Research on the Impact Mechanism and Empirical Study of the Digital Economy on Rural Revitalization in the Yangtze River Economic Belt
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. In the introduction, the significance of researching the impact of the digital economy on rural revitalization is not well-described. Additionally, the deficiencies in existing research and the main innovations are not well-structured.
2.In the discussion of mechanisms, beyond the direct and spatial effects of the digital economy's impact on rural revitalization, it is crucial to consider the potential mediating effects.
3. Regarding the indicator system, the positive or negative attributes of the secondary indicators should be specified for both rural revitalization and the digital economy. Additionally, using data from only 11 provinces and cities over nine years may result in an insufficient sample size.
4. Using data from only 11 regions may lead to inaccuracies in performing the spatial Moran's analysis. As illustrated in Table 8, the coefficient for the spatial lag is not significant. Both the direct and indirect effects are also not significant.
5. the suggestions should be formulated more based on previous findings. Necessary discussions comparing the findings with related research should be added.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is well written and literature review on rural revitalisation and role of the digital economy is thorough.
The paper successfully identifies a significant gap in the literature regarding the intersection of rural revitalisation and digital economy.
While the concept of rural revitalisation is central to the paper, it would be beneficial for the authors to critically examine this notion more thoroughly. The term "revitalisation" suggests rural areas are inherently in need of improvement or transformation. This could be an implicit bias that rural regions are deficient or problematic by nature, and overlook strengths and unique characteristics of these areas. Engaging with alternative perspectives on rural development can provide a more nuanced understanding of the concept.
One area that requires further clarification is the theoretical framework. It’s not very clear whether there is a theoretical framework used to guide the research or if the research adopts a more exploratory approach. Clarifying this will help readers better grasp the study’s conceptual foundations and how the research questions are addressed. Please clarify this.
In addition to the variables that are already there, the authors can explore the concept of social cohesion as another variable.
Although the paper covers how the digital economy impacts rural revitalisation, a more in-depth discussion of the potential obstacles or negative effects that the digital economy might pose for rural areas is useful, for example, issues such as digital inequality, the risk of exacerbating existing disparities, and potential for creating dependency on digital infrastructure. How can these be used to drive better policy?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsHello, dear authors
You can see my observations and suggestions in the attached report.
In my opinion, a revision of the article is necessary.
I congratulate you for your effort and wish you success!
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsgreat improvements
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCongratulation!
