Effects of Regional Financial Development on the Resilience of Wood-Processing Enterprises
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have carefully reviewed the manuscript titled “Effects of Regional Financial Development on the Resilience of Wood-Processing Enterprises.” This study investigates the relationship between the level of regional financial development and the resilience of wood-processing enterprises in China. In this context, resilience is defined as the ability of firms to withstand and recover from external shocks, such as COVID-19, market fluctuations, and capital shortages. The authors utilize a panel dataset to argue that regional financial development can improve firms’ resilience by facilitating capital flows, enhancing access to credit, and increasing informational transparency. The study potentially offers relevant insights for policymakers. However, it requires significant improvements in several areas.
First, the purpose and original contribution of the study are not clearly and convincingly articulated in the introduction. While the economic importance of the wood-processing sector and the need for post-pandemic resilience are generally mentioned, the paper does not explicitly identify the gap it aims to fill, how it differs from similar research, or what its theoretical contribution is. Without emphasizing the novelty of the study, the research value remains unclear to the reader.
Second, the literature review lacks structure and analytical depth. Although the article cites several studies, these are presented in a scattered manner without thematic grouping or comparative analysis. For example, how is the concept of "resilience" measured across different sectors? What previous evidence links regional financial development to corporate resilience? These types of questions are not adequately addressed in the literature section.
Third, the conceptual framework and variable definitions are underdeveloped. Although resilience is measured using a composite indicator, the construction of this indicator, its data sources, subcomponents, and validity, is not sufficiently explained. Similarly, how exactly is "regional financial development" measured? What are the components of the index used? A more carefully articulated conceptual framework is needed.
Fourth, while the model choice is technically reasonable, the justification is weak. The study employs a panel data approach and a fixed effects model, but details about the panel structure (such as: firms vs. regions), data balance, the rationale for choosing fixed vs. random effects, and tests for autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity are not clearly presented. Model fit statistics, such as variance analysis or the Hausman test, should be reported and discussed.
Fifth, the interpretation of the findings is rather superficial. Although results are presented in tables, the discussion is limited. For instance, which types of firms are more resilient-microenterprises, state-supported firms, or innovative startups? What is the extent of regional heterogeneity? Even if the empirical findings are valid, their meaning remains limited unless grounded in a broader theoretical and sectoral context.
Sixth, the policy recommendations are overly general and lack operational detail. The authors suggest improving the financial infrastructure, but how exactly should this be implemented? Should credit institutions be incentivized? Should subsidies be introduced? These questions remain unanswered. Additionally, sector-specific instruments should also be considered.
Seventh, the limitations and future research directions are inadequately presented. The dataset is restricted to China and covers a limited time span. Moreover, key social, institutional, or technological factors that may influence resilience are not included in the model. These limitations should be explicitly acknowledged, and future studies could be encouraged to perform comparative regional analyses or test for sectoral heterogeneity.
Eighth, the literature review, as a whole, is disorganized and lacks a fully systematic construction. While numerous sources are cited, they are not effectively categorized or synthesized to build a coherent theoretical backdrop. The reader is left without a clear understanding of the intellectual trajectory or how this study advances existing knowledge.
Author Response
Dear editor and reviewers,
We are truly grateful to yours and reviewers critical comments and thoughtful suggestions for our manuscript entitled “Effects of Regional Financial Development on the Resilience of Wood-Processing Enterprises” (ID:forests-3787833). Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications on our manuscript. The changes based on reviewers was marked in red color. We hope the revised manuscript will meet your magazine’s standard. On behalf of all the authors of this article, I would like to express my gratitude to the three reviewers for their suggestions not only to make our article better, but also to increase the breadth and depth of our research. I will answer each reviewer's questions and comments one by one. Please find the detailed revisions in the attached file.
Sincerely yours,
Weiming Lin
Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research paper entitled "Effects of Regional Financial Development on the Resilience of Wood-Processing Enterprises" investigates whether the RFD’s improvement can enhance WPEs’ resilience. The paper is well-structured according to the best academic practices: Introduction, literature review, Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypothesis, Variable Selection and Data Sources, Analysis of Validation Results, conclusions and implications.
The subsection Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypothesis contains three hypotheses.
The topicality focuses on global wood-processing enterprises (WPEs) and their frequent exposure to external shocks.
The core finding - that localized financial development enhances firm resilience - is consistent with well-established theories of financial access, credit frictions, and spatial economics. While the empirical evidence is new, the theoretical contribution is incremental and lacks transformative insight. The study focuses solely on wood-processing enterprises in China. Although this is a globally relevant industry, the findings are deeply embedded in China’s unique institutional, financial, and spatial policy context. The generalizability to other countries and industries is questionable.
The research states: “WPEs’ financial and characteristic data are sourced from the “National Tax Survey Database”, with the most recent data available up to 2016.”, line 282. Data ends in 2016, and no connection is made to almost a decade of post-2016 economic disturbances: technological advances, COVID logistic disruption, geopolitical challenges, financial policy changes, etc. This limits the topicality greatly.
The dataset is large, longitudinal, and granular, covering surveys of more than 600,000 enterprises across 1,374 counties over nine years. This is commendable and provides a strong empirical foundation. The statistical methods are sound, conventional, and properly implemented including regression, robustness check, and mediation tests. The statistical significance is robust, and the findings are internally comprehensible.
This is well-conducted research with limited today’s applicability due to the last provided data almost a decade ago. Also, the findings are not easily generalizable beyond the specific industry and national context studied.
Thus, it is recommended to supplement the research with the discussion why the analysis based on almost 20-year-old data could be relevant to today's situation.
Author Response
Dear editor and reviewers,
We are truly grateful to yours and reviewers critical comments and thoughtful suggestions for our manuscript entitled “Effects of Regional Financial Development on the Resilience of Wood-Processing Enterprises” (ID:forests-3787833). Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications on our manuscript. The changes based on reviewers was marked in red color. We hope the revised manuscript will meet your magazine’s standard. On behalf of all the authors of this article, I would like to express my gratitude to the three reviewers for their suggestions not only to make our article better, but also to increase the breadth and depth of our research. I will answer each reviewer's questions and comments one by one. Please find the detailed revisions in the attached file.
Sincerely yours,
Weiming Lin
Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have reviewed the response letter and the revised manuscript. First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors for preparing a highly detailed and comprehensive response letter. Frankly, my concerns have been largely addressed. There is a significant improvement throughout the manuscript. In this regard, the paper is suitable for publication.
Author Response
Comments 1: I have reviewed the response letter and the revised manuscript. First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors for preparing a highly detailed and comprehensive response letter. Frankly, my concerns have been largely addressed. There is a significant improvement throughout the manuscript. In this regard, the paper is suitable for publication.
Response 1: Thanks. We will continue to revise and improve the manuscript in accordance with the editor's comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have adequately addressed the comments made by the reviewer in the
revised version of the manuscript.
Author Response
Comments 1: The authors have adequately addressed the comments made by the reviewer in the
revised version of the manuscript.
Response 1: Thanks. We will continue to revise and improve the manuscript in accordance with the editor's comments.
