Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is an interesting subject to develop. However, the authors would note the following corrections. 

The SBM-DDF model is not explained in detail in the text of the article and its derivation in GTFP.

The digital economy is divided into the variables economic development and GDP, but I think one is the description of the variables and the other is the way they measure it. Unemployment rate and change in the indices in which they do not present variables for its calculation (line 30).

When talking about SMEs, it is necessary to specify the characteristics of the SMEs they consider. 

They should include the concept of the digital economy and how it is presented in this research. 

The years should be updated, especially for this topic. 

It seems that the study would have an answer according to line 103-104 only with the theoretical review. 

They do not specifically indicate the variables and their details to be used in the research, including basic aspects of their composition. 

You should indicate the sources of the data. 

It would be interesting to include a table of the variables and how they are measured. 

There are no graphs showing a visualisation of the data. 

There are few references for the topic.

You should add a section to discuss the results.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you for your in-depth reading of our submitted manuscript and constructive comments that have been very helpful to us in revising the paper. We appreciate your insightful comment. We considered your comments in the following. For convenience, we reproduce each of your comments below followed by our responses in bold.

 

# To Editor

Your Remark 1: The SBM-DDF model is not explained in detail in the text of the article and its derivation in GTFP.

 

Our response: SBM-DDF model is explained in line206-215

 

Your Remark 2: They do not specifically indicate the variables and their details to be used in the research, including basic aspects of their composition.

 

Our response: The variables are explained in paragraph 2.5

 

Your Remark 3: It would be interesting to include a table of the variables and how they are measured.

 

Our response: We add a new table under paragraph 2.5

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and suggestions to the author:

Through various econometric methods and robust analysis, this paper explores the driving effect of digital economy on green total factor productivity, and breaks down the contribution of several relevant factors and variables to the evolution of this component. However, there are also some problems such as unclear presentation, improper use of data, inaccurate model construction, incomplete regression analysis, and non-standard article format, which are as follows:

1. There is no clear and accurate definition of the concept of agricultural green total factor productivity.

2. The relationship between digital economy and green total factor productivity and the mechanism role of intermediary variable green innovation are not clearly explained in this paper.

3. Most of the statistical coefficients of the basic regression results in this paper are 0, so it should be considered whether there are errors in the regression model or the improper selection of control variables leads to the reduction of sample variance.

4. Improper data processing in this paper should retain a unified decimal point, and the descriptive analysis is not scientific and standardized.

5. The robustness analysis expressed in column 3 of the Chinese version of Table 4 is inconsistent with the content in the actual table. Secondly, the author should also consider whether the robustness analysis is not comprehensive enough because there is only one method.

6. The P-value coefficient in Table 5 is large and the regression results are not accurate, which should be solved through model adjustment or data processing.

7. Table 6 in the mechanism analysis is not reflected in the paper, and only Table 5 is given in the paper. The mechanism analysis is not clear enough, so this paper should conduct a more comprehensive analysis of the mechanism.

8. The author does not construct and describe the basic model and mediation mechanism model.

9. The heterogeneity analysis was carried out only for the region, and the authors should consider other aspects of heterogeneity analysis.

10. The text format and table format of the full text are not standardized, so it is suggested that the author modify them.

11. The research conclusions and policy implications need to be further improved, in particular, the policy implications should be targeted and practical, which is still slightly weak.

   

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you for your in-depth reading of our submitted manuscript and constructive comments that have been very helpful to us in revising the paper. We appreciate your insightful comment. We considered your comments in the following. For convenience, we reproduce each of your comments below followed by our responses in bold.

We add new innovation and explaination called (RD).

We reconsider the regression results and make the results without too much 0.

we change the descriptive analysis to be scientific and standardized.

we add areacode for the heterogeneity analysis for diffierent region (east, west and mid part).

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper tests the driving effect of the digital economy on green total factor productivity. The study is positive and the survey design is interesting. There are some short comes of the manuscript.

The Abstract must report the motivation of the study, the empirical methodology used, the main findings, and the relevant policy implications flowing from major results.

The description of background in Introduction is too long, and it is difficult to follow the research focus of this paper. The authors should reorganize the Introduction to highlight the motivation and innovation of this paper.

Digital economy will inevitably have an impact on neighboring regions, and the authors are advised to focus on the spatial impact of digital economy on TFP by SDM. It is suggested that the authors add to the literature on environmental pollution, as well as the latest research literature on spatial effect. The literature review and the method should be improved and needs to add more the differences. The authors should add more recently published related papers as complementary references, such as:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106791

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104579

The selection of dependent and independent variables lacks theoretical support.

The dissection of empirical results needs to be supplemented with more profound insights. For example, economic realities corresponding to the results should be found to corroborate them.

Policy implications should be discussed in more detail.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English writing of the whole paper still has to be improved to be publishable.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you for your in-depth reading of our submitted manuscript and constructive comments that have been very helpful to us in revising the paper. We appreciate your insightful comment. We considered your comments in the following. For convenience, we reproduce each of your comments below followed by our responses in bold.

we add the references below  as complementary references.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I read your article and found it to be quite interesting.

The research model is robust and the conclusions are also good.

I suggest you define clearly the meaning of the terms you used in the text for the benefit of the readers (SBM-DDF, GML, ML, GTC, GEC, etc.)

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you for your in-depth reading of our submitted manuscript and constructive comments that have been very helpful to us in revising the paper. We appreciate your insightful comment. We considered your comments in the following. For convenience, we reproduce each of your comments below followed by our responses in bold.

we have changed the meaning of the terms .

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have incorporated the suggestions, the tables could be re-organized but only from a form point of view.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your in-depth reading of our submitted manuscript and constructive comments that have been very helpful to us in revising the paper. We appreciate your insightful comment. We considered your comments in the following. 

We have change the style of our tables again. Thanks for your suggestion.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All reviewer comments require in-depth and substantial revision.

Literature 50 and 51 are not cited in the text, so why do they appear in the reference list? Have the authors omitted relevant information?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The revision of this article could be better.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you for your in-depth reading of our submitted manuscript and constructive comments that have been very helpful to us in revising the paper.

 

Sorry for the mistake. We now change the Literature 50 and 51 to 20 and 43. 

Literature 20 is in line 51 and Literature 43 is in line 140.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made substantial revisions. The paper can be accepted for publication.