A Spatiotemporal Evolution and Pathway Analysis of Rural Development Efficiency: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study provides a comprehensive assessment of rural development efficiency (RDE) in the Yangtze River Delta (YRD) region from 2012 to 2021 using the superefficiency SBM model. It effectively employs the Theil index and spatial Markov chains to analyze the spatiotemporal evolution of RDE, identify rural development types, and propose targeted developmental pathways. The findings are insightful, revealing an initial rise in RDE followed by stabilization, a "core-periphery" efficiency pattern, and significant geographic influences on RDE transitions and spatial spillovers. By categorizing rural development into six types and suggesting specific pathways for leading demonstration, transformation, and resource-constrained areas, the study offers valuable strategies for optimizing resource allocation and enhancing rural development in the YRD. However, the overall efficiency levels remain low, indicating a need for further improvement in technical efficiency.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the era of post-urbanization, the quality of rural development is an important issue that requires the combined attention of scholars, practitioners and government officials. As this article accurately locates this highly topical issue, it is a piece of literature with theoretical and practical significance. Overall, the article is structurally complete, logically clear, and well written. To improve the quality of the article, the following changes are suggested:
(1) The INTRODUCTION section needs further refinement. It is suggested to comprehensively review the content of rural development efficiency, add related classical literature, and give more details based on it, so that readers can intuitively understand the research line of the whole topic.
(2) In the introduction, it is suggested to revise the shortcomings of existing studies and increase the contribution of this paper, as well as explain why the analysis of spatial dynamics is necessary and important.
(3) It is suggested to clearly formulate the research problem of this thesis in the first part.
(4) Since the content of this paper is extensive, you should add a diagram of the research framework in the second part so that readers can quickly understand the logic of the whole analysis.
(5) In the research methodology section, it is recommended to point out the necessity of using relevant research methods. What is the problem to be solved by applying the relevant methods?
(6) In the fourth part, it is suggested that the authors add the methodology for classifying rural development types.
(7) It is suggested to add the content of the discussion. The comparative analysis between the research findings and the existing studies and the policy recommendations that can be made in this paper can be the focus of this paper.
(8) Authors are strongly requested to ask a native speaker or the MDPI Language Service to check the English language before resubmission.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAuthors are strongly requested to ask a native speaker or the MDPI Language Service to check the English language before resubmission.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe present study explores the spatiotemporal evolution of RDE, 11 categorizes rural development types, and proposes differentiated developmental pathways. Though the work is largely well-written, the article still needs significant improvement in the introduction, results and discussion, and conclusion sections. Considering my observations as follows, I suggest major revisions before considering it for publication.
1. Research on such a topic necessitated extensive analysis, argument, debate, and discussion, as well as the identification of some weaknesses in the literature, all of which are missing in the introduction section. I mean, the motivation behind this research should be included in the introduction section.
2. I would suggest the authors add recent literature to the introduction and, based on this literature, identify the literature gap and highlight the innovation of your own study.
3. Write down the full meaning of “SBM” in the abstract.
4. What are the desirable and undesirable outputs for SBM model?
5. Change the heading of section 3 from “Spatiotemporal Evolution of RDE “to “Results”. Under results section write “Spatiotemporal Evolution of RDE “.
6. Section 4 should go under section 3.
7. I would suggest to write “discussion” section separately based on the result which will provide readers a clearer understanding.
8. Much more explanations and interpretations must be added for the Results in the discussion section. It is suggested to compare the results of the present research with some similar studies which is done before.
9. Conclusion can be improved by highlighting the innovation content of the paper, future research direction, and recommendation for policy formulation.
10. English grammar and spelling should be checked carefully
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is a great honor to see a revised version of this article again. The author deserves recognition and praise for his seriousness and rigor. The author has thoroughly and carefully revised all the comments I mentioned last time. I have no further comments. I think this article is suitable for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors addressed all my comments. I have no further comments.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
