Analysis of the Development Patterns and Improvement Strategies of China’s Digital Economy—Drawing Insights from Data Collected across 227 Cities in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors following issues are there in article.
The abstract doesn’t clearly state the problem domain, methods employed and the outcome.
Introduction section doesn’t delve into the literature to highlight the significance of the problem. Also, it doesn’t have the summary of other coming sections.
The constructs mentioned in Figure 1 doesn’t match with Table 1. Further there is no rational or reference provided for the adopted metrics. Some of them are too simplified such as students per 10000 people in the city from measuring human capital. All constructs are measured through single item which is not very realistic.
Research method section should clearly mention different tests clearly with more illustration on the reason and rationale. And this section must be separate from the data processing section.
Heading 4.2 is in non-English language.
Paths H1 to H8 must be defined in Figure 1 and explained from the literature review.
Table 7 doesn’t provide the footnotes to make sense of the symbols.
Due to lack of clarity in previous sections it’s difficult to understand the outcome and conclusion of the study.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageHeading 4.2 is in non-English language.
Author Response
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers whose constructive comments have helped to improve the manuscript. All their comments have been carefully considered in the revised version of our paper. We hope that the changes we made have addressed the issues raised. The details please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI consider that the study deals with an interesting and important topic nowadays in the context of digital economy. However, there are some aspects that can be improved in the current version of the paper:
1. The Introduction should include the following aspects: aim; objectives; methods and data used; main results obtained; novelty and contribution of the research in the context of specialized literature; structure of the paper; and usefulness of the present study for various stakeholders.
2. The studies included in the Literature Review section should be presented in concordance with the aim and objectives proposed previously. Also, based on the results of these studies, some research hypothesis should be developed.
3. Some elements included in Figure 1 from Literature Review section are not in concordance with the information presented in Table 1 included the next section. For instance, regarding Organization dimension, “Final input” from Figure 1 is represented by “Fiscal Investment” in Table 1? Also, “Industrial Institutions” from Figure 1 is not present in Table 1 and in the rest of the analysis.
4. In Table 1, the metric corresponding to the outcome variable is not included. Please revise.
5. In the Research Methods and Data Processing, a detailed description of the two methods applied is needed.
6. In the Research Methods and Data Processing, given the complexity of the paper, I consider useful to construct a diagram in order to describe coherently the succession of the stages employed. In each stage, the methods/tests applied should be mentioned.
7. At Subsection 4.2., please revise the title in order to contain text written only in English.
8. The Conclusions and Recommendations section could be developed with limitations of the study and some future research directions.
Good luck!
Author Response
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers whose constructive comments have helped to improve the manuscript. All their comments have been carefully considered in the revised version of our paper. We hope that the changes we made have addressed the issues raised. The details please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have had the opportunity to review your manuscript, entitled "Analysis of the Development Patterns and Improvement Strategies of China’s Digital Economy – Drawing Insights from Data Collected Across 227 Cities in China." This paper examines the mechanisms underlying digital economic development, proposes new models for high-quality development, and identifies new growth poles for China’s digital economy. As a journal with an international audience, the papers that focus too much on national issues are not adequately addressed. The subject matter of this study is certainly appealing; however, there is room for improvement in terms of its international legitimacy. The introduction could be enhanced by providing a more comprehensive overview of the challenges facing the digital economy, accompanied by a discussion on the various patterns and strategies employed to address these challenges. Additionally, there is a tendency in the literature review to focus excessively on China, potentially deterring potential international readers. It would be beneficial to incorporate a more global perspective on the digital economy and factors shaping city development.
The Ceiling Envelopment method, frequently employed in conjunction with Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA), is particularly useful in contexts where there are natural or practical constraints on the maximum achievable levels of an outcome. The method typically assumes that the technology or method of production is constant across observations. Is this assumption always valid in your research?
The paper lacks a discussion of the results in the international context. It would be beneficial for the authors to discuss their Chinese results in the context of international literature.
It is recommended that the manuscript be checked for language issues as there is much that can be improved. Despite this caveat and those outlined above, the manuscript shows great promise. To improve the clarity, impact and accessibility of your work, it is recommended that the points raised above be considered carefully as the manuscript is further developed.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI do not understand "4.2. 条件组态的充分性分析Adequacy Analysis of Conditional Configuration"
I suggest that instead of varies sizes of marks , different marks are used in table 6.
Part 4 Data Analysis and Empirical Results is not clear for people who do not know ealier those methods. Less maths more clarifications.
Author Response
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers whose constructive comments have helped to improve the manuscript. All their comments have been carefully considered in the revised version of our paper. We hope that the changes we made have addressed the issues raised. The details please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe submitted manuscript presents an ambitious study that explores the development patterns and improvement strategies of China's digital economy by analyzing data collected from 227 cities. The authors employ a combination of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and necessary condition analysis (NCA) to unearth patterns of high and low digital economy development. The study is timely and addresses a significant topic with potential policy implications. However, several areas require improvement to enhance the clarity, depth, and utility of the findings.
Content and Contextualization: The content is generally well-described and contextualized within existing literature, though the positioning against current empirical research could be more pronounced. The introduction and literature review set a strong foundation, yet the study's contribution to ongoing debates in the field could be more explicitly articulated. It would benefit from a clearer delineation of how this work extends or challenges existing models or findings in digital economy research.
Relevance of Cited References: The manuscript appears to include relevant references, but there are instances where more recent studies could be integrated. This would not only update the context but also strengthen the argument for the study's necessity given current gaps in the literature.
Clarity of Research Design and Methods: The description of the combined QCA and NCA methods is comprehensive. However, the explanation of the choice of cities and the rationale behind the specific analytical approach could be better clarified to enhance the reader's understanding of the methodological robustness.
Coherence of Arguments and Discussion: The discussion of findings is insightful but occasionally lacks critical analysis of how these findings interact with broader economic and technological trends in China. A more balanced discussion, considering alternative explanations or contradicting evidence from the literature, would enhance the argument's depth.
Presentation of Results: Results are presented clearly, but the integration of tables and figures within the text is sometimes disjointed. Improving the flow of text and data presentation would help in maintaining reader engagement and clarity.
Reference and Conclusion Support: The article is adequately referenced, and the conclusions are generally supported by the results. However, more explicit connections between specific data points and the broader conclusions drawn could strengthen the manuscript.
Quality of English Language: The manuscript requires moderate editing for language to enhance readability and professional presentation. Some sections exhibit awkward phrasing or grammatical errors that could obscure meaning.
Specific Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
- Expand the literature review to include recent studies that address similar themes or have employed similar methodologies. This would contextualize the study more robustly within the current academic discourse.
- Provide a more detailed justification for the selection of cities and the specific analytical methods used. Clarifying these choices will strengthen the validity of the research design.
- Enhance the discussion section by critically engaging with the results in the context of broader socio-economic trends and existing research. Consider discussing potential limitations of the study and areas for future research.
- Improve the integration of visual data (tables and figures) within the text to ensure that the presentation supports the narrative flow and adds clarity to the discussion of findings.
- Conduct a thorough language revision to correct grammatical errors and awkward phrasing. Professional language editing services may be beneficial.
Nothing to add.
Author Response
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers whose constructive comments have helped to improve the manuscript. All their comments have been carefully considered in the revised version of our paper. We hope that the changes we made have addressed the issues raised. The details please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease add the contents of the articles in the last paragraph of introduction section.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments，We have updated the abstract, keywords, and added some content after the introduction of the paper ，please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWell done. I recommend this article for publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments
