Digital Financial Inclusion, Land Circulation and High-Quality Development of Agriculture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents valuable insights into the role of digital financial inclusion in agriculture. However, addressing the following points could significantly enhance its clarity, robustness, and contribution to the field.

1.        Grammar and Readability:

Major Issues: Abstract and introduction sections contain complex and run-on sentences. Recommendation: Simplify sentences to enhance clarity.

Minor Issues: Typographical errors on Page 5. Recommendation: Proofread the manuscript to correct these errors.

 2.        Consistency in Logic and Academic Theory:

The transition between studies in the literature review is abrupt. Recommendation: Improve the narrative flow to clearly link studies to the thesis of the manuscript.

 3.        For the methodology part:

a)        Justify Model Choice: The authors should provide a detailed justification for choosing a panel regression model. This includes discussing the specific advantages of this model for their dataset and research questions over other possible statistical models.

b)       Address Potential Endogeneity: Panel data often suffer from endogeneity issues due to omitted variables, measurement errors, structural change (COVID influence) or simultaneity. The manuscript could strengthen its methodology by discussing how it addresses these potential issues. Techniques such as using instrumental variables, fixed-effects models, or difference-in-differences could be considered.

c)        Robustness Checks: To confirm the reliability of their findings, the authors should conduct robustness checks, such as sensitivity analysis with different model specifications or including additional control variables that might affect the outcomes.

d)       Discuss Model Limitations: Every model has limitations. A discussion regarding the limitations of the chosen model and how these might impact the findings would add depth to the research. This could include issues related to data granularity, the period of data collection, or the geographic scope.

 4.        Depth of Conclusion:

The conclusions are generic and lack depth. Please Provide more specific, actionable recommendations based on the study's findings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally well-written and the quality of English is adequate for understanding the research conducted. However, there are several areas where improvements could significantly enhance readability and clarity, ensuring that the research is accessible to a broader academic audience.

For example, Some sections of the manuscript, particularly the abstract and introduction, feature complex sentence structures that could be simplified. Simplifying these sentences would help in conveying the research objectives and findings more clearly. There are occasional grammatical errors and typographical mistakes throughout the document (e.g., on Page 5, Paragraph 3). These should be corrected to maintain the professional quality of the publication. Consistent verb tenses and subject-verb agreement should be carefully reviewed and corrected where necessary.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper. This research focuses on the impact of digital finance on agricultural developments. The topic is interesting and could make effective policy contributions to rural development in China. However, the content and discussions of the paper have significant defects that need improvement and revision. 

 

Major issues

1. The authors should address the estimation method of the "High-quality agricultural development index" (the dependent variable). Only information about the brief concept and the entropy treatment is insufficient. The estimation methods, including the data involved, should be clearly articulated. If needed, it should be demonstrated by using formulas. 

2. Explain clearly the independent variable land transfer (LT). What are the estimation methods? 

3. The descriptive statistics of all variables are missing. 

4. The abbreviations in the equation should be clearly defined. The authors can consider making a table clearly showing variable names, equations abbreviations, and variable treatment, if any.

5. The 4.3 data sources section should address which variable is collected from which resource. Again, a nicely arranged table may help. 

6.  Table 2 needs to show at least the number of observations and clearly explain what is in the brackets below the coefficients in the table. The table should be APA formatted. 

7. Explain clearly how the 2SLS is performed. What is the instrumental variable? Are any tests performed to check if the instrumental variable is qualified? What is the coverage breadth index? How is it calculated? 

8. Explain clearly how the GMM is performed. Which are the lagged variables, and how long are the lag periods? 

Minor issues:

 

1. Do the results in the 3rd column of Table 5 well reflect the mediation effect (LT as the mediating variable), or should it be interpreted as a "partial" mediation effect? Please discuss this in more detail. 

2. Are the hypotheses supported or rejected?

3. The authors may consider moving the paper's contribution to the bottom of the introduction section before the arrangement of the paper rather than putting it in the literature review section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Writing should be more direct and succinct throughout. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed article titled "Digital financial inclusion, Land Circulation, and High-quality Development of Agriculture" addresses an important and timely topic. The authors present the current state of research and identify research gaps. The literature review is appropriate. A wide range of different research methods and tools were employed in the study, and their selection is appropriate. I highly appreciate the methodological aspect of the work. A very interesting and desirable idea was the use of substitute data to verify hypotheses. The formulated conclusions and recommendations stem from the conducted research and have significant practical implications. I find the article very interesting and professionally and meticulously prepared. However, I noticed one minor inconsistency. In the results section, while testing hypothesis number 2, the authors did not directly refer to it (they did not state that hypothesis 2 was verified).

Congratulations on a very good article.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All major points have been adressed. 

Paper is now well-structured.