Research on the Impact of the New Quality Productive Force on Regional Economic Disparities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article utilized China's panel data from 2012 to 2022 to investigate the relationship between NQPF and regional economic disparity. However, further improvements are needed in the following aspects: First, the calculation and representation of the core variables in "3.2.1. Dependent Variable: Regional Economic Disparity" and "3.2.2. Core Explanatory Variable: The New Quality Productive Force (NQPF)" require support from references. Second, a secondary title should be added to "5. Conclusions and policy recommendations" to enhance readability. Third, the conclusion could delve deeper into the impact of new quality productive force on regional economic disparity, such as from multiple dimensions including innovation level, quality level, computing power level, and green level. Fourth, The format needs to be further checked, such as the repetitive expression of "2.2" and "2.3".

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article conducts research on the impact of new quality productive force on regional economic disparities in various regions of China. It provides a new theoretical perspective and practical path on how to promote the development of new quality productivity to solve the problem of uneven economic development between regions. It has guiding significance for various regions to formulate suitable policies for the development of new quality productivity. Through more detailed literature review, theoretical mechanism research and empirical testing, the paper has constructed a three-dimensional interactive explanatory model of " technology-space-institution". Utilizing the panel data of 30 provinces (autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the central government, excluding Tibet, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan) in China from 2012 to 2022, and using econometric methods such as dual fixed-effects model ,mediation effects model and Hansen's threshold regression model, the paper has in-depth studied the internal relationship between new quality productivity and regional economic differences, and further explored the impact of scientific and technological innovation and urbanization rate. Policy recommendations have been put forward from the aspects of continuous cultivation of NQPF, strengthening innovation-driven development, and optimizing urbanization pathways. Overall, the research problem of this paper has practical significance. The sample size of the paper is sufficient, the method selection is appropriate, the measurement process is standardized and fair, and the conclusion is in line with the development reality of various regions in China, reflecting a relatively standardized research paradigm and research ability.

The shortcomings of the paper are: firstly, it should accurately explain the impact mechanism of NQPF on regional economic disparities in different regions (such as the eastern and central western regions)? What specific factors lead to significant differences in its effectiveness in different regions? The second is to specifically explain how the level of urbanization affects the promotion effect of NQPF on regional economic coordinated development after reaching a specific threshold of urbanization, and why its role weakens? The third issue is the urgent need to strengthen formatting standards, such as the problem of uniform capitalization of the first letters of journal names in reference materials, which is quite messy.

Overall, the paper meets the relevant quality standards and is accepted for revision.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Can be improved

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study suffers from irreparable conceptual, methodological, and empirical deficiencies that fundamentally undermine its validity.

The core construct of "New Quality Productive Forces" (NQPF) remains ambiguously defined, with its evaluation system (Table 2) improperly conflating environmental governance metrics (e.g., forest coverage, wastewater rates) with productivity innovation indicators without theoretical justification.

Methodologically fatal flaws include:

(1)the regional disparity index (Formula 5) producing distorted results when regional GDP approaches maximum values due to mathematical instability in its denominator;

(2)the entropy-weighted NQPF index violating indicator independence assumptions with high inter-metric correlations (r>0.8), causing significant measurement bias; and

(3) invalid instrumental variable selection ("internet penetration rate") that breaches exclusion restrictions and lacks Sargan test verification (Table 7).

These foundational defects—coupled with uncontrolled confounders in regional heterogeneity analysis (e.g., ignoring eastern China’s foreign investment concentration) and policy recommendations detached from empirical evidence (e.g., unsupported "green computing centers" proposal)—collectively invalidate both theoretical contributions and practical implications, rendering the work unpublishable in its current form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The paper is well-structured and offers valuable insights into the impact of NQPF on regional economic disparities in China. The empirical research is robust, and the policy implications are relevant. However, I suggest minor language polishing for clarity and readability. Also, you need to clarify and adjust the following issues:

- From the outset, clearly define NQPF in words, followed by its abbreviations (row 185 - this reiterates the entire concept). Introduction not Introductory (or Maybe Introductory Section); Row 35 - "The report of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China explicitly called for "thoroughly implementing the strategy of coordinated regional development, major regional strategies, and functional zone strategies, while optimizing the layout of major productive forces." - to row 43 ...I dont see the bibliographic sources that clearly are mentioned.

- Some sentences are too long and contain multiple ideas, which may hinder readability. Aim for clarity by splitting complex sentences. Example (lines 55–59) "From a historical perspective, the emergence of NQPF aligns with the intrinsic requirements of China's economic transformation from scale expansion to quality and efficiency." Avoid Repetition.

- You mention NQPF's connection to regional convergence in several places with similar wording.

- Many missing spaces after punctuation (rows: 47, 67, 70 etc.)

- Some sentences are long and packed with multiple clauses, which can overwhelm readers. Example: “Through the continuous improvement by scholars, this article summarizes and proposes that NQPF is the new vitality exerted by the three elements of productivity - laborers, means of labor, and objects of labor - under the influence of the three characteristics of NQPF: "new", "quality", and "power", thus giving birth to NQPF in the context of the new era.”

- missing sources row 120 - " Some scholars believe that to accurately understand the connotation and characteristics of NQPF, it is necessary to grasp it from the two aspects of "new" and "quality". Some scholars point out that NQPF is essentially a new form of productivity represented by "computing power", which is the economic foundation for achieving Chinese-style modernization. " some scholars imply for references.

- Literature Review section - incorporating more critique throughout would strengthen it(e.g., by highlighting specific weaknesses in measurement systems or limitations of convergence/polarization theory).

- I recommend a smooth transition from one hypothesis to the next.  Each subsection works well individually, but the transitions between them could be smoother. After Hypothesis 1, you could introduce Hypothesis 2 with: "Beyond its direct effects, NQPF also operates indirectly through technological innovation, which acts as a key mediating mechanism." Before Hypothesis 3, you could add: "However, these effects are not linear and may vary depending on the stage of urbanization."

- Section 2 presents mechanisms and hypotheses well, but it could briefly acknowledge existing empirical findings (if any) to show grounding in the literature. Add a phrase like ---"Previous studies suggest that urbanization has both enabling and constraining effects on productivity-driven growth [X, Y], indicating the importance of testing for threshold effects in this context."

- Some regression results are insufficiently discussed. For instance, the policy implications of opposing signs in regional subgroup analyses (east vs. central-west) should be elaborated.

Additionally, while the theoretical framework is strong, consider discussing the limitations of the study more explicitly (e.g., possible omitted variables or endogeneity concerns beyond those addressed). I also encourage the authors to refine the narrative, enhance methodological transparency, and improve the alignment between theory, evidence, and conclusions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is readable but would benefit from moderate language editing. Some sentences are long or awkwardly structured, which hampers clarity, particularly in the abstract and policy recommendations sections. A careful proofreading or professional language edit is recommended

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have carefully reviewed the revised the second version of the manuscript and appreciate the authors' efforts in addressing the previous comments and suggestions. The changes made are appropriate and have improved the clarity and quality of the paper. I am satisfied with the revisions and have no further concerns. I recommend acceptance of the manuscript in its current form.

All the best,