Determinants and Mechanisms of Digital Financial Inclusion Development: Based on Urban-Rural Differences
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well organized. the literature review section and conclusions can be improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encourage comments on the merits.
We also appreciate your clear and detailed feedback and hope that the explanation has fully addressed all of your concerns. In the remainder of this letter, we discuss each of your comments individually along with our corresponding responses.
To facilitate this discussion, we first retype your comments in italic font and then present our responses to the comments.
Comment 1: The paper is well organized. the literature review section and conclusions can be improved.
Response 1: Thanks for your affirmation so much. We have improved the literature review, please see pages 4-6, lines 146-236. Also, we have improved the conclusions, please see pages 20-22, lines 719-803.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for all your time involved and this great opportunity for us to improve the manuscript. We hope you will find this revised version satisfactory.
Sincerely,
The Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
The subject under study is very interesting and the authors have used a novel approach. The literature review is thorough and current. The methodology is well explained and applied with scientific rigor.
The main problem that the document presents is one of structure, therefore my recommendations are:
1.- Change the structure of the document. There should be two main sections at the beginning: 1. Introduction and 2.- Literature review.
In the introductory section the research is presented so it is very important that it contains the following information: Briefly contextualize the topic, state what studies have been identified on the topic and what gap has allowed the authors to be identified and based on which they propose the investigation. What is the novelty of the study? Also in the introduction the objective of the investigation should be clearly stated. Finish this section with a final paragraph that sets out the sections into which the document is divided.
Next, as a separate section put the Literature Review section.
2.- The conclusions are relevant and include the theoretical and practical implications, but it is also necessary to include the limitations of the research.
I congratulate the authors for their research.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encourage comments on the merits.
We also appreciate your clear and detailed feedback and hope that the explanation has fully addressed all of your concerns. In the remainder of this letter, we discuss each of your comments individually along with our corresponding responses.
To facilitate this discussion, we first retype your comments in italic font and then present our responses to the comments.
Comment 1: Change the structure of the document. There should be two main sections at the beginning: 1. Introduction and 2.- Literature review. In the introductory section the research is presented so it is very important that it contains the following information: Briefly contextualize the topic, state what studies have been identified on the topic and what gap has allowed the authors to be identified and based on which they propose the investigation. What is the novelty of the study? Also in the introduction the objective of the investigation should be clearly stated. Finish this section with a final paragraph that sets out the sections into which the document is divided. Next, as a separate section put the Literature Review section.
Response 1: Thanks for your great suggestion. We have changed the structure of the document, which contains the introduction and literature review at the beginning. We have added the brief background of the topic, the novelty of the study and the objective of the investigation. Please see pages 1-6, lines 26-236.
Comment 2: The conclusions are relevant and include the theoretical and practical implications, but it is also necessary to include the limitations of the research.
Response 2: We really appreciate your affirmation. We feel sorry for that ignore to explain the limitations of the research. Therefore, we added the limitations in the 6. Conclusions and Implication, please see pages 20-22, lines 719-803.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for all your time involved and this great opportunity for us to improve the manuscript. We hope you will find this revised version satisfactory.
Sincerely,
The Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
In the introduction, you should list findings. Then, you should clarify the contributions of the paper which are not elaborated well in the current paper. You can talk about the following contributions: What insights can you provide based on your finding? Do they push forward our understanding? What should we do with your research? Do you have any suggestions to improve the current regulation or practice? Adding the above discussion and extend your literature review may help you make more contributions and position your contributions better.
The endogeneity problem can be driven by unobservable local and economic characteristics you need to discuss.
There are many typos and grammatical mistakes throughout the paper, making it hard to read and understand. Try to avoid long sentences and vague words. Use short, precise, and concise sentences and be more straightforward.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Well done. Congrats!
