Empowerment and Pathways of Digital Economy in Rural Revitalization: A Case Study of Low Urbanization Areas in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision is reasonable. Table 4 is missing and needs to be fixed. Well done and good luck.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. For the problem of missing form 4 you mentioned, we have supplemented and corrected it in the revision process to ensure that the content of the form is complete and the format is standardized.

Thank you again!

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper combines the rural revitalization and the development of the digital economy to investigate the different dimensions of the DE on the rural revitalization. The authors may benefit from the following suggestions. The language of this manuscript must be improved.

1. The organization of the introduction in merely focuses on the countryside rather than the rural or the rural revitalization. The authors argue that the importance of the countryside on the security of food. It may cause misunderstanding between the rural revitalization and the countryside and neglect the emphasis on the rural revitalization.
2. The lack of the relevant literature review. Especially, there are numerous research on the digital economy and rural development (rural revitalization) both quantitative or qualitative. For example, the impact of DE on carbon emissions, syngenetic pollution treatment, high-quality development, and green total factor productivity (Too many to mention). In fact, the author did not contribute to the innovation of indicator measurement. Therefore, if the authors want to highlight the innovation of this study and compare it with similar studies, it will help make this study more readable.

The following references support my review expressed in my comments

①https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143175

②https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117755

③https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2397

Rural development and digital economy using QCA/FsQCA:

①https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241299899

②https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292241

③10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39511

④https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123625

3. Also, in the second part, the author only listed the following theories, but it seems to lack mathematical derivation, and I do not believe that the author used one or more of them like “perspectives of economic development support theory, endogenous economic growth theory, information transmission theory, and Marx's political philosophy”
4. What’s the actual meaning of the word “urban” in the paper? Does the countryside need to be urbanized? “Therefore, this study selects urban development data with an urbanization rate of less than 80% in China from 2018 to 2022 as case samples”
5. Is the reference “42” the only source for constructing the framework of rural revitalization? Statistical descriptions for the Result Variable or the Conditional Variables are missed.

Details:

6. Figures should be as clear as possible (no less than 330 dpi), and fonts need to be consistent with the article. Figure 1 and Figure 2

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language of this manuscript must be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

These comments are provided with the aim of enhancing the manuscript. From the format of the document, I recognize that a significant amount of revision and prior feedback has already been incorporated. However, the following points are recommended to further strengthen the work:

1. Include a sensitivity analysis to assess how variations in calibration thresholds and other key parameters in the QCA might affect the results.
2. Explicitly compare the results obtained via Panel-data QCA with those from other methodological approaches (e.g., regression analysis or configuration robustness checks) to validate the soundness of the conclusions.
3. Expand the discussion on the broader implications of identifying information infrastructure as the only necessary condition, clarifying why this factor emerges so consistently and how it influences policy or practice.
4. Provide a deeper interpretation of the distinctions between configurations leading to high versus non-high rural revitalization, particularly how they relate to contextual elements such as innovation capacity or economic foundations.
5. Offer possible reasons for the variability observed in the adjusted consistency distances (both between-group and within-group), highlighting their relevance to the robustness and reliability of the configurations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Due to potential conflicts of interest, publishers do not allow the recommendation of published papers. However, as an empirical paper, methodological discussions are also necessary. In addition, I suggest the author to split the second part into section 2 literature review and section 3 model construction/methodology to make it clearer. And it is recommended to use more subheadings in the literature review in the second part, so that your literature comparison and the summary of this study are clearer.

 

2. The author still believes that some theories are applied to explain rural revitalization and digital economic development, but if the author wants to use this part of the theory, there should be a theoretical explanation section specifically explaining the relationship between them, rather than simply listing them.

 

3. Why do authors sometimes use capitalized words for no reason? It's strange. Following the general writing rules, capitalized words are commonly used for sentences, personal names, academic proper nouns, etc. If the author wants to avoid the repeated use of a certain type of noun in the article, the capitalized first letter of the word can be used. Of course, the first appearance needs to be fully defined.

 

4. How can I access to the papers listed in the response letter 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, they seem to have been written in other languages.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract clearly presents the study's aims and findings but lacks clarity and specificity. Key terms like "data factorization" need definition, and recommendations should be more detailed. Adding context on rural revitalization's significance in China would strengthen the impact.

 

The introduction effectively sets the context for the study on digital economy-driven rural revitalization but has several gaps. It suffers from lengthy sentences that hinder readability and contains repetitive ideas, particularly regarding the challenges of sustaining attention on rural development. The introduction should be expanded in-depth to include recent relevant citations. Providing specific examples or case studies to illustrate key factors would enhance clarity. Additionally, while it mentions an integrated theoretical framework, it lacks a clear definition of this framework. The research gap could be articulated more explicitly, and there is a need to clarify the novelty of the study and its contributions. Finally, improving the flow and transitions between ideas would create a more coherent narrative.

 

The Literature Review should be updated to include more recent papers and include hypotheses. Additionally, the rationale for the study should be added.

 

Please include the equations for the methods used in this study.

 

“According to the World Bank’s 2024 data compilation, the urbanization rate in developed countries is generally above 80%. Based on this, our study selects the development data of cities in China with an urbanization rate below 80% from 2018 to 2022 as case samples.” Please cite the data sources.

 

Please modify Section 5 to be titled 'Further Analysis and Discussion' and revise Section 6 to be titled 'Conclusion.'

 

Section 5 requires a more in-depth discussion that connects with previous literature to support your findings, along with relevant citations. Additionally, please include pertinent policies for each finding to link them to the digital economy in rural revitalization.

 

For the robustness check, analyze the data using an alternative model to demonstrate the reliability of your main model's results.

 

Section 6, The conclusion requires more concrete policies and suggestions. Additionally, future research directions should be included. This will provide a clearer path for subsequent studies.

 

Please generate graphs based on your data or findings to enhance the presentation of the paper.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please ensure that standard language is used throughout the paper and conduct a thorough proofreading.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present study used QCA method to rural revitalization. While some contributions are acknowledged in this paper, there are many aspects that are not fully explained.

1. I read 2.2, but in the end I could not understand why the authors focused on the five elements in the left part of Figure 1.

2. Regarding Table 2, I did not understand what the numbers mean due to insufficient explanation. For example, if “Digital Industrialization” uses the data “specifically the number of digital enterprises entering the market in that prefecture- level city,” what does the number 31444.400 mean? Likewise, the authors should clearly explain what the numbers represent for the other variables presented.

3. The draft lacks a discussion of the study's limitations. In particular, the authors recommend government investment in digital infrastructure as a policy recommendation, but in many cases rural areas do not have the economic resources to invest. After all, the present study only analyzes impact within the five variables used in the analysis, making it impossible to include variables outside of the framework in the discussion. Therefore, in the discussion (6.1 and 6.2), the authors should confine their discussion to comparisons between the five variables.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Acceptable.