Digital Economy, Spatial Imbalance, and Coordinated Growth: Evidence from Urban Agglomerations in the Middle and Lower Reaches of the Yellow River Basin

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is an analysis on the coupling coordination effect between digital economy and high-quality development in the urban agglomeration in the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River. The study used the combined weight method, spatial heterogeneity model, coupling coordination model and grey correlation analysis to reveal the spatiotemporal interaction effect of digital economy and high-quality development.

The manuscript can be characterised with significant contribution to the literature related to the research gap in empirical studies. This study can provide new academic insights and attract readers to discuss and develop it. Therefore, a more extensive and up-to-date literature review can help identify the development of empirical studies and their gaps. Furthermore, empirical literature can assist in developing research hypotheses and strengthening the discussion of the results.

The research methods must be improved in spatial center of gravity model and grey correlation. The tables and graphs must be improved also according to formal requirements.  I suggest to past the bigger tables (like table 4) as annex, not as the part of the core of the article.

Highlight the limitation of the research in more details.

Author Response

Dear  reviewers,

 

Thank you for offering us an opportunity to improve the quality of oursubmitted manuscript (Analysis on the coupling coordination effect between digital economy and high-quality development in the urban agglomeration in the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River [ID:sustainability-3882097].). We appreciated very much thereviewers’ constructive and insightful comments. In this revision,we haveaddressed all of these comments/suggestions. We hope the revised manuscripthas now met the publication standard of your journal.

 

This paper aims to analyze the coupling and coordination effects between the digital economy and high-quality development in the urban agglomeration along the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River. Using methods such as a combined weighting approach, a spatial heterogeneity model, a coupling and coordination model, and gray correlation analysis, the study reveals the spatiotemporal interaction between the digital economy and high-quality development. This paper contributes significantly to the literature addressing gaps in empirical research. This study offers new academic insights and invites discussion and expansion. Therefore, a more extensive and timely literature review would be helpful in identifying both the progress and shortcomings of empirical research. Furthermore, empirical literature can help construct research hypotheses and enhance the discussion of the findings.

 

Comments 1:[The research methods for the spatial centroid model and grey relational analysis need improvement. Tables and figures should also be refined to meet formal requirements. It is recommended that larger tables (such as Table 4) be published as appendices rather than as the core of the article.]

Response 1: [We thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have made corresponding improvements to the tables and figures in the article and have published Table 4 as an appendix to make the article more concise and clear.]

 

Comments 2:[The article should highlight the limitations of the study in more detail.]

Response 2: [We thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have strengthened the description of the limitations of the article at the end of the discussion section to facilitate further research on enrollment expansion by relevant scholars.]

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors!!

Your manuscript addresses a timely and important question regarding the interaction between the digital economy and high-quality development in the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River. I acknowledge the strengths of your paper: the use of a large dataset spanning more than three decades, the integration of multiple methods (factor analysis, entropy method, coupling coordination, grey correlation, hot/cold spot analysis), and the attempt to frame the results in the context of China’s “dual carbon” goals.

At the same time, I believe the paper requires significant refinement before it can be considered for publication in Sustainability. The contribution is currently presented in highly descriptive terms. While the methodological toolkit is diverse, the justification for indicator selection is limited, and the integration of results into broader theoretical debates on digital transformation and sustainability remains weak. For example, the finding of persistent “high coupling but low coordination” is important, but the underlying mechanisms are insufficiently theorized. Similarly, the shift of driving factors from economic scale to green innovation and data factors is reported, yet it is not clearly connected to institutional change or governance frameworks.

Moreover, the paper lacks robustness checks. Sensitivity analysis of weight assignment, alternative coupling models, or spatial lag structures would add credibility to the findings. The international dimension is also absent. Without at least some comparative discussion, the paper risks being perceived as narrowly regional rather than globally relevant.

In its current form, the manuscript offers a broad empirical mapping but not yet a convincing theoretical or methodological advance. Strengthening the conceptual framework, deepening the interpretation of results, and demonstrating methodological robustness are essential steps for improving the paper’s quality and impact.

Author Response

Dear  reviewers,

 

Thank you for offering us an opportunity to improve the quality of oursubmitted manuscript (Analysis on the coupling coordination effect between digital economy and high-quality development in the urban agglomeration in the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River [ID:sustainability-3882097].). We appreciated very much thereviewers’ constructive and insightful comments. In this revision,we haveaddressed all of these comments/suggestions. We hope the revised manuscripthas now met the publication standard of your journal.

 

Your manuscript explores the interactive relationship between the digital economy and high-quality development in the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River in a timely and important manner. I recognize the strengths of your paper: its use of a massive dataset spanning over three decades, its integration of multiple methods (factor analysis, entropy analysis, coupled coordination, grey correlation, and hot/cold spot analysis), and its attempt to contextualize the findings within the context of China's dual carbon goals. However, I believe the paper still requires significant refinement before it can be considered for publication in the journal Sustainable Development.

 

Comments 1:[At present, the paper is highly descriptive. While the methodological toolkit is rich and diverse, the rationale for the selection of indicators is limited, and the integration of the findings into the broader theoretical discussion of digital transformation and sustainability remains weak. For example, the persistent phenomenon of "high coupling and low coordination" is important, but the underlying mechanisms are under-theorized. Similarly, the paper reports a shift in drivers from economic scale to green innovation and data factors, but the connection to institutional change or governance frameworks is unclear.]

Response 1: [Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised and improved the article to make it more concise and clear. We have also added some details on the limitations of the study.]

 

Comments 2:[Furthermore, the paper lacks robustness checks. Sensitivity analyses of weight assignments, alternative coupling models, or spatial lag structures would enhance the confidence of the findings. An international dimension is also missing. Without at least some comparative discussion, the paper risks being seen as limited to regional studies rather than global ones.]

Response 2: [We thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have added some regional comparative discussion to the Discussion section of the article, which, as a regional-only study, makes the research more concise and clear.]

 

Comments 3:[Currently, the paper provides extensive empirical research but does not yet offer convincing theoretical or methodological advances. Strengthening the conceptual framework, deepening the interpretation of the results, and demonstrating the robustness of the method are key steps to enhance the quality and impact of the paper.]

Response 3: [We thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have revised and improved the research theory and conceptual framework discussed in the article to make it more concise and clear.]

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript examines long-run (1990–2022) interactions between the “digital economy” and “high-quality development” across 62 prefecture-level cities within six urban agglomerations along the middle and lower Yellow River. It builds composite indices (factor analysis + entropy weights + TOPSIS), evaluates “coupling–coordination” among seven subsystems, and adds spatial hot/cold-spot analysis, gravity-center trajectories, and grey relational analysis. The headline finding is a transition from “high coupling–low coordination” pre-2005 to progressively stronger coordination after 2015, with an east–west “core–edge” differentiation pattern.

The topic is timely and policy-relevant. However, the manuscript in its current form has substantial issues in theory, measurement, model specification, reproducibility, and presentation. Many formulae are mis-typed, several methodological choices are under-justified, and some conclusions exceed what the methods can support. Major revisions are required before the study can be considered for publication.

1. The paper promises a “three-dimensional synergistic framework of ‘technology–industry–institution’,” yet the framework is not operationalized in the empirical design (no indicators explicitly map to “institution,” and no mechanism tests link digital economy to coordination through institutional channels). The policy sections are largely declarative and not tied to quantitative results. Strengthen the theory section to explain why coordination (not just correlation) should evolve over time and how policies altered that evolution; then align indicators and tests with that theory.
2. GDP, incomes, investment, and wages appear to be nominal; no deflators are mentioned. Nominal growth and structural changes across three decades will dominate weights and TOPSIS distances. Rebuild all monetary indicators in constant prices and state the deflator source.
3. The paper blends entropy weights and factor-analysis loadings via ad-hoc coefficients αi\alpha_iαi​ and βi\beta_iβi​ (Eq. 7–8), but the derivation is unclear and risks double-counting correlation structure (factor analysis already “soaks up” covariance). Provide a formal derivation or cite a standard reference; otherwise, prefer a transparent scheme (e.g., convex combination with a single λ chosen via cross-validation or sensitivity analysis).
4. Table 2 mixes 3-decimal and 4-decimal precision, and some entries appear inconsistent (e.g., repeated small values such as 0.009). Round consistently and ensure sums of weights within each subsystem equal 1 (or state otherwise). 
5. The manuscript would benefit from broadening its literature review and theoretical framing by engaging with recent work on competencies, decision-making frameworks, and international economic relations.  e.g. Tatarczak, A. (2020). A decision making support system in logistics cooperation using a modified VIKOR method under an intuituinistic fuzzy environment. LogForum, 16(2);  Yang, H., & Xu, X. (2024). Coupling and coordination analysis of digital economy and green agricultural development: Evidence from major grain producing areas in China. Sustainability, 16(11), 4533.

Author Response

Dear  reviewers,

 

Thank you for offering us an opportunity to improve the quality of oursubmitted manuscript (Analysis on the coupling coordination effect between digital economy and high-quality development in the urban agglomeration in the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River [ID:sustainability-3882097].). We appreciated very much thereviewers’ constructive and insightful comments. In this revision,we haveaddressed all of these comments/suggestions. We hope the revised manuscripthas now met the publication standard of your journal.

This paper examines the long-term interaction (1990-2022) between the digital economy and high-quality development in 62 prefecture-level cities within six urban agglomerations in the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River. A comprehensive index (factor analysis, entropy weighting, and TOPSIS) was constructed to assess the coupling-coordination relationship among seven subsystems. Spatial hotspot/coldspot analysis, center-of-gravity trajectory analysis, and gray correlation analysis were also added. The key finding is that regional coordination shifted from "high coupling and low coordination" before 2005 to gradually strengthening after 2015, exhibiting an east-west "core-periphery" differentiation pattern. This topic is both timely and policy-relevant.

 

Comments 1:[The paper currently has significant issues with theory, model specification, reproducibility, and presentation. Many formulas are misspelled, some methodological choices are poorly justified, and some conclusions are beyond the scope of the methodology. This study requires significant revision before it can be considered for publication.]

Response 1: [We thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have revised and improved the article in terms of theory, model specification, reproducibility, and presentation.]

 

Comments 2:[This paper promises to construct a "three-dimensional synergy framework of 'technology-industry-institutions,'" but this framework has yet to be operationalized in empirical design (no indicators are explicitly mapped to "institutions," nor are there any mechanistic tests linking the digital economy to coordination through institutional channels). The policy section is primarily declarative and unconnected to the quantitative results. The theoretical section should be strengthened to explain why coordination (not just correlation) should evolve over time and how policies can alter this evolution; the indicators and tests should then be aligned with the theory.

GDP, income, investment, and wages appear to be nominal indicators; no deflator is mentioned. Thirty years of nominal growth and structural change will dominate the weights and TOPSIS distances. All monetary indicators should be reconstructed in constant prices, and the source of the deflator should be explained.]

Response 2: [We thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have strengthened the theoretical content of the article and revised the article based on the availability, interpretability, completeness, relevance, consistency, and scientificity of the data to make it more concise and clear.]

Comments 3:[This paper blends entropy weights and factor analysis loadings via the temporary coefficients αi\alpha_iαi​ and βi\beta_iβi​ (Equations 7-8), but the derivation is unclear and risks double-counting the correlation structure (the factor analysis has "absorbed" the covariance). Please provide a formal derivation or cite a standard reference; otherwise, a transparent approach is recommended (e.g., selecting a convex combination of individual lambdas through cross-validation or sensitivity analysis).]

Response 3: [We thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have cited standard references in the article to make it more scientific, concise and clear.]

 

Comments 4:[Table 2 has a mix of 3 and 4 decimal places of precision, and some entries appear inconsistent (for example, repeated small values ​​like 0.009). Please use consistent rounding methods and ensure that the weights within each subsystem sum to 1 (or state otherwise).]

Response 4: [We thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have standardized the decimal point precision in Table 2 to make it more concise and clear.]

 

Comments 5:[This paper would be beneficial if it could broaden the literature review and theoretical framework by integrating recent research findings on competencies, decision-making frameworks, and international economic relations. For example, Tatarczak, A. (2020). Logistics cooperation decision support system in an intuitionistic fuzzy environment based on the improved VIKOR method. LogForum, 16(2); Yang Hua and Xu Xiaoyan (2024). Coupling and coordination analysis of digital economy and green agricultural development: Evidence from China's major grain-producing areas. Sustainability, 16(11), 4533.]

Response 5: [We thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have expanded the discussion section, literature review, and theoretical framework of the article and have also revised and improved other contents of the article.]

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors!

The article is devoted to the analysis of the interaction between the digital economy and high-quality development in the urban agglomerations of the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River. The authors construct a comprehensive evaluation system that includes seven subsystems and apply a wide range of methods (entropy method, TOPSIS, grey correlation analysis, coupling coordination models, hot and cold spot analysis, gravity center method). This methodological arsenal allows for an in-depth study of the spatial-temporal dynamics of the processes and the identification of key drivers of regional development.

The paper has several strong aspects. First, the topic is highly relevant: the digital economy is becoming a key factor in sustainable growth, and the chosen region is strategically important due to both imbalances and development potential. Second, the methodological diversity is impressive: the use of combined quantitative methods makes the results more reliable. Third, the empirical base is solid, covering panel data from 1990–2022, which allows the authors to trace the evolution from “high coupling with low coordination” to “high-level coordination.” Fourth, the paper has practical significance, as it provides recommendations for reducing the digital divide, optimizing the “core–periphery” structure, and improving mechanisms of digital governance.

At the same time, the article has several weaknesses that need attention. The representativeness of the data is limited, as the analysis relies mainly on official statistical yearbooks and does not fully account for institutional and governance factors, as well as regional digital disparities. The interdisciplinary dimension is underdeveloped: there is almost no discussion of social and cultural consequences of digitalization, inclusiveness, or social capital, although these factors are directly connected with the quality of development. Methodologically, the applied models (coordination, entropy, grey analysis) are largely static and do not adequately capture nonlinear dynamic effects or spatial spillover mechanisms. The authors themselves note the necessity of expanding the approach through dynamic threshold models and spatial econometrics.

In terms of presentation, the article would benefit from substantial editing. The English language requires revision to correct stylistic and grammatical issues, and the text needs technical editing to harmonize tables, figures, and references. The current version is overloaded with formulas and method descriptions, which reduces accessibility. A more illustrative interpretation of the results would help broaden the audience.

In conclusion, this is a valuable contribution to the study of the interaction between the digital economy and high-quality development in China. The article demonstrates a high level of methodological work and the relevance of the topic for sustainable regional development. At the same time, the inclusion of additional indicators related to institutional and social factors, the use of more dynamic models, as well as thorough language and technical editing, would significantly strengthen the scientific novelty, practical value, and overall quality of the paper.

Author Response

Response to reviewers 1

 

 

Dear  reviewers,

 

Thank you for offering us an opportunity to improve the quality of oursubmitted manuscript (Analysis on the coupling coordination effect between digital economy and high-quality development in the urban agglomeration in the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River [ID:sustainability-3882097].). We appreciated very much thereviewers’ constructive and insightful comments. In this revision,we haveaddressed all of these comments/suggestions. We hope the revised manuscripthas now met the publication standard of your journal.

 

The article is devoted to the analysis of the interaction between the digital economy and high-quality development in the urban agglomerations of the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River. The authors construct a comprehensive evaluation system that includes seven subsystems and apply a wide range of methods (entropy method, TOPSIS, grey correlation analysis, coupling coordination models, hot and cold spot analysis, gravity center method). This methodological arsenal allows for an in-depth study of the spatial-temporal dynamics of the processes and the identification of key drivers of regional development.

The paper has several strong aspects. First, the topic is highly relevant: the digital economy is becoming a key factor in sustainable growth, and the chosen region is strategically important due to both imbalances and development potential. Second, the methodological diversity is impressive: the use of combined quantitative methods makes the results more reliable. Third, the empirical base is solid, covering panel data from 1990–2022, which allows the authors to trace the evolution from “high coupling with low coordination” to “high-level coordination.” Fourth, the paper has practical significance, as it provides recommendations for reducing the digital divide, optimizing the “core–periphery” structure, and improving mechanisms of digital governance.

At the same time, the article has several weaknesses that need attention. The representativeness of the data is limited, as the analysis relies mainly on official statistical yearbooks and does not fully account for institutional and governance factors, as well as regional digital disparities. The interdisciplinary dimension is underdeveloped: there is almost no discussion of social and cultural consequences of digitalization, inclusiveness, or social capital, although these factors are directly connected with the quality of development. Methodologically, the applied models (coordination, entropy, grey analysis) are largely static and do not adequately capture nonlinear dynamic effects or spatial spillover mechanisms. The authors themselves note the necessity of expanding the approach through dynamic threshold models and spatial econometrics.

In terms of presentation, the article would benefit from substantial editing. The English language requires revision to correct stylistic and grammatical issues, and the text needs technical editing to harmonize tables, figures, and references. The current version is overloaded with formulas and method descriptions, which reduces accessibility. A more illustrative interpretation of the results would help broaden the audience.

In conclusion, this is a valuable contribution to the study of the interaction between the digital economy and high-quality development in China. The article demonstrates a high level of methodological work and the relevance of the topic for sustainable regional development. At the same time, the inclusion of additional indicators related to institutional and social factors, the use of more dynamic models, as well as thorough language and technical editing, would significantly strengthen the scientific novelty, practical value, and overall quality of the paper.

 

Comments 1:[The article is devoted to the analysis of the interaction between the digital economy and high-quality development in the urban agglomerations of the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River. The authors construct a comprehensive evaluation system that includes seven subsystems and apply a wide range of methods (entropy method, TOPSIS, grey correlation analysis, coupling coordination models, hot and cold spot analysis, gravity center method). This methodological arsenal allows for an in-depth study of the spatial-temporal dynamics of the processes and the identification of key drivers of regional development.

The paper has several strong aspects. First, the topic is highly relevant: the digital economy is becoming a key factor in sustainable growth, and the chosen region is strategically important due to both imbalances and development potential. Second, the methodological diversity is impressive: the use of combined quantitative methods makes the results more reliable. Third, the empirical base is solid, covering panel data from 1990–2022, which allows the authors to trace the evolution from “high coupling with low coordination” to “high-level coordination.” Fourth, the paper has practical significance, as it provides recommendations for reducing the digital divide, optimizing the “core–periphery” structure, and improving mechanisms of digital governance.]

Response 1: [Dear reviewer, first of all, thank you for your recognition of the contribution of our article research. We will continue to carry out relevant in-depth research in the future.]

 

Comments 2:[At the same time, the article has several weaknesses that need attention. The representativeness of the data is limited, as the analysis relies mainly on official statistical yearbooks and does not fully account for institutional and governance factors, as well as regional digital disparities. The interdisciplinary dimension is underdeveloped: there is almost no discussion of social and cultural consequences of digitalization, inclusiveness, or social capital, although these factors are directly connected with the quality of development. Methodologically, the applied models (coordination, entropy, grey analysis) are largely static and do not adequately capture nonlinear dynamic effects or spatial spillover mechanisms. The authors themselves note the necessity of expanding the approach through dynamic threshold models and spatial econometrics.]

Response 2: [Dear reviewers, thank you for your valuable suggestions. We failed to fully consider institutional and governance factors, as well as regional digital disparities. We will delve deeper into these areas in our subsequent research, aiming to fully refine our analysis of related research. We will strive to consider interdisciplinary dimensions comprehensively and, in terms of methodology, expand our research on nonlinear dynamic effects or spatial spillover mechanisms, thereby completing high-quality research on the digital economy and high-quality urban development, and enriching relevant research findings.]

Comments 3:[In terms of presentation, the article would benefit from substantial editing. The English language requires revision to correct stylistic and grammatical issues, and the text needs technical editing to harmonize tables, figures, and references. The current version is overloaded with formulas and method descriptions, which reduces accessibility. A more illustrative interpretation of the results would help broaden the audience.]

Response 3: [Dear reviewers,  We have revised the article for stylistic and grammatical issues. After submission, we also asked the technical editor to help coordinate the tables, figures and references.]

Comments 4:[In conclusion, this is a valuable contribution to the study of the interaction between the digital economy and high-quality development in China. The article demonstrates a high level of methodological work and the relevance of the topic for sustainable regional development. At the same time, the inclusion of additional indicators related to institutional and social factors, the use of more dynamic models, as well as thorough language and technical editing, would significantly strengthen the scientific novelty, practical value, and overall quality of the paper.]

Response 4: [Dear reviewers, thank you for your valuable suggestions on this study. Now that this research is complete, we will incorporate additional indicators related to institutional and social factors and use more dynamic models in our subsequent research on the digital economy and high-quality urban development to enrich our research. We have also conducted comprehensive language and technical editing on the article, enhancing its scientific innovation, practical value, and overall quality.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for your careful revisions and for improving the manuscript in line with the feedback provided. I am pleased to inform you that the paper now meets the required standards, and I am happy to accept it for publication.

Author Response

Response to reviewers 

 

 

Dear  reviewers,

 

Thank you for offering us an opportunity to improve the quality of oursubmitted manuscript (Analysis on the coupling coordination effect between digital economy and high-quality development in the urban agglomeration in the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River [ID:sustainability-3882097].). We appreciated very much thereviewers’ constructive and insightful comments. In this revision,we haveaddressed all of these comments/suggestions. We hope the revised manuscripthas now met the publication standard of your journal.

 

Thank you very much for your careful revisions and for improving the manuscript in line with the feedback provided. I am pleased to inform you that the paper now meets the required standards, and I am happy to accept it for publication.

 

Comments 1:[Thank you very much for your careful revisions and for improving the manuscript in line with the feedback provided. I am pleased to inform you that the paper now meets the required standards, and I am happy to accept it for publication.]

Response 1: [Dear reviewers, Thank you very much for your recognition of the article. I wish you good work and all the best.]

 

 

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors!

1. The introduction offers a well-structured policy and theoretical context that accurately frames the research problem within China’s digital transformation agenda. It references relevant national strategies (e.g., Digital China Initiative) and successfully motivates the study.
   However, the introduction would benefit from a clearer articulation of the study’s novelty and a more concise definition of “high-quality development” in the regional context.
   Furthermore, the authors could enrich the literature review with 2–3 recent international studies on coupling coordination in digital economies (for example, works on the EU digital transition or regional innovation ecosystems) to broaden the global relevance of the paper.
2. The research design is conceptually sound and methodologically appropriate. The choice of the Yellow River Basin is justified both environmentally and socioeconomically. The combination of entropy-weighted TOPSIS, gray correlation, and coupling coordination models is well aligned with the study’s objectives.
   That said, the rationale behind certain parameter values (e.g., weighting coefficients α and β, the synergy threshold of 0.4) should be explicitly justified with either theoretical or empirical references. This would strengthen the credibility and reproducibility of the analysis.
3. The methodological section is detailed and mathematically rigorous. The presentation of formulas is mostly correct, but formula (14) requires careful review for consistency of notation and proper referencing of variables.
   Moreover, to enhance readability, it is recommended to include a schematic diagram summarizing the research framework and analytical steps — from data preprocessing to coupling evaluation and spatial interpretation.
   Finally, consider briefly discussing potential endogeneity and spatial autocorrelation issues, as they are increasingly emphasized in regional digital economy research.
4. The results are comprehensive, well-organized, and generally convincing. The analysis of regional disparities across provinces and temporal trends in coupling coordination is insightful.
   However, several figures could be accompanied by more interpretative captions, explaining the practical meaning of spatial patterns (for instance, the “core–periphery” structure in Figure 8).
   Reducing redundancy between Figures 3–7 and highlighting the key policy-relevant findings would further improve clarity and impact.
5. The conclusions logically follow from the empirical findings and are well aligned with the study’s objectives. The discussion of policy implications is meaningful and supports sustainable digital development strategies.
   Nevertheless, the limitations section should be expanded to acknowledge possible biases in the statistical indicators and the absence of dynamic or nonlinear modeling approaches. A short statement on how future research might apply spatial econometric or machine-learning techniques would make the outlook more forward-looking.
6. The title of the article should be reconsidered.
   While informative, it is currently overly long and descriptive, which reduces its clarity and international readability.

Author Response

Response to reviewers 

Dear  reviewers,

       Thank you for offering us an opportunity to improve the quality of oursubmitted manuscript (Analysis on the coupling coordination effect between digital economy and high-quality development in the urban agglomeration in the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River [ID:sustainability-3882097].). We appreciated very much thereviewers’ constructive and insightful comments. In this revision,we haveaddressed all of these comments/suggestions. We hope the revised manuscripthas now met the publication standard of your journal.

 

Comments 1:[The introduction offers a well-structured policy and theoretical context that accurately frames the research problem within China’s digital transformation agenda. It references relevant national strategies (e.g., Digital China Initiative) and successfully motivates the study.
However, the introduction would benefit from a clearer articulation of the study’s novelty and a more concise definition of “high-quality development” in the regional context.
Furthermore, the authors could enrich the literature review with 2–3 recent international studies on coupling coordination in digital economies (for example, works on the EU digital transition or regional innovation ecosystems) to broaden the global relevance of the paper.]

Response 1: [Thanks to the reviewers for their valuable suggestions, we have revised and improved the introduction of the article and expanded its global relevance.]

 

Comments 2:[The research design is conceptually sound and methodologically appropriate. The choice of the Yellow River Basin is justified both environmentally and socioeconomically. The combination of entropy-weighted TOPSIS, gray correlation, and coupling coordination models is well aligned with the study’s objectives.
That said, the rationale behind certain parameter values (e.g., weighting coefficients α and β, the synergy threshold of 0.4) should be explicitly justified with either theoretical or empirical references. This would strengthen the credibility and reproducibility of the analysis.]

Response 2: [We thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have revised and improved the methods section in the article to enhance the credibility and reproducibility of the analysis.]

 

Comments 3:[The methodological section is detailed and mathematically rigorous. The

presentation of formulas is mostly correct, but formula (14) requires careful review for

consistency of notation and proper referencing of variables.Moreover, to enhance readability, it is recommended to include a schematic diagram summarizing the research framework and

analytical steps — from data preprocessing to coupling evaluation and spatial interpretation.

Finally, consider briefly discussing potential endogeneity and spatial autocorrelation issues, as

they are increasingly emphasized in regional digital economy research.]

 

Response 3: [Thanks to the reviewers for their valuable suggestions, we have modified and improved the coupling coordination formulas (14-16), added a new schematic diagram of the article framework, and discussed the potential endogeneity and spatial autocorrelation issues in the Discussion section.]

 

Comments 4:[The results are comprehensive, well-organized, and generally convincing. The

analysis of regional disparities across provinces and temporal trends in coupling coordination is

insightful.However, several figures could be accompanied by more interpretative captions,

explaining the practical meaning of spatial patterns (for instance, the “core–periphery” structure

in Figure 8).Reducing redundancy between Figures 3–7 and highlighting the key

policy-relevant findings would further improve clarity and impact.]

 

Response 4: [We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. We have provided more explanatory titles for the figures and tables to explain the practical significance of the spatial patterns. We have also reduced the redundant descriptions between Figures 3 to 7 to highlight the key information of the article.]

 

Comments 5:[The conclusions logically follow from the empirical findings and are well aligned

with the study’s objectives. The discussion of policy implications is meaningful and supports

sustainable digital development strategies.Nevertheless, the limitations section should be

expanded to acknowledge possible biases in the statistical indicators and the absence of

dynamic or nonlinear modeling approaches. A short statement on how future research might

apply spatial econometric or machine-learning techniques would make the outlook more

forward-looking.]

 

Response 5: [We thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have made some revisions to this part of the article to make the outlook of this study more forward-looking.]

 

Comments 6:[The title of the article should be reconsidered.While informative, it is currently

overly long and descriptive, which reduces its clarity and international readability.]

 

Response 6: [We thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have revised the title of the article to enhance its clarity and international readability.]