Public Data Elements and Enterprise Digital Transformation: A Quasi-Natural Experiment Based on Open Government Data Platforms for Sustainable Urban Planning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The abstract should be restructured to first briefly clarify the research background, followed by the research content and conclusions, and finally concise policy recommendations and research value. The current version has an overly lengthy background section and insufficient emphasis on the study’s significance.
2. Why is the keyword "urban planning" bolded? Is this to emphasize its importance? If so, the rationale for this emphasis should be explicitly stated.
3. In the contributions subsection of the Introduction, relevant literature should be cited to contextualize the paper’s novelty.
4. Relevant data mentioned in the text needs to be cited or a specific web address given. For example,“As an illustration, consider Beijing's public data open platform, which currently has 115 data-providing units 186 accessing it and has opened 18,573 datasets, totaling over 7,186 million pieces of data.”
5. Please standardize the capitalization of variable symbols in the text, e.g., TL.
6. When studying the effect of information resource sharing, the author uses three variables to measure the degree of resource sharing. However, for the effect of financing constraints, only the FC index is selected. Is this reasonable? The author's calculation of the FC index is based on the financial indicators of the enterprise, which may not fully reflect the unique impact of public data elements on financing channels. It is suggested that indicators be selected from multiple dimensions for testing. In addition, the author tested the inhibition of public data elements on the financing constraints of enterprises, which is only a single chain. It is suggested that the impact of financing constraints on the digital transformation of enterprises be briefly explained by citing literature.
7. The "Moderating Effects" section (Section 5.3) should elaborate on why digital infrastructure and digital public products enhance the impact of public data on transformation. For example, explain how high-quality infrastructure enables data integration or how advanced digital tools lower adoption barriers.
8. It is recommended that the word “Discussion” be added before “ Conclusions and policy recommendations” to explain the similarities and differences between the conclusions of this article and other research in this field, the shortcomings of this article's research, and future prospects in this direction.
9. The policy recommendations should provide ​concrete strategies rather than general statements. For example:"Encourage cross-industry data-sharing alliances through tax incentives for collaborative R&D projects."

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article language needs some polishing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you and the three reviewers for their valuable comments and careful reading of the manuscript. We have carefully examined and addressed all the issues raised in the review comments. As a result, we hope you will find the manuscript is much improved and the revision is suitable for publication in Sustainability.

The major changes are summarized as follows:

• We rewrote the abstract in a clear and concise style.
• We have added a brief introduction to the research conclusions, research methods, research contributions, etc. in the introduction section.
• We have replaced those lengthy paragraphs with concise and logical ones.
• In the empirical results, we added some discussion, policy implications, and explanations.
• We have added numerous references and data to support our viewpoint
• We added the Discussion section before the conclusion.

We believe that our revisions effectively respond to the reviewer’s concerns. Thank you very much for your consideration and look forward to your positive response.

Sincerely,

Yongrok Choi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study analyzes the influence of public data on companies' digital transformation. The authors found that the availability of such data promotes higher levels of digital transformation among companies. Some comments:

1. The paragraphs are too long, reducing the paper's readability.
2. The introduction could present the results.
3. The abstract should specify the period of analysis.
4. Section 2.2.1 consists of a single paragraph.
5. The methodology is only introduced in Section 3. The introduction (and abstract) could briefly anticipate this.
6. In Equation 1, PData is a dummy variable? It is uncommon to include a single dummy in regressions. The authors could consider interacting this dummy with another variable (perhaps investment, as companies may invest more in the presence of public data).
7. The paper employs panel data, which should be explicitly stated.
8. I recommend plotting the time series of digital transformation.
9. Section 3.2.2 consists of an excessively long paragraph.
10. The authors could construct a figure illustrating the PData variable, followed by a discussion on digital transformation and PData. This preliminary analysis would enhance the paper's development and provide additional insights.
11. The analysis of Table 2 requires more attention. What about potential model issues such as serial correlation, heterogeneity, or endogeneity? In Column 3, the dependent variable appears as an independent variable (lagged). This requires further explanation—what technique is being used? Simply including a lagged dependent variable in panel data is insufficient without clarification. Is this a dynamic panel model?
12. The methodological and empirical sections need greater clarity.
13. There is no discussion of the results.
14. The paper does not link its findings to other studies, missing an opportunity to highlight differences and similarities.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you and the three reviewers for their valuable comments and careful reading of the manuscript. We have carefully examined and addressed all the issues raised in the review comments. As a result, we hope you will find the manuscript is much improved and the revision is suitable for publication in Sustainability.

The major changes are summarized as follows:

• We rewrote the abstract in a clear and concise style.
• We have added a brief introduction to the research conclusions, research methods, research contributions, etc. in the introduction section.
• We have replaced those lengthy paragraphs with concise and logical ones.
• In the empirical results, we added some discussion, policy implications, and explanations.
• We have added numerous references and data to support our viewpoint
• We added the Discussion section before the conclusion.

We believe that our revisions effectively respond to the reviewer’s concerns. Thank you very much for your consideration and look forward to your positive response.

Sincerely,

Yongrok Choi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript review report: “Public Data Elements and Enterprise Digital Transformation: A quasi-natural Experiment Based on Open Government Data Platforms for Sustainable urban planning
The manuscript investigates the impact of public data availability on the digital transformation of enterprises in China between 2011 and 2022 using a quasi-natural experiment based on government data platforms, demonstrating that access to public data significantly drives corporate digitalization. Despite the contribution of the paper, some points deserve to be reviewed and clarified.
1. At the end of the abstract (lines 28 to 31) the authors describe that the objective of the manuscript is “to promote the digital transformation of enterprises by unlocking the value of public data elements, and then promote the in-depth construction of the smart city planning system, and thus provide policy reference for the efficient allocation and sustainable utilization of land resources”. Was this objective achieved? What steps were taken to achieve the objective?
2. The introduction needs a greater theoretical foundation for the information that is presented. For example, the authors describe, without evidence, that “The rational allocation of urban land resources depends on the construction of smart cities” (line 61), “As the micro-subject of 66 urban economic activities, enterprises should digitize the operational data accumulated by enterprises, such as industrial agglomeration, land use efficiency, carbon emissions, etc., to provide scientific decision-making basis for the government, help optimize the development of existing land, and reduce inefficient land use and resource waste.” (lines 66 to 70) and “It can be said that strengthening the digital transformation of enterprises is not only related to the remodeling of their own operating models, but also has important strategic significance for China's urban planning and land resources management and the realization of green and sustainable development. (lines 74 to 76). The first theoretical support, not for these points, appears only on page 100.
2.1. Still in the introduction (page 123) there is information that public data elements initially began to strengthen the real economy, describing that “Pharmaceutical companies can find new drugs and new uses for current drugs with publicly available genetic information”
2.2. Has only the pharmaceutical industry appropriated the use of public data or have other industries also used this data to define their strategies?
3. From pages 131 to 216 there is no theoretical support for “Background information from the institution and theoretical theories”, especially in topics 2.1. (The setting of the institution) and 2.2 (Public data components and enterprise digital transformation) that are part of the literature review.
4. Hypotheses 4 and 5 were not tested.
5. In item 4.3.2, the exclusion of contemporary political effects was not justified.
6. Items 5.2.1, 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 need to be further clarified with comparisons with other studies that used these data.
7. The discussion needs to be more elaborate and the author should also compare it with previous research in this area.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you and the three reviewers for their valuable comments and careful reading of the manuscript. We have carefully examined and addressed all the issues raised in the review comments. As a result, we hope you will find the manuscript is much improved and the revision is suitable for publication in Sustainability.

The major changes are summarized as follows:

• We rewrote the abstract in a clear and concise style.
• We have added a brief introduction to the research conclusions, research methods, research contributions, etc. in the introduction section.
• We have replaced those lengthy paragraphs with concise and logical ones.
• In the empirical results, we added some discussion, policy implications, and explanations.
• We have added numerous references and data to support our viewpoint
• We added the Discussion section before the conclusion.

We believe that our revisions effectively respond to the reviewer’s concerns. Thank you very much for your consideration and look forward to your positive response.

Sincerely,

Yongrok Choi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper provides a valuable empirical exploration of how public data elements, facilitated by open government data platforms, drive enterprise digital transformation. The quasi-natural experiment design, multi-period DID approach, and robustness checks (e.g., placebo tests, IV analysis) strengthen causal inference. The dual mechanisms (information sharing and financing constraint alleviation) and heterogeneity analyses (data quality, digital economy vitality, firm lifecycle) offer nuanced insights. However, several issues require for improvement. 

1. The IVs (distance from the coastline of city secretaries’ origins × national internet ports) lack a clear theoretical justification for their exclusion restriction. While the authors argue that pre-2009 characteristics do not directly affect digital transformation, unobserved historical factors (e.g., early digital infrastructure investments) might confound this relationship. A robustness check using alternative IVs (e.g., historical data openness trends) or a stronger theoretical link between IVs and public data platform adoption is needed.
2. The CSMAR digital transformation index is briefly described but lacks transparency. The paper should clarify how the six sub-scores (e.g., "strategic leadership") are weighted and validated. A comparison with alternative measures (e.g., text-based keyword frequencies) in the main text, rather than appendices, would strengthen the validity discussion.
3. The paper cites information economics but does not explicitly link public data’s non-rivalry or network effects to digital transformation. Integrating theories of data-driven innovation would deepen the theoretical foundation. The authors should add more recently published related papers about digital transformation as complementary references, such as: doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2025.101929.
4. The lifecycle classification (growth, maturity, decline) uses a composite score but does not address potential survivorship bias (e.g., declining firms may exit the sample). A dynamic analysis of firm exits or robustness checks using alternative lifecycle proxies (e.g., cash flow patterns) would mitigate this concern.
5. For the financing constraint mechanism, the FC index relies on firm size, age, and dividend ratios, which may not fully capture credit accessibility. Including direct measures (e.g., loan approval rates, interest rates) or referencing established indices (e.g., WW Index) would improve credibility.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The reviewer provided profound insights from both theoretical and empirical perspectives, demonstrating exceptional academic judgment and a broad scholarly vision. Each review comment was carefully considered and meticulously detailed, fully reflecting the reviewer’s deep passion for academic research and rigorous pursuit of excellence. The reviewer not only helped us identify potential issues in our research but also offered highly constructive suggestions for improving the research design and enhancing the academic quality. These suggestions have undoubtedly infused our study with fresh perspectives, elevating both its depth and breadth. We deeply respect and appreciate the high-quality feedback and thoughtful guidance provided by the reviewer, which will have a lasting impact on our future academic endeavors.

We have carefully addressed all the concerns raised, and we believe the revised manuscript has been substantially improved as a result. Below we provide a point-by-point response to each of the reviewer’s comments.

Best regards,

YUNNING MA

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some of my suggestions were not followed. I believe the paper is not properly formatted for publication.

 

1. The results are not presented in the introduction.

 

2. The authors could have emphasized the methodology more in the introduction.

 

3. My questions about Equation 1 were not addressed.

 

4. There is no discussion of the results in Table 2—an issue I have previously mentioned.

 

5. Once again, there is no discussion of the intuition behind the results, their qualifications, or comparisons with the literature. This section of the paper remains very weak.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely apologize for the shortcomings in our previous revision and for not adequately addressing your thoughtful and constructive comments. We greatly appreciate your continued engagement with our work and your helpful suggestions, which have guided us in substantially improving the manuscript. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your comments and outline the corresponding revisions made. As a result, we hope you will find the manuscript is much improved and the revision is suitable for publication in Sustainability. All details are in the attached file.

 

Sincerely,

 

Yongrok Choi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no comments to add before publication: in my opinion, after revision the manuscript is ready to be published.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely apologize for the shortcomings in our previous revision and for not adequately addressing your thoughtful and constructive comments. We greatly appreciate your continued engagement with our work and your helpful suggestions, which have guided us in substantially improving the manuscript. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your comments and outline the corresponding revisions made. As a result, we hope you will find the manuscript is much improved and the revision is suitable for publication in Sustainability. All details are in the attached file.

 

Sincerely,

 

Yongrok Choi

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

OK.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My main concern was not addressed (point 11 in my previous report). Table 2 presents several potential estimation issues, such as heterogeneity and endogeneity — the latter being the most critical. The authors did not propose any solution to these problems. This significantly undermines the quality of the empirical analysis and, consequently, the overall study. Therefore, I do not believe this paper should be considered for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback and for your continued efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We sincerely apologize for not fully addressing Point 11 in our previous revision, and we greatly appreciate your rigorous academic standards, which prompted us to revisit this issue with greater care.

In this revision, we have carefully re-examined the concerns you raised regarding the estimation issues in Table 2, particularly the problem of endogeneity. In response, we have made substantial methodological improvements and provided further clarification in both the manuscript and this response letter. We believe these changes have significantly strengthened the empirical analysis and enhanced the overall quality of the paper.

Below we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to your comments. We are grateful for your time and thoughtful critique, which have played a key role in improving our work.

Best regards,

YUNNING MA

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf