Research on the Efficiency and Improvement of Rural Development in China: Based on Two-Stage Network SBM Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The structure and the novelty of the article is good.

Author Response

Thank you for your affirmation of our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the helpful comments and suggestions. Those comments and suggestions are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. We have made some modifications to the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper.

Point1: We have added elaboration in the introduction (Section 1), so as to better clarify the issues we want to study.

point2: In the empirical analysis and conclusion part, we have made some modifications to make the results better presented (Section 4.1 and Section 5).

Thank you again for taking the time to review the manuscript. We will strive to improve ourselves to write better papers.

Best wishes to you. 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for an interesting article. Some remarks: I would suggest reading it and eliminating a few lapses in language, such as the need to modernise rural development (line 49) - it is not clear whether modernisation should refer to the countryside or perhaps to politics, because how can such a category be defined?
Line 52: what are these >three rural issues< ?
LIne 62: what is >socialist modernisation< and how does it differ from non-socialist modernisation? Development is not a political category, so for a scientist this type of value judgement should not be applied, rather interpretative objectivity should be maintained.POlike claim line 660-662. not spirit rather economic policy or strategic approach (central authorities' development strategy).
POlike claim line 660-662. not spirit rather economic policy or strategic approach (central authorities) development strategy.
The terms domestic and oversees should be eliminated. After all, for a reader from other parts of the world, it has the opposite meaning (e.g. line 96 and 179).
Please explain exactly what the Authors mean by "development efficiency"?
Figure 3: what is talent revitalization?The figure needs more detailed commentary.
It is worth rethinking the conclusions and recommendations, the reference to a specific point in time should be eliminated (line 696, the reader in 3 years will wonder how much is scientific and how much is a report, outdated from the point of view of the past time).
Please stick to the commonly used rules of writing scientific articles, proper form and avoid journalistic formulations and expert recommendations, but rather formulate universal conclusions, possible to use in other scientific studies.
Good luck.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your insightful and constructive comments and suggestions.

Best wishes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This work is timely, well- structured and well-presented. It has the potential to receive many citations. The manuscript is well presented and it's supported of the good literature.

I enjoyed reading it. If you need more references for this paper or future papers about rural developement, I recommend you some titles:

Rural tourism and development: Evolution in Scientific literature and trends. 

Worldwide Trends in the Scientific Production on Rural Depopulation, A biblioetric analysis using bibliometrix R-Tool

Evolution and latest trends of local government efficiency: Worldwide Research (1928 - 2019)

Regards

Author Response

Thank you for your affirmation of my manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the helpful comments and suggestions. Those comments and suggestions are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. For the references you mentioned, we will read them carefully and learn from others' valuable views and methods to stretch our research. We have tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper.

Thank you again for taking the time to review the manuscript.

Best wishes.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your kind reply to my comments. My recommendation is now positive.