Impact of Rural Digital Economy Development on Rural Revitalisation—Evidence from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on data from 30 provinces in China from 2013 to 2020, the article uses the entropy value method to measure the level of rural digital economy development and the level of rural revitalisation development, and empirically analyses the impact of rural digital economy development on rural revitalisation by using a two-way fixed-effects model.The important conclusion that the level of rural digital economy development in each province has a positive impact on the level of rural revitalisation development is drawn, and that the level of economic development, the urbanisation rate, the degree of openness to the outside world, the demographic structure and rural assets are all input factors that have a significant positive impact on the level of rural revitalisation development.The thesis is novel, logical, well analysed and well written, but there is room for further improvement:

1. Unify the tenses of the whole text. In the abstract, please write according to the standard, especially in the first sentence of the description, pay attention to emphasise that it is the reality of China's background;

2. The development of rural digital economy has been the focus of research in recent years, so it is necessary to add some latest research results in recent years, especially in 2023 and 2024, in the citation section to increase the timeliness of the article;

3. In the process of writing the last chapter, the countermeasures are not targeted, and the conclusion compares the results of the rural digital economy development level and rural revitalisation development level of different regions, so the conclusion should be based on the differences in the region to put forward the corresponding opinions; the influencing factors involved in the process of the study should also be reflected in the countermeasures.

4. Figure 1 needs to be adjusted.

5. Table 2, Degree of openness to the outside world, minimum value 0.770, maximum value 132.510, and the mean and variance range from 25 to 27, The data may have extreme or outlier values. The same applies to Rural asset inputs.

6. Unified decimal places required, 3 or 4 places.

7. Discussion needs to increase the innovation or marginal contribution of the article to existing research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please refer to the annex. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article titled "The Impact and Mechanism of Rural Digital Economy Development on Rural Revitalisation: An Empirical Study based on 30 Provinces in China" addresses an important and current issue. The authors have appropriately formulated the research objective and hypothesis. Adequate research methods were used in the study. The conclusions are coherent and based on the conducted analyses.

Overall, I highly rate the reviewed text, but I have a few comments:

1. The chapter titled "Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypotheses" is too long and its purpose is not entirely clear. It is neither a literature review (as the authors rarely cite other works) nor a theoretical framework... Interesting information is only provided on page 6. It would be better to divide this text into sections related to Figure 1.
2. It is somewhat surprising to find the "Discussion" chapter presented after the Conclusion. Typically, the discussion should be conducted earlier. Additionally, the discussion should refer to the research results of other authors.
3. The authors should use maps when presenting the results. It would be easier to assess spatial variations.
4. I believe the authors should not start chapters with table presentations. A brief introduction is needed, followed by a reference to the tables. Moving some of the text would suffice.
5. The research hypothesis was not verified in the study.

 

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title should be rephrased - 'The Impact and Mechanism' -the cluster of words to be improved; I suggest not giving the exact number of provinces examined in the title

2. In the abstract, the purpose of the study is blurred; ‘Based on data’ (line 9) – what exactly is the data?

3. The introduction is not scientific in nature, it does not inform why the topic is important for science; the focus was on describing the situation in China. I lack an explanation of key concepts for the work, in particular digital economy and the concept of rural revitalization, along with references to the literature on the subject.

4. In part 3, Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypotheses, there are considerations about which it is not known whether they are an analysis of other authors' research or our own conclusions. The title suggests that literature was used, but no references were provided. The lack of a clear formulation of the research problem and reference to the world literature on the subject is a significant shortcoming of the study.

5. The purpose of the study is missing, which influences the decision in the review.

6. No justification was provided as to why and how the 30 provinces were selected for the study. Why were China and rural areas examined and the time range is 2013-2020? Just because the data was available?

7. Section 6.2 Discussion raises doubts as it does not contain references to research by other authors.

8. Generally, in the theoretical part, the considerations are chaotic, the text uses numerous mental shortcuts, the formulations are unclear and incomprehensible, e.g. ‘Elaborate the connotation of rural revitalisation from different perspectives’ (line 66).

9. CNC - abbreviation (line 129)

10. Serious actions must be taken to ensure that the manuscript is ultimately coherent and that the theoretical part provides a basis for the empirical part.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has improved significantly. In its new version, I would like to draw attention to the following issues:

1. I'm glad that the purpose of work appeared at work. However, I believe that its wording raises doubts and requires renewed attention and change. In my opinion, 'constructs the evaluation index system of rural digital economy and rural revitalization' (lines 120-121) is not a goal but a tool to achieve the goal.

2. The new version of the article contains a discussion of the results and conclusions. The conclusions are very detailed (too general), especially in relation to the discussion part.

3. I am missing an indication of the limitations of the study.

4. The article requires significant improvement and refinement in the editing layer.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf