Can Digital Finance Narrow the Household Consumption Gap of Residents on Either Side of the Hu Line?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I cannot address the paper substantively before the equations in it will be put in a readable form. For that, authors can use subscripts and superscripts and more letters than X and Y. Instead of the first paragraph in the Section 2 they can use a simple sentence "As the control variable for our panel (of the cities?) we use Moran's I defined by the Equation (1)." The terminology after Equation (3) is highly non-standard ("attribute", probably instead of "instrument", etc.) for econometrics but it might be standard for geographers--and I am not one of them. Yet, I cannot understand it fully. If they stratify dependent and independent variables the authors must explain the reason and method for the stratification. Are their "stratums“ equivalent to panels in econometrics or not? This is a relatively small change. They can also think of improving the format of Table 3. As I heard, Moran's I is very sensitive to the choice of weights w_ij but how and why these weights were chosen?
Finally, the "Hu" (黑河—è…¾ä¸çº¿) line might be well familiar to professional demographers but for the journals such as Sustainability it requires a more detailed explanation.
Author Response
We would like to sincerely thank this reviewer for his/her comments that allowed us to greatly improve the quality of the manuscript. Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Interesting article idea. Digital finance is the future of finance, it is a poorly penetrated area. This is an area undoubtedly worth researching and publishing in a good scientific journal. Moreover, spatial research is a valuable supplement to digital finance and its impact on household finances, including the level of their consumption.
2. I propose to consider the modification of the title so as to indicate, apart from digital finance, the spatial nature of the study. For example, the Spatial effect of digital finance on household consumption
3. The study is of financial nature on the one hand and socio-economic geography on the other. Against this background, a question arises to what extent the subject of the article relates to Sustainability as the leading area of ​​journals. It is therefore worth highlighting the reference to sustainability.
4. The abstract should show the purpose, hypotheses, research methods, and research results, as well as the beneficiaries of the research results.
5. I suggest that the article review the literature and highlight the research gap, pointing to the innovative nature of the study.
6. I propose to consider whether in such a short elaboration there is a need for a three-level division 4; 4.3; 4.31 etc.
7. Geo-demographic demarcation, as well as spatial link, should also be recorded in Keywords.
Author Response
We would like to sincerely thank this reviewer for his/her comments that allowed us to greatly improve the quality of the manuscript. Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I consider that the article is focused on a current, interesting and original topic. Digital finance in provinces on the southeast side of the line can improve household consumption and simultaneously share the positive benefits with neighboring provinces.
Author Response
We would like to sincerely thank this reviewer for his/her comments that allowed us to greatly improve the quality of the manuscript. Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
1) Equations are still not in a readable form. Please, use standard equation editing software to "nice them up" using subscripts, superscripts, etc.
2) The factor q is not explained. Is this equal to Q defined by Equation (3) or not. What q1 and q2 mean? You obviously divide the sample but how?
3) The principle and method of "stratification" of variables is not explained after Equation (3).
4) Table 2 contains factors X_i, i=1-4. What are these factors? Show in the table. It will be better if factors' names are listed in rows and the years -- in columns.
I feel that it is an important work but the method (see above) is explained in a totally inadequate fashion.
Author Response
We would like to sincerely thank this reviewer for his/her comments, please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I recommended the paper to be accepted.
