How Digital Development Leverages Sustainable Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is overly descriptive, listing technologies and their benefits without sufficient critical analysis. You may want to present a more critical summary of the literature, pointing at limitations or contested claims, so as to further justify your study. In its present form, the paper largely repackages existing knowledge without novel insights or rigorous analysis, making for a marginal contribution to theory and practice. 

The PRISMA process is not fully transparent. Figure 1 and the screening methodology lack detail on inclusion/exclusion rationale and coding, compromising reliability.  

There is remarkable repetition across sections, particularly regarding the benefits of each technology. Readability and focus would be significantly improved by eliminating redundancy. 

How about regional differences in digital adoption? They should be discussed further. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 1,

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you've dedicated to reviewing our work. We have carefully considered your comments and have made revisions to address your concerns. Below, please find responses to your comments, along with an outline of the changes made to the manuscript.

Specific Responses to Reviewer 1's Comments:

We appreciate your comment, which will be very useful in improving our work, having made improvements to the literature review, better justifying our study.

Regarding the other comments, the authors consider that the different sections focus on different subjects, not considering that there are repetitions in the thematic points addressed.

We appreciate your comment on regional differences in digital adoption, but this is not a main objective of this text, and we will continue to develop this subject in future research.

We hope to have responded to the reviewer's comments, but we are available to improve our review if the reviewer considers it pertinent.

In conclusion: We believe that the revisions made have significantly improved the manuscript by addressing the reviewer's concerns. We are confident that the revised manuscript now offers a more novel and rigorous contribution to theory and practice. We hope you will find the revised manuscript suitable for publication.

Sincerely,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

To improve the quality of this manuscript, I have the following comments:
Q1. Introduction. This part needs to clarify the scientific problems that this research needs to solve. The manuscript needs to clarify why it is necessary to study the impact of digital technology on sustainable development again. It also needs to clarify what the unique contribution of this manuscript is compared with other review studies.
Q2. The criticality of the manuscript was limited to "digital development" and "sustainable development". However, the manifestations of sustainable development are extremely rich. According to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, it contains at least 17 contents. However, the manuscript's limitation of the key word to "sustainable development" cannot fully reflect the main content of the article. I suggest that the author comprehensively examine the connotation of sustainable development. More key words and social forms need to be taken into consideration. The same problem also exists in digital development. Although the titles and keywords of different studies vary, such as digital technology, the Internet, and big data, they all convey the meaning of digital development. So I suggest that the author search for more relevant articles instead of being limited to three main keywords. Judging from the number of screened articles, only 70 literatures make it difficult to clarify the dynamics of relevant research on sustainable development.
Q3. The manuscript needs to clearly identify the shortcomings of the existing research and the areas that need improvement. Please do not simply list their viewpoints without making any comments.

Q4. The repetition rate of the manuscript is too high. It reached 33%. As a high-quality article, it needs to be controlled within 20%.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 2,

Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions, which we greatly appreciate. We have carefully considered your feedback and have implemented revisions to the manuscript to address your concerns and improve its quality. Our responses are below, along with a summary of the changes made.

Specific Responses to Reviewer 2's Comments:

We appreciate the reviewer's feedback on the introduction. To address these points, we have: Clarified the scientific problems this research addresses by explicitly stating that the study aims to analyze whether emerging technologies can contribute to improving the economic and social aspects that the Sustainable Development Goals advocate.

Justified the necessity of re-examining the impact of digital technology on sustainable development by highlighting that academic research is constantly evolving, and there is a need to understand the state of the literature review at a time when emerging technologies are being innovated in a greater number of countries.

Emphasized the unique contribution of this study by stating that it takes a global approach to the topic. We have expanded on this in the introduction to further highlight the novelty of our approach, potentially referencing the editor content by emphasizing the role of emergent technologies and their potential to reshape industries and address pressing challenges. We emphasize that the ability to harness and strategically deploy emergent technologies is becoming increasingly critical for organizations and governments.

We acknowledge the reviewer's concerns about the limited criticality and the scope of keywords used. Your comment is very useful, but the authors consider that this academic article is focused on the themes mentioned throughout the article and as a starting point the initial research keywords already mentioned. The reviewer's suggestion is pertinent and the authors will certainly consider it for future research.

Related to the lack of Identification of Shortcomings and Areas for Improvement: We agree with the reviewer's comment and provide specific commentary on the limitations of prior studies and suggest concrete directions for future research.

The authors appreciate the reviewer pointing out the high repetition rate, and conducted a thorough review of the manuscript to reduce the repetition rate. We have rewritten sections, consolidated information, and eliminated redundant content to ensure the manuscript meets the standard of a high-quality article.

We hope to have responded to the reviewer's comments, but we are available to improve our review if the reviewer considers it pertinent.

Finally, we believe that the revisions made have significantly improved the manuscript by addressing the reviewer's concerns. We are confident that the revised manuscript now offers a more rigorous and insightful contribution to the field. We hope you will find the revised manuscript suitable for publication.

Sincerely,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

This paper explores the intricate interplay between digital innovation and the pursuit of sustainable development.  Findings indicate that technology enables more transparent, inclusive, and efficient practices, particularly when
aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Notably, digital ecosystems foster
real-time data analytics, support resource optimization, and strengthen participatory decision-making. While technological adoption varies by region and capacity, its role in shaping equitable and resilient futures is undeniable. The analysis highlights that progress hinges not merely on innovation itself but on strategic integration within policy and institutional frameworks. The paper concludes that digital development is not a panacea, but when harnessed wisely, it serves as a critical lever in addressing the world’s most pressing sustainability imperatives.  I find the paper very interesting and well structured. However, i have some remarks that i hope will enhance the quality of the manuscript.

• First, it is suggested to add a question mark in the title.
• In the introduction, the authors need to further explain the research gap. why did they choose this topic 
• it is also suggested to remove the findings from the introduction. the authors are encouraged to add the design of the paper at the end of the introduction section.
• the title of figure 6 should placed just below the graphic ( same remark applies for figure 10)
• the authors used the digital technologies but they didn't evocate the rule of e-government which is one of the pillars of digital technologies usage.
• the methodology is well described and results are well presented.
• remove ''s'' from conclusions
• the authors need to add the research limitations and future directions of research at the end of the conclusion section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and suggestions, which we believe will significantly improve the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and have implemented revisions accordingly. Our detailed responses are provided below:

Specific Responses to Reviewer 3's Comments:

Title: We have revised the title to include a question mark, as suggested.

Introduction - Research Gap: We have expanded the introduction to provide a more detailed explanation of the research gap and our rationale for choosing this topic. We focused on further clarifying the scientific problems, the necessity of re-examination, and the unique contribution of our study.

Introduction - Design: We have added a description of the paper's design at the end of the introduction section, as suggested. Your comment is very helpful, but the authors consider it pertinent to present a brief note on findings at this point in the text to give the reader a glimpse of the end of the article.

Figure Captions - We have moved the titles of Figure 6 and Figure 10 to below the graphics.

Conclusions - Pluralization: We have removed the "s" from "conclusions."

Conclusions - Limitations and Future Directions: We have added a section on the research limitations and future directions of research at the end of the conclusion section.

We hope to have responded to the reviewer's comments, but we are available to improve our review if the reviewer considers it pertinent.

We are confident that these revisions have significantly improved the manuscript. Thank you again for your time and expertise. We look forward to your positive consideration.

Sincerely,

Paula Lopes

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors! My recommendations for improving the article are as follows:

A) Sections 4.2 and 4.3 duplicate the description of technologies and their applications - can be combined or shortened.

B) Emphasize specific digital adoption cases (e.g., a specific city, project, or initiative where AI/blockchain is already being used for sustainability).

C) Provide quantitative performance data (e.g., emissions reductions, energy efficiency gains, etc.).

D) Add an analysis of the risks of digitalization: digital inequality, cyber threats, privacy concerns, uneven access in developing countries.

E) Specify the limitations of technology applicability depending on the level of infrastructure and policy.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 4,

Thank you for your insightful comments and recommendations. We have revised the manuscript based on your feedback and believe it has been significantly improved. Please find our responses below.

We revised the article globally to improve the quality of the text in line with the reviewers' requests, and we hope to have responded to the request of reviewer 4.

We reviewed and deepened the literature review with the aim of improving the reading and understanding of our article by researchers. Namely, we included examples of digital adoption cases, we referred to ways in which emerging technologies can be applied to increase sustainability within businesses and in the context of entrepreneurship. We highlighted the importance of communication within this scenario of Sustainable Development of Digital Development Leverages.

We hope to have responded to the reviewer's comments, but we are available to improve our review if the reviewer considers it pertinent.

We appreciate your feedback and believe that these revisions have significantly strengthened our manuscript. We look forward to your positive consideration.

Sincerely,

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author responded very well to my previous comment. I'm satisfied with the revised manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you've dedicated to reviewing our work.