You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Deshan Li and
  • Bowen Shu*

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Alhsmi Lasyoud Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

First, I would like to congratulate you on the chosen topic and the research you have done. The article entitled “Impact of Digital Transformation on the Quantity and Quality 2 of Corporate Green Innovation: Evidence from China” submitted for publication in the Sustainability Journal is interesting and timely.

The article presents laborious research but requires some changes:

- The abstract needs to be rewritten because it is too long and has diluted content. You need to reformulate it to obtain a more concise form that will arouse the reader’s interest (express the need and the result).

- In the introduction there is redundant, overly detailed or repetitive information (for example lines 71-72 or lines 78-79). The information in the introduction should be scientific, introduce the reader to the researched topic, but without boring or tiring them with too much detail.

- Chapter 2 needs to be revised. The information here should be more nuanced on the chosen topic, so that the reader can identify the current state of knowledge, the gaps in the specialized literature and the importance of the research. The hypotheses you formulate should justify the lack, and the material you discuss and refer to should prepare the reader for the research you have started. You cannot approach the subject in a general way in this section!

- Chapter 3 is intended for the material and method that formed the basis of the research. Here you do not need to come up with a theoretical part explaining some general terms because it is considered that the article is addressed to specialists (so eliminate from chapters 3.2.1. and 3.2.2. what fills up unnecessarily). Also, the division into sub- and sub-chapters does not make sense. The variables in table 1 should be better explained by the role they have in the research (dependent/independent variables, continuous, explanatory ... etc.). Here you also need to explain what type of regression model you used, what software you used, how you statistically tested the data .... etc. (i.e. all the steps of the research). Here we also need to see by what methods you verify the formulated hypotheses, whether they are validated or not.

- Table 2 is about the result part and not about the material and method. From this table the values of the descriptive variables should be discussed

- In chapter 4.1. You say that you obtained in table 4 in columns 2 and 5 values after adding the control variables, which is ambiguous information. Here you need to explicitly specify which are the control variables (see line 348). Then you say quote:

ʺThe values in columns 3 and 6 show that the regression coefficients of digital transformation on the quantity and quality of corporate green innovation are 0.018 and 0.015, respectively, and are significant at the 1% levelʺ

Here again I think it is ambiguous because you only specify in the first row what the numbers 1-3 ((1) Green Innovation …) in table 3 represent, and not 4-6.

- In chapter 4.3 we have a theoretical part that is not related to the result and that must be eliminated (rows 492-501), as well as below. The entire material in chapter 4 must be checked and eliminated what is extra and does not represent a result.

- At the end of chapter 4 you must have some discussions in which you compare your results with those of other researchers to whom you refer. Here you need to show what this research brings as added value (what is new, what complements or what is different…)

- Chapter 5 needs to be reformulated because it is too general and the expression is not very scientific. Here we should see if the hypotheses formulated have been verified.

- Finally, you need to introduce a new chapter 6 ʺPractical Implicationsʺ in which you specify who the research benefits, who the audience you are addressing is and convince those who read about its importance and role (i.e. reformulate the suggestions in a different way).

- Also, at the end you should introduce a chapter 7 called ʺLimitations of the Study and Future Researchʺ in which you specify if there are any limitations of the study, unexplored areas or possible future research. For guidance in both chapters 6 and 7, but not only, I suggest you identify other articles in the specialized literature (for example https://doi.org/10.3390/su162210024).

- The references chapter does not follow the format required by the journal, please also review this chapter.

- As I said at the beginning, research is valuable, but it needs to be better presented and highlighted. This cannot be done anyway, but only by resuming the material and rewriting and reorganizing it to a scientific form that fully reflects the work behind the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Comments to the Author(s)– Major Revision

General Overview:

The manuscript titled “Impact of Digital Transformation on the Quantity and Quality of Corporate Green Innovation: Evidence from China” addresses a highly relevant topic in the field of sustainability and digital transformation. The empirical approach and data coverage are commendable. However, significant revisions are required to enhance clarity, coherence, and overall scholarly contribution.

Detailed Feedback:

  1. Theoretical Framework: The manuscript needs a clearer articulation of the theoretical underpinnings. While resource integration and information interaction are discussed, the linkage to established innovation theories (e.g., resource-based view, dynamic capabilities) should be more explicitly developed.
  2. Novelty and Contribution: Although the use of keyword frequency to measure digital transformation is innovative, the authors must better position this contribution against existing measures in prior literature. The limitations of this proxy should also be discussed.
  3. Methodological Concerns: The construction of the digital transformation index requires more detailed explanation. The exclusion rules (e.g., handling of negations, shareholder mentions) need justification to ensure validity and reproducibility.
  4. Mechanism Analysis: While information interaction and resource integration mechanisms are tested, the interpretation of results needs refinement. Specifically, why resource integration influences quantity but not quality should be explained with stronger theoretical reasoning.
  5. Robustness Tests: Although multiple robustness tests are presented, the instrumental variable strategy raises concerns. The rationale for using fixed-line telephones from 1984 requires deeper justification to confirm exogeneity.
  6. Discussion and Policy Implications: The policy recommendations are somewhat generic. They should be more closely tied to the empirical findings and differentiated by enterprise type, ownership, and regional context.
  7. Language clarity needs improvement to reduce redundancy and enhance readability.
  8. Figures and tables should be formatted consistently, with clearer captions.
  9. Some references are outdated; inclusion of more recent studies (2022–2024) is recommended.
  10. The introduction is lengthy and could be streamlined to emphasize research gaps and objectives.
  11. Ensure consistency in terminology (e.g., 'digitalization' vs. 'digital transformation').
  12. Strengthen the theoretical framework by linking mechanisms more clearly to established theories.
  13. Provide detailed justification and transparency for the digital transformation index.
  14. Clarify the novelty and position of the study within the existing literature.
  15. Refine the discussion of mechanism results, especially regarding why resource integration affects only quantity.
  16. Reconsider or provide stronger justification for the variable instrumental approach.
  17. Revise and deepen the policy implications to reflect heterogeneity findings more explicitly.
  18. Improve language, streamline introduction, and update references.

Recommendation: Major Revision

The manuscript has potential to make a meaningful contribution to research on digital transformation and green innovation. However, substantial revisions are necessary to improve theoretical grounding, methodological transparency, and practical relevance. With these improvements, the study can reach the standards expected for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work contributes valuable insights into the relationship between digital transformation and green innovation outcomes, providing implications for policymakers and firms seeking to enhance sustainability. Although the article uses simple language and is well organized, the authors are recommended to carefully study the relevant content and make any necessary adjustments to the specified sections:

  1. About Methodology: The paper employs a multivariate regression model to examine the relationship between digital transformation and green innovation outcomes. It conduct separate analyses for different types of firms (high-tech vs. non-high-tech), regions (eastern vs. other), and ownership structures (state-owned vs. private). However, is does not include a comparison analysis with other commonly used approaches.
  2. About Content: On the one hand, it relies on self-reported data from annual reports, which may be subject to reporting bias or misreporting; on the other hand, the study focuses only on Chinese A-share listed companies, limiting its generalizability to other contexts or countries.
  3. About Innovation: The study provides new insights into the relationship between digital transformation and green innovation outcomes, particularly in the context of Chinese A-share listed companies. However, there is a lack of comparison with the conclusions of existing research findings, and the reasons for the emergence of Type A characteristics have not been clearly explained.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

Thank you for the changes made. However, these were not fully implemented as requested, so below you have details:

- Chapter 3 is intended for the material and method that formed the basis of the research. Further division into sub-chapters and sub-chapters does not make sense. You need to better explain all the steps of the research, the methods do not appear to be mentioned or explained (although they appear in the results as being used).

- Table 2 is about the result and not the material and method. From this table, the values ​​of the descriptive variables should be discussed

- At the end of chapter 4, you need to have some discussions in which you compare your results with those of other researchers to whom you should refer. Here you have to show what added value this research brings (what is new, what complements or what is different…), how it contributes and what was the research gap…

- Chapter 5 should show us the conclusions of the research supported by evidence and not introduce us to what the research aims to achieve (see lines 603-605). Here we should see if the hypotheses are formulated or verified by scientific explanations. I don't really understand why both chapter 5 and chapter 7 are called Conclusions (please revise).

- Finally, you have to introduce a new chapter 6 ʺPractical Implicationsʺ in which you specify who the research benefits, who the audience you are addressing is and convince those who read about its importance and role (i.e. reformulate the suggestions in a different way). Here, as I mentioned before, you should not formulate generalities as you did, but clear aspects (careful revision is required).

- Chapter 7 entitled ʺLimitations of the Study and Future Researchʺ must be introduced. As I mentioned in the previous review, you must specify if there are any limitations of the study, unexplored areas or possible future research.

- For orientation in chapters 6 and 7, but not only (for example, see chapters 3 and 4), I suggest you identify other articles in the specialized literature (for example https://doi.org/10.3390/su162210024 or https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142880

- As I said in the previous review, research is not valuable if it is not well presented and highlighted. In this regard, I ask the authors to be more careful and make all the requested changes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I accept the manuscript 

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for taking the time and effort to carefully review our manuscript during the first round. We greatly appreciate your valuable comments and constructive suggestions during the first round, which have helped us improve the quality of our work. We wish you all the best in your work.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

Thank you for the changes made. There are still some small details:

  • At the end of chapter 2, the contribution of the study to the specialized literature should appear. Then, the purpose of the research must be defined and briefly what your analysis/research entailed. Please enter what I indicated above.
  • In rows 254 and 255, use 2 equations that are not referenced. Please refer to each equation in the text and explain in words what their role is.

For example:

… To examine the impact of digital transformation on corporate green innovation, this study employs a multi-dimensional fixed effects model for regression analysis. The explained variable is given by the number of green technology innovations (lnGreenInnovation), which has the model presented in Equation (1), and the quality of green technology innovations (lnCite) uses the model presented in Equation (2), as follows:

…

- Please check the numbering of the references which should be in the order of appearance (you have 20 (row 85), then 27 (row 96), then 21.25 (row 106) ... please make the necessary corrections.

- Please check the way the references are cited in the chapters and make the necessary changes. Square brackets must be used that include the number associated with the reference.

- In the references chapter, you must modify it so that it complies with the journal requirements (the journal name must be in italics, the year must be in bold, the journal number must be in italics, etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf