A Study on the Competitiveness and Influencing Factors of the Digital Service Trade

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of this paper is current, relevant and interestingly researched. I suggest to define few research quiestions in the introduction. The research design is well prepared and explained. The research period and the research sample are appropriate. The research methodology in this paper is strong. Tables in the paper are clear and well wexplained. Conclusions are based on the results of the conducted research. In final part of tthe paper are missing limitations of this research and guidelines for future research.

Author Response

Esteemed reviewers，

  Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

1.Introduction added Several research questions (Page 4 of line 105). For example, is China's level of competitiveness in trade in digital services higher or lower than that of CPTPP member countries? What should be done to improve the competitiveness of trade in digital services? What does each look like from the import and export perspectives?

2.In the final part of the text, the paper identifies the study's limitations and directions for future research (Page 22 of line 754). For the limitations, data issues are mainly identified. For future research, we would like to choose bilateral data, which will be more targeted to explore the relationship and influencing factors between China and CPTPP member countries. Based on this, the research area will be refined to study at the digital services trade sector level.

3.For the references, the appropriateness was improved by deleting three less relevant documents and adding eight more relevant documents ([1], [3], [6], [20], [21], [29], [32], [44]).

Reviewer 2 Report

The peer-reviewed scientific study in the acceptable range of 19 pages is undoubtedly a very interesting scientific work. It has definite potential, but the content seems chaotic and needs to be supplemented and modified.

The authors have not read the instructions for authors available on the journal website. They had to strictly follow them so that the required content structure was observed. That needs to be fixed.

The title of the article contains the abbreviation CPTPP, which is not widely known as EU, USA, UK, which should be removed

The abstract is not an introduction, but it should contain, according to the instructions for the authors, the objectives of the study and the material used - these two pieces of information are absolutely missing, the results of the study must be specified in the abstract.

Why aren't the keywords sorted alphabetically? I recommend increasing the number of keywords.

The introduction lacks a clearly stated reason for writing this scientific study, a really clearly stated main goal and secondary goals. There are also missing research questions and, given the scope of the data used, also hypotheses, which the authors would answer in the final part and thus clearly fulfill the main meaning of the study.

The text is extremely compressed, the authors do not separate subsections or sections with lines.

The mandatory Materials and Methods chapter is missing: Due to the scope of the scientific study, it is necessary to pay great attention to these questions as well. From the list of references, it is not clear where the authors drew such a large amount of data from? I hope not only from the scientific works of other authors. Such data must be drawn from verified sources of business organizations, international organizations, central state administration bodies and the like.

The used scientific research methods, both qualitative and quantitative, should also be described and partially characterized deal very well with this issue. Kaššaj M, Peráček T. 2024. Sustainable Connectivity—Integration of Mobile Roaming, WiFi4EU and Smart City Concept in the European Union. Sustainability, 16 (2):788. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020788.

These authors also address such issues as the challenges associated with ensuring the interoperability of various technological solutions and the protection of personal data of the affected subjects, which is missing both in the introduction and in the second chapter.

Chapter 3 is mislabeled against the instructions for authors. it should be labeled "Results" and can then be divided into subsections. However, due to its content, I suggest renaming it to Results and Discussion. This way, the authors would also remove another shortcoming, namely the missing mandatory part.

The total number of references in the number of 40 is insufficient, I recommend expanding them for the purpose of increasing the scientific value of the study and strengthening especially the second part with works such as:

Cristina Elena Popa Tache. (2022. The EU-China road to the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment. Juridical Tribune. 12(4) pp. 476-494, doi: 10.24818/TBJ/2022/12/4.03

In conclusion, as I have already stated, there are no answers to the set research questions and hypotheses.

Explain data collection. In the tables, indicate whether it is your own data or taken over, or whether it is self-processing ....

In the last chapter, state both the limits of this study and the direction of further future research in this area.

Author Response

Esteemed reviewers，

  Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

1. We have re-read the author's instructions and restructured the content based on the principles. The chapters "Materials and Methods" (Page 6 of line 295) and "Discussion and Conclusion" (Page 21 of line 692) are the main additions.

2. Since the term "CPTPP" is not widely known in the EU, USA, UK, etc., the term "CPTPP" has been deleted from the title according to the review comments (Page 2 of line 2).

3. The abstract section adds the objectives of the study (Page 1 of line 14), the material used (Page 1 of line 18), and the study results have been specified in detail (Page 1 of line 23).

4. The number of keywords has also been added and rearranged alphabetically (Page 1 of line 31).

5. The introduction adds the reason for doing this scientific research (Page 2 of line 59, Page 3 of line 102), the objectives to be achieved (Page 3 of line 110), and the research questions (Page 3 of line 105). Based on specific literature combing and analyses, the two research hypotheses of this paper are presented in the literature review chapter (Page 6 of line 272, Page 6 of line 293).

6. All subsections and sections have been reformatted by formatting requirements to make the article look clearer.

7. Add a chapter on materials and methods. On the data side (Page 6 of line 296), the data sources for each indicator used in the study are indicated, the process of processing the data and the criteria for searching the database (including the deadline). In the methodology (Page 7 of line 334), the two main methods used in this paper are introduced, and a detailed description is given in terms of the methodological characteristics, their applicability to this paper, and how they were used to achieve the research objectives. Recommended literature is also cited in the references.

8. In the empirical analysis chapter, I changed the title of the original chapter 3 to empirical analyse (Page 8 of line 361). The measurement of the level of competitiveness and the study of factors affecting competitiveness are then synthesized in this chapter. The discussion and results chapter has been added to the final part of the text.

9. For the references, the appropriateness was improved by deleting three less relevant documents and adding eight more relevant documents ([1], [3], [6], [20], [21], [29], [32], [44]).

10. The research questions (Page 21 of line 727) and research hypotheses (Page 22 of line 742, Page 22 of line 751) are answered in the conclusion.

11. At the bottom of most of the tables, the source of the data and how it was processed are indicated (table 2, table 4, table 5, table 6, table 7, table 9).

12. In the last part of the paper, the study's limitations and directions for future research are added (Page 22 of line 754).

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is in my opinion well structured and conceived accordingly to the declared subject and leads finally to consistent conclusions on the analyzed subject which are sustained by the detailed performed analysis. It also contributes to understanding from a slightly different perspective the strong and weak points regarding the competitiveness of Chinese digital services trade, compared to the CPTPP countries, while China is expecting to join this union of countries.

Literature review on similar subjects explains both the theory and the previous results regarding the approached subject. Also, the data, the indicators and the methods used in analysis appear to be appropriate to sustain the final conclusions.

I consider that the paper is a basically good one, but there are some corrections to be made, as follows:

1.The paper should be extensively revised to correct English.

2. There are many abbreviations without any explanation (WTO, RCEP, WGI, WDI etc.) which may confuse some readers. Also, some abbreviations seem to be wrong: IM or MI (see page 4)?

3. United Kingdom is not yet an effective member of CPTPP even it is very close to be one and this should be clearly stated.

4. Titles of subsections and tables are not clear in the rest of the text, making difficult to identify them.

The paper should be extensively revised to correct English.

Author Response

Esteemed reviewers，

  Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

1. The English language in the revised manuscript has been carefully corrected to improve grammar and readability.
2. Explained some abbreviations in the text, such as WTO, GVC, USITC, UNCTAD, OECD, IMF, G20, ICT, WDI, WGI, etc. The abbreviation of the Michaely Fluctuation Index has been changed to "MI."
3. We explained in the Materials and Methods chapter that the UK is currently unofficially a member of the CPTPP but is very close to becoming a member, so the studied countries include the UK (Page 6 of line 298).
4. The formatting of the subsections and tables has been reformatted as required by the template to make the whole text look clearer.
5. 5.For the references, the appropriateness was improved by deleting three less relevant documents and adding eight more relevant documents ([1], [3], [6], [20], [21], [29], [32], [44]).

Reviewer 4 Report

Digital commerce refers to trade that is enabled by electronic technologies. This happens in all sectors of the world's economies and is important for global industry. In recent years, exports of companies providing digital services have been growing dynamically around the world. They have a significant share in the total export of services. Modern trade is made possible to a very large extent thanks to digital technologies. I propose that the authors make significant additions to the text submitted for evaluation:

1. The abstract should indicate the purpose of the research.

2. The introduction should be supplemented with the purpose of the research and the research subject. Moreover, the incorrect formulation regarding the principal components analysis should be corrected because its results, due to the method used (methodology), do not authorize the assessment of the level of digital services.

3. In the literature review chapter, the abbreviation Michaely Fluctuation Index should be corrected - IM (in one case) and should be MI. Moreover, the chapter should be supplemented with research hypotheses that should be confirmed or not based on the research results obtained in the Results chapter. Additionally, factors affecting the competitiveness of the digital services trade sector should be isolated and the analyzed digital services should be indicated. It is also necessary to identify market and non-market factors shaping the competitiveness of economies from a digital perspective.

4. The article should be supplemented with a Materials and Methods chapter, in which the authors should provide a detailed description of the methods used, as well as the procedure for collecting materials and a description of the database search criteria (including the deadline). It should be remembered that the Michaely Index analyzes the share of surveyed digital services in domestic imports.

5. Then describe the research results. I suggest supplementing the subsections with charts, among others: multiple regression analyses, Michaely indexes, etc., and checking the correctness of the calculations.

6. The article should be supplemented with a Discussion chapter, in which the authors should indicate what other authors already knew about the analyzed phenomena and what results from their research (what are the similarities and differences) and specify their further research plans.

7. The English language in the article requires correction, some statements are incomprehensible.

The English language in the article requires correction, some statements are incomprehensible

Author Response

Esteemed reviewers，

  Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

1. The abstract adds the purpose of the study (Page 1 of line 14).
2. The introduction has been supplemented with the purpose of the study (Page 2 of line 59, Page 3 of line 102) and the subject of the study (Page 3 of line 114). Misstatements about principal component analysis have been removed.
3. The incorrect abbreviation for the Michaely fluctuation index in the literature review has been corrected (Page 4 of line 189). The literature review chapter added two research hypotheses (Page 6 of line 272, Page 6 of line 293), in conclusion indicated that the hypotheses were partially confirmed (Page 22 of line 742, Page 22 of line 751). Factors affecting the competitiveness of the digital services trade sector were added to 2.3.1 of the literature review, and it was specified that the digital services trade sector studied in this paper is according to the UNCTAD database to determine (Page 5 of line 241). The factors influencing the competitiveness of trade in digital services in 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 are also sorted out in terms of market and non-market factors from a digitalization perspective (Page 5 of line 248, Page 5 of line 275).
4. The Materials and Methods chapter regarding data and methods has been added and presented. On the data side, the data sources for each indicator used in the study are indicated, as well as the process of processing the data and the conditions for searching the database (including the deadline)(Page 6 of line 296).In the methodology, the two main methods used in this paper are introduced, and a detailed description is given in terms of the methodological characteristics, their applicability to this paper, and how they were used to achieve the research objectives of this paper(Page 7 of line 334). The definition and formula of the Michaely Index were reconfirmed (Page 11 of line 426).
5. In Empirical analysis, Adding a graph of changes in Michaely indexes(Page 12 of line 468) and adding a table of sample correlation analysis(Page 17 of line 615), and a table of Hausman test(Page 18 of line 623), further checking the correctness of the data and analyzing the tables.
6. It adds a discussion and conclusion chapter to the final part of the text. It adds the extent of the other authors' knowledge of the study, their opinions on the results, and the study's limitations and future research directions (Page 21 of line 708, Page 22 of line 754).
7. The English language in the revised manuscript has been carefully corrected to improve grammar and readability.
8. For the references, the appropriateness was improved by deleting three less relevant documents and adding eight more relevant documents ([1], [3], [6], [20], [21], [29], [32], [44]).

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I am glad that you respected and fully accepted my comments.

After a thorough review of your manuscript, I agree to publish it in an edited version.

Reviewer