Digital Economy, R&D Resource Allocation, and Convergence of Regional Green Economy Efficiency

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents an interesting empirical analysis of the role of the digital economy in fostering the convergence of regional green economic efficiency and examines the impact pathways linking the digital economy, R&D factor allocation and green economic efficiency. Although the study has the potential to make an important contribution to the existing literature, it needs to be refined in some areas. To this end, I propose the following suggestions:

·        Although the paper addresses a relevant and timely topic, several other studies evaluate the influence of the digital economy on green economic growth across regions. The inclusion of two or three additional references and findings from this literature would strengthen the theoretical foundation of the paper.

·        The novelty of the work should be explicitly emphasized in the introduction. A short, concentrated discussion (a few lines) explaining what distinguishes this study from previous research would be beneficial.

·        To improve readability and coherence, the authors should consider formulating clear research questions at the end of the Theoretical Mechanism Analysis section. These questions would guide the subsequent Empirical Results and Analysis section and make the structure of the study more transparent to the reader.

·        The first key finding in the abstract (lines 16–17) is not sufficiently clear for readers who are not familiar with the content of the article. Even if the meaning becomes clear when reading the full paper, it should be rephrased to ensure clarity and accessibility for a wider audience.

·        The subheading "3.1.1 Explanatory Variables" (line 187) should be revised as it discusses green economic efficiency, which is the dependent variable and not an explanatory variable.

·        In the results section, the authors discuss three models (lines 346–350), as shown in Table 2. However, Table 2 contains only two models. The authors should either add the third model to Table 2 or revise the text to focus solely on the two models presented.

·        In the discussion section, the results should be critically compared with those of other similar studies. This comparison would contextualize the results and highlight the study's agreement with or divergence from existing research.

·        In the Conclusions and Policy Recommendations section, the authors do not address the limitations of the study and do not provide recommendations for future research. Expanding on these points would increase the academic rigor of the study and provide a clearer roadmap for subsequent studies in this area.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Comments to the Author

Thank you for letting me read your paper. I appreciate the chance to review it. Your paper is well written and has a good motivation. The way you collected data is also good, and the results are described and presented well. However, there are some issues with the paper. I suggest making some minor changes, and I think such changes will enhance the quality of the paper and make it able to be published.

 

 

·       The abstract, while adequate, lacks a comprehensive representation of the study's essence. The author is encouraged to rewrite it to be more compelling, clearly articulating the study's purpose, the employed methodology with concise rationales, the principal findings, a practical implication, and the novelty of the research.

·         The initial words of the keywords should be capitalized to adhere to academic conventions.

·         In the first paragraph of the introduction, the author should present the central idea in a more sophisticated and engaging manner.

·         The research questions should be explicitly stated in the second paragraph of the introduction to clarify the study's focus.

·         The third paragraph should delve into the background of the main variables, providing a contextual foundation for the research.

·         The fourth paragraph of the introduction should succinctly summarize the study's results in approximately 200 words, enhancing clarity and cohesion while retaining the original content's essence.

·         The fifth paragraph should emphasize the significance of the study, addressing its theoretical, empirical, and practical implications comprehensively.

·         The second chapter should be dedicated to a theoretical literature review, where the author must delineate the relevant theory, identifying its originator, defining its principles, and elucidating its relation to the findings of the current study.

·         The third chapter should focus on an empirical literature review, incorporating recent studies to contextualize the research within contemporary discourse.

·         The remaining sections are well articulated, particularly the main regression analysis and the robustness techniques employed.

·         Author should proofread the every single word step by step.

Best luck for your research! 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The author should proofread throughout the manuscript. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with the connection between the digital economy, R&D factor allocation, and the green economy. The study is focused on China's provinces and regions. It is not clear from the references and the literature review if a similar study is available for another country, if so a comparison of the findings is recommended.

Figure 1. Digital economy affects the convergence path of regional green 138 economy efficiency is not mentioned in the text. Besides it has the Digital Economy at the input and the output. No connection with the regional green economy efficiency is visible. Is it focused on the pollution transfer or something is wrong with the block diagram?

Table 1 is not mentioned in the text, neither. The authors should add some information in the text.

The Tables 5 and 6 are not well positioned.

The abbreviations SBM and GML should be explained at their first use.

The "h" in houseprice, line 239,  shouldn't be in italic style.

In the paragraph starting from line 621, it is not clear in what way digital transformation influences the slowing of economic growth.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf