Crafting a Sustainable Next Generation Infrastructure: Evaluation of China’s New Infrastructure Construction Policies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is written from an interdisciplinary point of view on the topic of economy and sustainable development in the post-COVID-19. This topic attracted a lot of attention by scientists and policy makers. Paper analyses Chinese local governments infrastructure policies issued since 2020 with aim to find the orientation and the scope and coverage of the construction of new infrastructure.
The article is well written and analyzes is presented appropriately. The research question is original and the results are interpreted appropriately. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that the hypotheses of the paper should be more clearly emphasized in the text itself and put in abstract as well.
The English language is appropriate and understandable. However, does not explain enough abbreviations that are in it. Namely, each abbreviation must be explained when it is used for the first time, which is not the case in the paper (for example STOI framework, SOTAA framework).
Chapter 4 is mentioned 2 times (which is mistake) and should be reformulated into two new separate chapters that make up the discussion and conclusion (Chapter 5 and Chapter 6); and the introduction title is missing. I also think that more theoretical sources should be added within Chapter with name Related work and research framework and terms such as SOTAA framework should be better explained as this term is part of keywords.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Crafting a sustainable next generation infrastructure: Evaluation of China’s new infrastructure construction policies ” (ID:1230069). Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on your instructions, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shown using red highlight for additions. The responses to your comments are presented following.
We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.
Sincerely.
Jun Wu, Yuanjie Zhang and Zhun Shi
Q1. The hypotheses of the paper should be more clearly emphasized in the text itself and put in abstract as well.
Response：We are grateful for the suggestion. To be more clearly and in accordance with the reviewer concerns, we first rewrite the abstract to highlight our research findings and its relevance to sustainability. A more detailed interpretation regarding the significance of the paper and its potential contribution to infrastructure sustainability were modified on page 2, line 64-76. We have added the definition of infrastructure and its relationship with sustainable development on page2-3, line 96-102. We also added more interpretations on how local governments responsing to regional sustainable development on page 10, line 285-296. Finally, we rewrite the section 6 (page 17-18, line 452-511) to elaborate our findings and its contribution to innovation policy research and related policy making.
Q2. The paper does not explain enough abbreviations that are in it. Namely, each abbreviation must be explained when it is used for the first time, which is not the case in the paper (for example STOI framework, SOTAA framework).
Response：We agree with the comment and each abbreviation has been explained when its used for the first time (for expmple, policy modeling consistency index (PMC index) method). We also rewrote the sentence on page 4, line 167-168 , and the title of figure 1, to delete the STOI and SOTAA abbreviation.
Q3. Chapter 4 is mentioned 2 times (which is mistake) and should be reformulated into two new separate chapters that make up the discussion and conclusion (Chapter 5 and Chapter 6); and the introduction title is missing. I also think that more theoretical sources should be added within Chapter with name Related work and research framework and terms such as SOTAA framework should be better explained as this term is part of keywords.
Response：We are grateful for the suggestion. We refoumulated the structure of the paper and rewrote the paragraph as described on page 2, line 85-94. As your suggested, we revised the title of section 5 and section 5.2 and added section 1 introduction. We have added more theoretical sources, such as the definition of infrastructure and its relationship with sustainable development on page2-3, line 96-102. Given our research focused on policy guided infrastructure sustainability rather than policy evaluation framework enhancement, we rewrote the title of figure 1 to delete the SOTAA abbreviation，and substitute the keyword of SOTTA framework with policy evaluation.
More details on revised manuscript please see attachment with red highlighted text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a very interesting paper on boosting the economy and enhancing sustainable development. You focus on China’s new infrastructure initiative that would have the potential to open up new pathways for economic resilience. To study this initiative, an extended version of SOTAA framework is used. The key data source is the new infrastructure policies issued by Chinese local governments since 2020. Text mining and social network analysis is applied to these data to study and uncover the scope and coverage of the construction of new infrastructure and its orientation. The results show that: (1) The regional new infrastructure policies involve three-year rolling planning cycles and focus on information infrastructure and converging infrastructure with different connotation and coverage; (2) most policies were rated as excellent based on the PMC 19 index results. The main conclusion thus is that local governments appear to attach great importance to the construction of new infrastructure, to create a solid foundation for the sustainable development of their regional economies.
There are two main problems with the manuscript. For one, it's very difficult to understand and assess what your findings contribute to the literature. In the last section, you provide three "policy implications", but readers would want to learn what your findings contribute to the literature (e.g. on SOTAA framework). Thus, I suggest you rewrite the last section, to explain how your main findings provide a novel and interesting theoretical contribution to the literature on innovation policy and new infrastructure.
Second, your study essentially draws on policy documents, rather than policy implementation (results). This raises the question whether a possible gap between policy rhetoric (required to satisfy the demands of higher government) and policy implementation (which may deviate substantially from the espoused policy) creates a major bias in your findings (e.g. 2019). In other words, by focusing on policy formulation only, policy-makers can more easily produce policies rated as "excellent" (from the various criteria you're using to evaluate this). But when policy-makers have to co-create and implement public policy with citizens, companies and other (e.g. environmental protection) stakeholders, the outcomes tend to be less consistent -- though possibly with higher levels of societal acceptance. I'm also raising this question because your study was conducted in the Chinese context, one in which policy frameworks tend to be dictated top-down, leaving lower-level governments with few other choices than to adapt and conform. Can you reflect in the last section on the possible gap between policy rhetorics and practice?
Finally, a more minor point: the text contains too much grammatical errors (e.g. "reginal" instead of "regional") and writing and style deficiencies. So, I suggest you ask a native English writer to copy-edit the manuscript, before (re)submitting it.
REFERENCE
(2019) The rhetoric–reality gap of cities’ success: learning from the practice of Scottish cities. Regional Studies, 53: 1761-1771.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Crafting a sustainable next generation infrastructure: Evaluation of China's new infrastructure construction policies" (ID:1230069). Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on your instructions, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shown using red highlight for additions. The responses to your comments are presented following.
We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.
Sincerely.
Jun Wu, Yuanjie Zhang and Zhun Shi
Q1. Reviewer suggest to rewrite the last section, to explain how research findings provide a novel and interesting theoretical contribution to the literature on innovation policy and new infrastructure.
Response：We are very grateful for the suggestion. We rewrite the section 6 (page 17-18, line 452-511) and elaborate our findings and its potential contribution to innovation policy research and related policy making on new infrastructure. We also revised the abstract so as to align with the revision in last section.
Q2. Possible gap between policy rhetorics and practice need to be reflected in the last section.
Response：We agree with the comment regarding the limitations of our study. Since China's new infrastructure construction is in the initial phase, limited data can be acquired to reveal potential rhetoric–reality gap between policy expectation and its practice. We have added it as the weakness of the research on page 18, line 503-505, and the suggested literature has been added to the reference and cited in the text. Future research can be extended to address this issue.
Q3. The text contains too much grammatical errors (e.g., "reginal" instead of "regional") and writing and style deficiencies. The manuscript needs to be copy-edited before (re)submitting it.
Response：We are very sorry for the mistakes in previous manuscript and inconvenience they caused in your reading. Three authors carefully go through the paper and the manuscript to be submitted has been thoroughly revised and rewritten by native English speaker. We hope it can meet the journal's standard.
More details on revised manuscript please see attachment with red highlighted text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you to the authors for this paper.
All acronyms should be explained when first time mentioned (eg. PMC)
The paper should proved a more profound link with sustainable development (as indicated in the title). Sustainability is mentioned in the title and at the introduction part of the paper, still through the research, finding and discussion it is not covered as a topic. Key finding and recommendations refer on New infrastructure Construction (NIC) policy and the relation with sustainable development should be more emphasized.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Crafting a sustainable next generation infrastructure: Evaluation of China's new infrastructure construction policies" (ID:1230069). Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on your instructions, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shown using red highlight for additions. The responses to your comments are presented following.
We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.
Sincerely.
Jun Wu, Yuanjie Zhang and Zhun Shi
Q1. All acronyms should be explained when first time mentioned (e.g., PMC).
Response：We agree with the comment and each abbreviation has been explained when its used for the first time (e.g., We rewrote the sentence on page 2, line 87-88 to explain PMC index method). We also rewrote the sentence on page 4, line 167-168, and the title of figure 1, to delete the STOI and SOTAA abbreviation.
Q2. The paper should prove a more profound link with sustainable development (as indicated in the title). Sustainability is mentioned in the title and at the introduction part of the paper, still through the research, finding and discussion it is not covered as a topic. Key finding and recommendations refer on New infrastructure Construction (NIC) policy and the relation with sustainable development should be more emphasized.
Response：We are grateful for the suggestion. To be more clearly and in accordance with the reviewer concerns, we first rewrite the abstract to highlight our research findings and its relevance to sustainability. A more detailed interpretation regarding the significance of the paper and its potential contribution to infrastructure sustainability were modified on page 2, line 64-76. We have added the definition of infrastructure and its relationship with sustainable development on page2-3, line 96-102. We also added more interpretations on how local governments responding to regional sustainable development on page 10, line 285-296. Finally, we rewrite the section 6 (page 17-18, line 452-511) to elaborate our findings, its contribution to innovation policy research and related policy implications on infrastructure sustainability.
More details on revised manuscript please see attachment with red highlighted text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have effectively revised this paper, also in response to several points I've raised. The English writing is still not perfect, but I assume MDPI's editorial staff will copy edit the manuscript after it's accepted for publication; two examples of writing mistakes (in Abstract) are:
- "a bottom-up incrementalism planning mode" --> better is: a bottom-up incremental planning mode
- "to enhance the infrastructure sustainability" --> "to enhance infrastructure sustainability" OR "to enhance the sustainability of infrastructure"
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you to the authors for the improvements made.
