will take seriously and try our best to improve.

Comments 8:Any study has certain shortcomings, is it possible that this study is just as likely to have some research shortcomings and directions for further research?

Response 8: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. As for the lack of research in this paper, we really lack consideration, so we add the sixth part at the end of the paper: research limitations. See the last paragraph on page 25.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction must include background literature in the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs. The sixth paragraph must define the research gap. The next paragraph must describe how this study closes the research gap. 

The Review of Literature must be separated from hypotheses development. Describe 6-8 relevant, post-2020 studies.

Rewrite the hypotheses development. Only Hypothesis 1 is justified. Use intuitive arguments from the literature review to justify each of the other hypotheses in 3-5 paragraphs for EACH hypothesis. 

Rewrite conclusions. Separate into Theoretical Implications, Practical Implications, and Research Limitations. 

The methodology and results are excellent. No changes required.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No changes.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. The areas needing improvement have been revised in the resubmitted manuscript, and we have provided detailed responses to each of your comments. Here are the corresponding replies.

Comments 1:The introduction must include background literature in the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs. The sixth paragraph must define the research gap. The next paragraph must describe how this study closes the research gap.

Response 1: Agree.Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have made revisions to the paper based on the suggestions you provided.The specific revisions are as follows:

First, the introduction has been supplemented with corresponding literature. In the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs of the introduction, citations to background literature have been added. Please refer to page 3, lines 2-4 of the first paragraph, lines 3-5 of the second paragraph, and lines 2-6 of the third paragraph.

Second, the research gap and research ideas have been addressed. The research gap of this study has been defined, and a brief overview of the study's general ideas has been provided. Please see the fifth paragraph on page three.

The last paragraph of the introduction outlines the framework of the paper. Please refer to the first paragraph on page 4.

Comments 2: The Review of Literature must be separated from hypotheses development. Describe 6-8 relevant, post-2020 studies.

Response 2: Agree. We agree with this comment. We have made revisions to the paper based on the suggestions you provided.The specific revisions are as follows:

Firstly, each hypothesis has undergone a literature review spanning paragraphs 3-5, providing clearer connections to the literature review. Detailed revisions can be found on pages 6-11. For instance, regarding hypothesis 3, this paper includes a literature review spanning 4 paragraphs. On page 8, paragraphs 2-4 summarize specific theoretical, methodological, and scholarly research findings related to hypothesis 3. In the first paragraph on page 9, an evaluation of research gaps in this field is provided (i.e., "Based on the research on the relationship between enterprise digital evolution, outward investment, and debt financing costs, the following deficiencies are identified..."), followed by the presentation of hypothesis 3 based on this assessment. Similar modifications have been made to other hypotheses, as detailed on pages 6-11.

Secondly, additional relevant studies conducted after 2020 have been incorporated, totaling 6-8 items. These additions can be found on pages 6-11 for reference.

Comments 3: Rewrite the hypotheses development. Only Hypothesis 1 is justified. Use intuitive arguments from the literature review to justify each of the other hypotheses in 3-5 paragraphs for EACH hypothesis.

Response 3: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We have made revisions to the paper based on the suggestions you provided.To enhance the persuasiveness and practical relevance of our hypotheses, we have followed your advice and substantiated each hypothesis with intuitive arguments from the literature review. This approach has been implemented by providing supporting evidence for each hypothesis across 3-5 paragraphs, as detailed on pages 6-11.

Comments 4: Rewrite conclusions. Separate into Theoretical Implications, Practical Implications, and Research Limitations.

Response 4: Agree. We have modified literature review to emphasize this point. The specific revisions are as follows:

First，We have rewritten the conclusion section. The first paragraph of the conclusion explicitly addresses the main issues of the study, while paragraphs 2-5 discuss the research findings, focusing primarily on simplifying the language used to describe the results.

Second,The discussion of implications has been rewritten. The first paragraph of the implications section focuses on theoretical implications, while paragraphs 2-3 discuss practical implications for businesses and policymakers.

Third,We have addressed the limitations of the study. Recognizing the shortcomings in our previous consideration of the study's limitations, we have now addressed this by adding a new section at the end of the article titled "6. Limitations of the Study," as detailed in the final paragraph on page 25.

Comments 5:The methodology and results are excellent. No changes required.  

Response 5: Thank you for your comments. For the deficiencies of English expression, we will revise it as soon as possible.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author your research work is interesting. However, I would recommend you that Please enrich your literature portion, not in terms of writeup, but in terms of scholarly support.

I am not recommending you much papers but just for example, look into this Paper maximum literature support is taken from the last five years. 

Asad, M., Aledeinat, M., Majali, T., Almajali, D. A., & Shrafat, F. D. (2024). Mediating role of green innovation and moderating role of resource acquisition with firm age between green entrepreneurial orientation and performance of entrepreneurial firms. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 1-17. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2291850

Qalati, S. A., Ostic, D., Sulaiman, M. A., Gopang, A. A., & Khan, A. (2022). Social media and SMEs’ performance in developing countries: effects of technological-organizational-environmental factors on the adoption of social media. SAGE Open, 12(2), 1-13. doi:10.1177/21582440221094594

Just read out these Papers and see how literature support is mandatory. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Proof reading is needed to make it more scholarly writing. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. The areas needing improvement have been revised in the resubmitted manuscript, and we have provided detailed responses to each of your comments. Here are the corresponding replies.

1.Comments 1:Dear Author your research work is interesting. However, I would recommend you that Please enrich your literature portion, not in terms of writeup, but in terms of scholarly support.

I am not recommending you much papers but just for example, look into this Paper maximum literature support is taken from the last five years.

Asad, M., Aledeinat, M., Majali, T., Almajali, D. A., & Shrafat, F. D. (2024). Mediating role of green innovation and moderating role of resource acquisition with firm age between green entrepreneurial orientation and performance of entrepreneurial firms. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 1-17. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2291850

Qalati, S. A., Ostic, D., Sulaiman, M. A., Gopang, A. A., & Khan, A. (2022). Social media and SMEs’ performance in developing countries: effects of technological-organizational-environmental factors on the adoption of social media. SAGE Open, 12(2), 1-13. doi:10.1177/21582440221094594

Just read out these Papers and see how literature support is mandatory.

Response 1:Thank you for your suggestions, I have learnt something from reading the paper you recommended and have made changes based on the suggestions you made.The specific amendments are as follows:

Regarding the currency of the literature. After reading the two articles you suggested, I found that most of the literature it cites is relatively new, and a very small portion is from older years, but it has a high impact. Therefore, taking a cue from your suggested articles, I keep a portion of the literature that is of older vintage but high impact, e.g., literature [4][6][7][74]. Although these three articles are old, they are more influential in the field related to enterprise digital evolution in China. At the same time, some old but less influential articles were deleted and replaced with the latest research articles, e.g., articles [14][29][33][75].

Overall, most of the literature cited in the study is from the last five years, and only 1-2 documents are older but are necessary to be retained

2.Response to Comments on the Quality of English Langua

Response 1:Thank you for your valuable suggestions, we have proof read the paper to ensure the academic nature of the article.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the authors have made some amendments, there are still two significant concerns that need to be addressed:

Originality and Contribution: The topic of digitalization and foreign investment is well-covered in existing literature. It is essential for the authors to clearly articulate what unique findings or contributions this paper offers that distinguish it from the existing research. The novel aspects of the study and its advancement of our understanding in this field need to be explicitly stated.

References and Citations: I have noticed that the majority of the references are from Chinese-language sources. While some of these may be pertinent, the heavy reliance on non-English references could severely limit the paper’s accessibility and its engagement with the international academic community. It is rare for papers in English-language journals to rely predominantly on sources in another language. Therefore, I strongly recommend that the authors eliminate all but the most critical two or three Chinese-language references, replacing them with English-language literature to provide a more balanced and globally relevant perspective.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. The areas needing improvement have been revised in the resubmitted manuscript, and we have provided detailed responses to each of your comments. Here are the corresponding replies.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

Comments 1: Originality and Contribution: The topic of digitalization and foreign investment is well-covered in existing literature. It is essential for the authors to clearly articulate what unique findings or contributions this paper offers that distinguish it from the existing research. The novel aspects of the study and its advancement of our understanding in this field need to be explicitly stated.

Response 1: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have made two changes:

First, the contribution of this article. Most of the existing literature focuses on the direct mechanism and heterogeneity of digital evolution on enterprises' outbound investment, and less on the indirect mechanism. Therefore, this study focuses on whether enterprises' digital evolution has mediating and regulating effects on enterprises' outbound investment. In what ways? This is the innovation of this paper.

Second, progress in understanding the field. This study first examines the relationship between enterprises' digital evolution and enterprises' outbound investment, then analyzes heterogeneity, and finally verifies whether there are mediating and moderating effects between the two. Based on existing studies, we believe that the mediating and moderating effects of enterprise digital evolution on enterprises' outbound investment is a progress in this field, that is, enterprise digital evolution promotes enterprises' outbound investment by improving ESG performance and reducing COD1 of enterprise debt financing cost. Firm age and debt financing cost COD2 regulate the relationship between firm digital evolution and firm outbound investment.

In view of the above two points, a separate paragraph is listed to explain, emphasizing the contribution and shortcomings of this paper. See last paragraph, page 3, and paragraph 1, page 4.

Comments 2: References and Citations: I have noticed that the majority of the references are from Chinese-language sources. While some of these may be pertinent, the heavy reliance on non-English references could severely limit the paper’s accessibility and its engagement with the international academic community. It is rare for papers in English-language journals to rely predominantly on sources in another language. Therefore, I strongly recommend that the authors eliminate all but the most critical two or three Chinese-language references, replacing them with English-language literature to provide a more balanced and globally relevant perspective.

Response 2: Agree.

In order to make the research more accessible and its engagement with the international academic community, the article removes 2-3 Chinese references and replaces them with English literature to provide a more balanced and globally relevant perspective. Specific amendments:

First, In the paragraph "Thirdly, exploring the methods of achieving corporate digital evolution", the original literature is deleted and relevant foreign research is added. See second paragraph, page 7.

Second, In the paragraph "Firstly, regarding the research on enterprise digital evolution and enterprise ESG performance", delete the last document. English literature is used instead. See last sentence, first paragraph, page 8.

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Moderate editing of English language required

Response 1:  Thanks for your suggestions, we have revised the shortcomings you raised about the article.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are overlapping elements in the narratives of theoretical and methodological innovations; theory and methodology should be two separate elements.

 There is a hint of a reference citation error on page 5 of the article.

 Variable selection modifications are not in place.

 The name of the person, Qunyong X, on page 8 is not in order.

 Question 7 was not revised to discuss the findings of this paper in comparison to similar studies.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. The areas needing improvement have been revised in the resubmitted manuscript, and we have provided detailed responses to each of your comments. Here are the corresponding replies.

Comments 1:There are overlapping elements in the narratives of theoretical and methodological innovations; theory and methodology should be two separate elements

Response 1: Agree.Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have made revisions to the paper based on the suggestions you provided.The specific amendments are as follows:

Further rationalisation of the presentation of theoretical and methodological innovations. There are three revisions:

First, changes to the theoretical and methodological innovations in the introduction. It is specified separately from both theoretical and methodological aspects. In terms of theory, enrich the research on the theoretical aspects of enterprise digital transformation on enterprise outward investment. Methodologically, to expand the methodological tests on the impact of corporate digital transformation on corporate outward investment. For specific elaboration, see paragraph 1 on page 4.

Second, clarify the tertiary headings under the mechanism of action in the literature review section. See pages 7-11 for specific changes.

Third, make changes to the Methods column of the Technology Roadmap under Role Mechanisms section.

Comments 2: There is a hint of a reference citation error on page 5 of the article.

Response 2:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have made revisions to the paper.See page 6 for citations to documents 22-24 for specific modifications.

Comments 3: Variable selection modifications are not in place.

Response 3: Agree.We agree with this comment. We have made revisions to the paper based on the suggestions you provided.Specific modifications are as follows: literature is cited in the selection of explanatory variables, explanatory variables, mediating variables and moderating variables, respectively, in order to achieve a more reasonable selection of variables. See page 13-14, 3.2. Indicator Selection.

Comments 4: The name of the person, Qunyong X, on page 8 is not in order.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out.We have made revisions to the paper based on the suggestions you provided.

Comments 5: Question 7 was not revised to discuss the findings of this paper in comparison to similar studies.

Response 5: Agree.Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have made revisions to the paper based on the suggestions you provided.The specific amendments are as follows:

A discussion of the results of this paper and how they differ from existing research in terms of conclusions, theory and methodology has been added to the conclusion of the paper's research section. See specifically the last 1 paragraph on page 25 and page 26.

In terms of conclusions, it was found that the impact of enterprise digital evolution on outward investment can be achieved through two paths: improving ESG performance ........ the more it suppresses the positive impact.

In terms of theory, research on the theoretical aspects of enterprise digital evolution on enterprise outward.......enriching the theoretical research related to the digital evolution of enterprises and outward investment of enterprises.

 In terms of methodology, a methodological test of the impact of extended enterprise digital........ enriching the test of enterprise digital evolution affecting enterprise outward investment.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Changes have been made. Therefore, the article can be published.

Author Response

Thank you again for your valuable suggestions and if you have any other suggestions or comments, please feel free to contact us.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding my earlier feedback on the use of Chinese-language references. My suggestion was not simply to remove a few Chinese references but to retain only the most critical 2-3 Chinese-language references, while significantly increasing the number of English-language sources. The aim is to ensure that the paper maintains its critical insights from essential Chinese research while enhancing its global accessibility and relevance by incorporating a broader range of English-language literature. Therefore, please carefully evaluate and retain the most impactful Chinese references and proactively include more English-language literature to achieve a more balanced and globally relevant perspective.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you again for your revision suggestions. In the resubmitted manuscript, we have revised the areas for improvement and have responded to each of your comments in detail. Here are the corresponding responses.

 1.Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding my earlier feedback on the use of Chinese-language references. My suggestion was not simply to remove a few Chinese references but to retain only the most critical 2-3 Chinese-language references, while significantly increasing the number of English-language sources. The aim is to ensure that the paper maintains its critical insights from essential Chinese research while enhancing its global accessibility and relevance by incorporating a broader range of English-language literature. Therefore, please carefully evaluate and retain the most impactful Chinese references and proactively include more English-language literature to achieve a more balanced and globally relevant perspective.

Response 1: Agree. Thank you again for your proposed revision. We agree with this comment. We have the following improvements:

Firstly, delete Chinese references. The article has deleted a lot of Chinese literature, and retains relatively authoritative and influential literature.

Secondly, English literature is added. References to English literature are added, and many of the English literature comes from influential journals to achieve a more balanced and globally relevant perspective. English literature citations are mainly added in the literature review part of the article, see pages 6-11 for details.In addition to the literature review, English references are also introduced in other sections, such as the introduction.

Thirdly, 48 English literatures are cited in this paper, and the remaining Chinese literatures are indispensable. In addition, there are few or not enough authoritative English literature studies on this topic, so this paper only cites some authoritative English studies.

2.Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Moderate editing of English language required

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We have already made the modification.

3.Additional clarifications

Thank you again for your valuable comments on this article. If you have any other suggestions or comments, please feel free to contact us.

Round 4

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accept

Author Response

Thank you again for your valuable suggestions and if you have any other suggestions or comments, please feel free to contact us.