Enhancing Rural Revitalization in China through Digital Economic Transformation and Green Entrepreneurship

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I feel happy to review this manuscript titled as " Enhancing Rural Revitalization in China through Digital Economic Transformation and Green Entrepreneurship". There are some changes are required in the manuscript. 

1. I suggest authors to clearly discussed the research gap in the introduction section. There is no research questions of objectives are stated in the introduction section. 

2. I suggest authors to add more explanation in green entrepreneurship section 3.

3. I suggest authors to add demographical variables in the form of Table.

4. Authors should provide the reason in the method section, why the adopt stratified sampling technique for data collection, how authors were approached the participants, provide detailed explanation.

5. I suggest authors to perform the common method bias test using Harmans Single Factor Method.

6. I suggest authors to cite more latest research work by the prior researchers on this topic. 

Good Luck   

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Reviewer 1

 

I feel happy to review this manuscript titled as " Enhancing Rural Revitalization in China through Digital Economic Transformation and Green Entrepreneurship". There are some changes are required in the manuscript. 

1. I suggest authors to clearly discussed the research gap in the introduction section. There is no research questions of objectives are stated in the introduction section. 
2. I suggest authors to add more explanation in green entrepreneurship section 3.
3. I suggest authors to add demographical variables in the form of Table.
4. Authors should provide the reason in the method section, why the adopt stratified sampling technique for data collection, how authors were approached the participants, provide detailed explanation.
5. I suggest authors to perform the common method bias test using Harmans Single Factor Method.
6. I suggest authors to cite more latest research work by the prior researchers on this topic. 

Good Luck   

 

 

Response

 

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your insights and have made the following revisions:

1. In response to your suggestion, we have clearly discussed the research gap in the introduction section and stated the research questions and objectives to provide clarity on the study's purpose.
2. We have added more explanation in the green entrepreneurship section to provide a comprehensive understanding of this aspect of the study.
3. Demographical variables have been included in the form of a table to enhance the presentation of data.
4. In the method section, we have provided a detailed explanation of why we adopted the stratified sampling technique for data collection and how participants were approached, addressing your concerns.
5. We have performed the common method bias test using Harman's Single Factor Method, as suggested, to ensure the robustness of our findings.
6. We have cited more recent research work by prior researchers on this topic to provide a comprehensive review of the literature.

 

We believe these revisions have strengthened the manuscript, addressed your concerns and improved the overall quality of the study. Thank you for your feedback and valuable insights.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

sampling framework is not clarified in abstract. 

in methods the stratified method was used. author need to explain how stratas were identified. and what is the method within strata used. 

author also need to explain if the outlier removal and normality testing of the data has been conducted. 

what about face and content validity how the authors have ensured it. the question can be that the scales are developed in some other country, and they are directly used here?

how did the author ensure the response bias by respondents. did author used time lag in filling different scales. 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

 

Sampling framework is not clarified in abstract. 

in methods the stratified method was used. author need to explain how stratas were identified. and what is the method within strata used. 

author also need to explain if the outlier removal and normality testing of the data has been conducted. 

what about face and content validity how the authors have ensured it. the question can be that the scales are developed in some other country, and they are directly used here?

how did the author ensure the response bias by respondents. did author used time lag in filling different scales. 

 

Response

In response to the feedback, the abstract now includes clarification on the sampling framework, specifying the use of stratified sampling.

Additionally, methods section details the identification of stratas and the systematic random sampling method within each stratum.

The authors also conducted outlier removal and normality testing to ensure data quality.

Face and content validity of the measurement scales were ensured through expert reviews and cultural adaptation for the study context.

To address response bias, measures such as anonymity and confidentiality were implemented, and collinearity assessment test was checked to ensure VIF values below 3.3 to minimize common method bias. In addition, Harman’s Single Factor Method was used to reassure common method biasness. The analysis found that the variance explained by one factor was 32.647%, ensuring the study didn’t suffer any significant threats posed by common method variance.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well structured, and the results confirm the stated hypotheses.

We recommend the brief presentation of the PLS-SEM statistical technique (used in research to analyse the relationships between variables) in a separate section.

Also, for the structural equation model (SEM) presented in Figure 2, the values that were not presented in Table 4 should be described and analysed.

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

The paper is well structured, and the results confirm the stated hypotheses.

We recommend the brief presentation of the PLS-SEM statistical technique (used in research to analyse the relationships between variables) in a separate section.

Also, for the structural equation model (SEM) presented in Figure 2, the values that were not presented in Table 4 should be described and analysed.

 

 

Response

 

We have incorporated a new section to briefly explain the PLS-SEM technique and provided an analysis of the unpresented values from Figure 2 in the structural equation model. Thank you for your feedback!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I feel happy to review the revised manuscript. Authors have addressed my all the comments. I am satisfied with this revision.