Study on the Impact of the Digital Economy on the Upgrading of Industrial Structures—Empirical Analysis Based on Cities in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper uses the entropy method to measure the comprehensive level of China's urban regional digital economy development, and measures the transformation and upgrading of industrial structure from the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of the upgrading of industrial structure. However, the paper is less relevant for Sustainability' aims and scope.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your review. Your comments will be great help to the revision of the paper and my future research work. I have revised the paper according to your comments. Thanks!
1)Moderate English changes required
Answer: I have invited professionals whose native language is English to help me to edit the manuscript on the aspect of language. Thank you!
2)Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?
Answer: The research background of the first part is modified, and the research ideas and logic lines are rearranged to make the research ideas clearer. thanks.
3)Are all the cited references relevant to the research?
Answer: The references were adjusted, some literatures with weak correlation were deleted, and some references with high correlation were added. thanks.
4）Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?
Answer: The research questions and assumptions are improved to make the logical framework of research assumptions clearer. thanks.
5）Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?
Answer: The conclusion and suggestions of the paper have been modified, and a part of the content - "further research directions" has been added. thanks.
6）For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?
Answer: Some formulas in the empirical part are revised to make the overall logic frame more complete and more reliable. thanks.
7）Is the article adequately referenced?
Answer: I have added literature closely related to the research topic. thanks.
8）Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?
Answer: The conclusion of the article is are deduced by empirical analysis. Through the revision of the empirical analysis, the conclusion of the article is more reliable. thanks.
9）This paper uses the entropy method to measure the comprehensive level of China's urban regional digital economy development, and measures the transformation and upgrading of industrial structure from the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of the upgrading of industrial structure. However, the paper is less relevant for Sustainability' aims and scope.
Answer: I have revised my paper and hope it can reach the request quality of this journal. Thank you!
I used italics to mark the changes in the content of my thesis, and there is no content revision in other places, but it has been edited in language.
Best wishes for you!
Guan huaping
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper describes the problem, purpose, and objectives of the work using mixed methods of analysis (qualitative and quantitative), and presents results and conclusions.
However, could add more literature sources and more information could be given on the research methods.
Recommendations and future research areas can be added.
In my opinion, with the above comments being worked the paper is very current and will be good for publication.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your review. Your comments will be of great help to the revision of the paper and my future research work. I have revised the paper according to your comments. Thanks!
1)English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
Answer: I have invited professionals whose native language is English to help me to edit the manuscript on the aspect of language. Thank you!
2)The paper describes the problem, purpose, and objectives of the work using mixed methods of analysis (qualitative and quantitative), and presents results and conclusions.
Answer: Thanks!
3)However, could add more literature sources and more information could be given on the research methods.
Answer: I added some references in the preface and theoretical analysis, and deleted some references that are not closely related to the theme of the paper; I have added some supplementary explanations on the research methods of the thesis. thank you!
4)Recommendations and future research areas can be added.
Answer: In the last part of the paper, I revised the policy recommendations and added a part of content - future research directions. Thank you!
5)In my opinion, with the above comments being worked the paper is very current and will be good for publication.
Answer: Thanks!
I used italics to mark the changes in the content of my thesis, and there is no content revision in other places, but it has been edited in language.
Best wishes for you!
Guan huaping
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the paper. This paper uses the entropy method to measure the comprehensive level of China's urban regional digital economy development and measures the transformation and upgrading of industrial structures from the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of the upgrading of industrial structures. Overall, it is well written in a well-organized way, but let me suggest some comments as follows:
1. In the introduction, it would be good to present the limitations of the existing research, and in addition, to present the research problems related to the subject of this study more clearly.
2. Compared to the researchers conducting various analyses to verify the three hypotheses, the proposed implications seem to be relatively small. It would be good to present more abundant academic and practical implications.
3. Supplementation is needed to improve suitability with this journal.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your review. Your comments will be great help to the revision of the paper and my future research work. I have revised the paper according to your comments. Thanks!
1)Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?
Answer: Revised the research background of the first part and the literature review of the second part, reorganized the research ideas and logic lines, and made the research ideas more clear.Thanks.
2)Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?
Answer: Some empirical regression results of the paper are supplemented with economic implications. And for the further research and discussion of the paper, some literature studies are added. Thanks.
3)In the introduction, it would be good to present the limitations of the existing research, and in addition, to present the research problems related to the subject of this study more clearly.
Answer: We revised the introduction of the article. Put the unanswered questions and the innovation of this article after the introduction. We also revised the review of the article and put the limitations of the existing research after this part. Thanks.
4)Compared to the researchers conducting various analyses to verify the three hypotheses, the proposed implications seem to be relatively small. It would be good to present more abundant academic and practical implications.
Answer: We revised some empirical results of the paper, and gave a more meaningful economic meaning to the analysis of the empirical results. Thanks.
5)Supplementation is needed to improve suitability with this journal.
Answer: The literature review is revised, and the related literature on digital economy and industrial structure is analyzed from three aspects. That is, the literature on digital economy, the literature on industrial structure and the literature on digital economy and industrial structure. Thanks.
I used italics to mark the changes in the content of my thesis, and there is no content revision in other places, but it has been edited in language.
Best wishes for you!
Guo Binhua
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear author(s)
The study seeks to empirically identify the effects of the digital economy on improving the industrial structure in China. Its research agenda is significant. However, the study faces a number of improvements prior to submission to this journal.
First, the manuscript has been left with the previous revisions. It is something of an error for a manuscript to contain such revised sections prior to receiving a revision request. A clean manuscript should be submitted at the time of submission.
As mentioned in the bibliography, the digital economy in China has been analysed not only in terms of improving the industrial structure, but also in terms of its effects on cryptography and environmental pollution. Therefore, in the literature review in the introduction, it is acceptable to mention the effects of the digital economy on things other than the improvement of the industrial structure. Then, in the discussion in section 5, a discussion of how the effects of the digital economy on improving industrial structure are related to the effects it has on environmental pollution may provide useful insights for future research.
The “where” immediately after equation (1) on page 4 should not be indented down. Correct other identical errors.
The text immediately after Tables 6 and 8 is difficult to read. A margin of one line should be left below the tables.
References
Xia, M., Xie, Z., Lin, H., & He, X. (2022). Synergistic Mechanism of the High-Quality Development of the Urban Digital Economy from Blockchain Adoption Perspective—A Configuration Approach. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 17(2), 704-721.
Xu, Sa, Cunyi Yang, Zhehao Huang, and Pierre Failler. 2022. "Interaction between Digital Economy and Environmental Pollution: New Evidence from a Spatial Perspective" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 9: 5074. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095074
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your review. Your comments will be great help to the revision of the paper and my future research work. I have revised the paper according to your comments. Thanks!
1)Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?
Answer: Revised the research background of the first part and the literature review of the second part, reorganized the research ideas and logic lines, and made the research ideas more clear. Thanks.
2)Are all the cited references relevant to the research?
Answer: The references were adjusted, some literatures with weak correlation were deleted, and some references with high correlation were added. Thanks.
3) Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?
Answer: The research hypothesis was modified to make the logic more reasonable. Thanks.
4) Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?
Answer: Some empirical regression results of the paper are supplemented with economic implications. And for the further research and discussion of the paper, some literature studies are added. Thanks.
5) For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?
Answer: The description of empirical regression results is modified, and the analysis of economic meaning is added to the regression results. Thanks.
6)Is the article adequately referenced?
Answer: The literature review was revised and the research related to this topic was added. Thanks.
7）Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?
Answer: The conclusion of the article is deduced by empirical analysis. Through the revision of the empirical analysis, the conclusion of the article is more reliable. thanks.
8)First, the manuscript has been left with the previous revisions. It is something of an error for a manuscript to contain such revised sections prior to receiving a revision request. A clean manuscript should be submitted at the time of submission.
Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have modified.
9)As mentioned in the bibliography, the digital economy in China has been analysed not only in terms of improving the industrial structure, but also in terms of its effects on cryptography and environmental pollution. Therefore, in the literature review in the introduction, it is acceptable to mention the effects of the digital economy on things other than the improvement of the industrial structure. Then, in the discussion in section 5, a discussion of how the effects of the digital economy on improving industrial structure are related to the effects it has on environmental pollution may provide useful insights for future research.
Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have added this part in the last part - further research direction.
10)The “where” immediately after equation (1) on page 4 should not be indented down. Correct other identical errors.
Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have modified.
11)The text immediately after Tables 6 and 8 is difficult to read. A margin of one line should be left below the tables.
Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have modified.
I used italics to mark the changes in the content of my thesis, and there is no content revision in other places, but it has been edited in language.
Best wishes for you!
Guo Binhua
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Generally the aim of the paper is interesting and actual. However I have some suggestions for further improvement.
1) The paper isn't prepared in accordance with the requirements of the journal - the text is in track changes option and all corrections are seen.
2) You should provide blinded manuscript, without the authors data.
3) Introduction - you should precisely describe the research gaps, mian objective and structure of you paper.
4) Literature review:
- why the purpose, methodology, novelty are presented in the literature review section?
- the theoretical background is very weak. I suggest you to add a paragraph about the method which you used to select and analyse the literature. I suggest you to use a systematic literature review (SLR). You should inform what databases you analysed (eg. WoS, Scopus, Science Direct); what strategy of search you followed, etc.
- I suggest also to prepare a theoretical / research model after SLR and hypotheses development. It should contain the hypothesis.
5) Material and methods - I suggest you to start with data collection and sample characteristics.
6) Hypotheses - I suggest to use "there are or the aren't re reasons to reject H" instead "Hypothesis 1 is verified"
7) Discussion- I think that you should present more discussion with previous research results.
8) Limitation - I propose to significantly expand.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your review. Your comments will be great help to the revision of the paper and my future research work. I have revised the paper according to your comments. Thanks!
1)English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
Answer:Check the English spelling and sentences of the article again to make it more smooth.
2)Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?
Answer: Revised the research background of the first part and the literature review of the second part, reorganized the research ideas and logic lines, and made the research ideas more clear.Thanks.
3)Are all the cited references relevant to the research?
Answer: The references were adjusted, some literatures with weak correlation were deleted, and some references with high correlation were added. Thanks.
4) Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?
Answer:The research hypothesis was modified to make the logic more reasonable.Thanks.
5) Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?
Answer: Some empirical regression results of the paper are supplemented with economic implications. And for the further research and discussion of the paper, some literature studies are added. Thanks.
6) For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?
Answer: The description of empirical regression results is modified, and the analysis of economic meaning is added to the regression results. Thanks.
7)Is the article adequately referenced?
Answer: The literature review was revised and the research related to this topic was added. Thanks.
8）Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?
Answer: The conclusion of the article is deduced by empirical analysis. Through the revision of the empirical analysis, the conclusion of the article is more reliable. thanks.
9) The paper isn't prepared in accordance with the requirements of the journal - the text is in track changes option and all corrections are seen.
Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have modified.
10)You should provide blinded manuscript, without the authors data.
Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have modified.
11) Introduction - you should precisely describe the research gaps, mian objective and structure of you paper.
Answer: We revised the introduction of the article. Put the unanswered questions and the innovation of this article after the introduction. We also revised the review of the article and put the limitations of the existing research after this part. Thanks.
12) Literature review:
- why the purpose, methodology, novelty are presented in the literature review section?
- the theoretical background is very weak. I suggest you to add a paragraph about the method which you used to select and analyse the literature. I suggest you to use a systematic literature review (SLR). You should inform what databases you analysed (eg. WoS, Scopus, Science Direct); what strategy of search you followed, etc.
Answer:
We revised the introduction of the article. Put the unanswered questions and the innovation of this article after the introduction. We also revised the review of the article and put the limitations of the existing research after this part. Thanks.
The literature review is revised, and the related literature on digital economy and industrial structure is analyzed from three aspects. That is, the literature on digital economy, the literature on industrial structure and the literature on digital economy and industrial structure. Thanks.
13)Material and methods - I suggest you to start with data collection and sample characteristics.
Answer: The source of data has been modified to make it detailed and clear. Thanks.
14)Hypotheses - I suggest to use "there are or the aren't re reasons to reject H" instead "Hypothesis 1 is verified".
Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have modified.
15)Discussion- I think that you should present more discussion with previous research results.
Answer: The discussion part is supplemented with more previous research results to make it more logical. Thanks.
16) Limitation - I propose to significantly expand.
Answer: The sixth part is modified and more future research directions are added. Thanks.
I used italics to mark the changes in the content of my thesis, and there is no content revision in other places, but it has been edited in language.
Best wishes for you!
Guan Huaping
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors
The authors have attempted to revise the manuscript in line with the peer review report and some content has been improved. However, the formatting has not been improved, e.g. paragraphs begin with lower case letters and italics are used where they are not needed. These deficiencies raise doubts among reviewers as to whether the authors have conducted a rigorous empirical analysis. Authors should be reminded to adhere to the journal's formatting when submitting manuscripts in the future.
Sincerely.
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear Authors,
congratulations on your interesting text. I am glad that my suggestions were useful for improving it.
Best regards,
