Does High-Speed Railway Promote High-Quality Development of Enterprises? Evidence from China’s Listed Companies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper falls within scope of the journal Sustainability and performed research deserves attention. The authors are familiar with study and number of enterprises is good. Overall, the paper has potential and before acceptance should be improved according to the following suggestions.

Please think about changing of title of the paper. My opinion is that number from title should be moved from title to abstract.

Introduction is very extensive, should be shorter. Please divide introduction on two sections: 1. Introduction and 2. Literature review

In introduction should be better described aims and contributions.

New formed section Literature review should be additionally enriched with recent publications. Please cite the following studies: Fosu, P. . (2021). DOES RAILWAY LINES INVESTMENTS MATTER FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH? . ECONOMICS - INNOVATIVE AND ECONOMICS RESEARCH JOURNAL, 9(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.2478/eoik-2021-0004B

ouraima, M. B., Stević , Željko, Tanackov, I., & Qiu, Y. (2021). Assessing the performance of Sub-Saharan African (SSA) railways based on an integrated Entropy-MARCOS approach. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 4(2), 13-35. https://doi.org/10.31181/oresta20402013b

Some technical aspects of the paper should be improved. For example, numbering of equations isn't justified.

The quality of the Figures should be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper addresses the impact of high-speed railways on high-quality development of enterprises, taking into consideration six influencing mechanisms. The main strength of this paper is that tries to provide insights based on the secondary data. However, there are several shortcomings that authors need to take into consideration. First, the introduction could be presented more systematically, from identifying research gaps to posing the research questions and then presenting research objectives and contributions. The content from the paragraph related to the conclusions can be used at the end of the paper. Second, as the study creatively constructed HQDE it should more extensively present selected indicators and clarify why were selected and if some of them were adapted from previous literature. Based on what the remaining indicators were selected? Third, empirical results are presented on more than 10 pages. The focus should be on the presentation of the findings that are related to the research questions. Third, even though the findings are briefly discussed in the findings the discussion section is missing. Here the authors should answer the research questions and discuss how these findings extend the existing research. In conclusion, only policy implications are mentioned, what about managerial implications and theoretical implications? Additionally, the limitation of the study and suggestions for further research should also be mentioned.

Good luck with your further research!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This study has a contribution in empirically analyzing whether High-Speed ​​Railways promotes High-Quality Development of Enterprises from various perspectives. The link between HSR and HQDE was implemented theoretically and empirically in an easy-to-understand way through various routes. However, it is necessary to consider whether the conceptual definition presented in this paper can be used as a common indicator for readers. Also, many indicators that can measure HQDE are omitted. The HQDE asserted in this study has already been used as a concept of sustainability or social value, and many studies have been conducted. It is questionable to use the term HQD for a similar conceptual definition in this context. The author seems to need to think carefully when deciding on a title.

Also, although many empirical techniques are used to these issues, this study is not an empirical topic, but rather a more suitable topic for feasibility analysis such as cost-benefit analysis to analyze policy feasibility. It seems necessary to consider the conceptual definition of HQD and the suitability of the topic. In addition, it is necessary to concisely organize the theoretical background and previous studies focusing on the point.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Thanks to the editors for giving me the oppurtunity to go through this interesting research work. I recommend the paper for publication in the sustainability journal after editing the introduction section to reflect the research objective at the forfront and highlight the research main contributions which seem to be missing at moment. The same applies to the conclusion section, it needs to reflect the study contributions, limitations and avenues for future research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have improved their paper and properly addressed my comments. The paper can be accepted in this version.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revised version. The authors have made the paper more understandable and readable. Unfortunately, the paper is quite long now.