Rural Industrial Revitalization and the Common Prosperity of Rural Inhabitants in China: Exploring Synergies Between Efficient Governance and Effective Markets

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a study on the impact of rural industry on the inhabitants’ prosperity. The authors formulated 5 research hypotheses. I suggest that the authors present them all in one place and not divide their presentation by the text. The method applied is the regression model. The study covered the data for the period 2012-2023.

The methods applied were chosen correctly. The study methods are clearly presented. The results are described in detail and the conclusions are based on findings but a more precise description of both would add to the study’s value.

I suggest replacing “inhabitant of village” with “rural inhabitants” – both in the title and the whole text.

1. 216: What does the phrase “development of regional inhabitant of village” mean?

Table 2: As the observed value is constant – 372 – you can delete this column and put information about the observation number in the title or source.

The paper seems to be scientifically correct but the English translation used makes it a bit vague and not fully comprehensible. I suggest a careful English proofreading to show the scientific soundness more visibly.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Proofreading is a must.

Author Response

Comments 1: The authors formulated 5 research hypotheses. I suggest that the authors present them all in one place and not divide their presentation by the text. The method applied is the regression model. The study covered the data for the period 2012-2023.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have gathered all 5 research hypotheses and presented them in one consolidated section. The relevant change can be found on Page 6 (where the hypotheses are now grouped together, numbered from 275 to 290).

 

Comments 2: The methods applied were chosen correctly. The study methods are clearly presented. The results are described in detail and the conclusions are based on findings but a more precise description of both would add to the study’s value.
Response 2: Thank you for this valuable comment. We wholeheartedly agree with your perspective. In response, we've significantly enhanced the conclusion section, adding substantial research contributions and optimizing policy recommendations on China's common prosperity vision. Our research, based on the “efficiency - impetus transformation” framework, offers new insights into rural industry's role in promoting farmers' prosperity. The relevant updates are on pages 23 and 25, from line 781 to line 862 of the revised manuscript. Thank you again for your guidance in improving our work.

Comments 3: I suggest replacing “inhabitant of village” with “rural inhabitants” – both in the title and the whole text.

Response 3: Thank you for this requirement. We have carefully and meticulously gone through the entire manuscript. All occurrences of “inhabitant of village” in the title and throughout the text have been replaced with “rural inhabitants” as suggested.

Comments 4: 216: What does the phrase “development of regional inhabitant of village” mean?
Response 4: Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity in the original expression. We agree that the original phrase was unclear. Accordingly, we have revised it to: H1: The revitalization of rural industry can significantly promote rural inhabitants' common prosperity. This change can be found on page 6, lines 277-278 of the revised manuscript.

Comments 5: Table 2: As the observed value is constant – 372 – you can delete this column and put information about the observation number in the title or source.
Response 5: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have followed your suggestion and deleted the relevant column. Additionally, we have added an explanation for Table 2 on lines 381-382 of page 9 of the article, which reads: "There are 372 observed values, and the descriptive statistics of each variable are shown in Table 2." The changes have been made accordingly in the revised manuscript.

Comments 6: The paper seems to be scientifically correct but the English translation used makes it a bit vague and not fully comprehensible. I suggest a careful English proofreading to show the scientific soundness more visibly.​

Response 6: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We fully agree that clear and precise English is essential for conveying our research effectively. To ensure the highest language quality, we have carefully revised and proofread the entire manuscript ourselves. This involved meticulous checks for grammar, spelling, and clarity, while also refining sentence structures to enhance readability and adherence to academic standards. We are confident that these improvements will better reflect the scientific rigor of our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigates the relationship between rural industry revitalization and village common prosperity in China.

1. The title of the paper mentions 'prosperity' twice, which may confuse the meaning; it is suggested to improve the title.
2. The citation format of references in the text is incorrect.
3. There are traces of machine translation in the paper, and it is suggested that the author should revise the entire text.
4. The discussion on the mechanism of role in the second part of the theoretical analysis should be more concise. Overly wordy expressions will reduce the clarity of the statements.
5. The symbols in equation (1) should be defined immediately instead of being placed in later paragraphs.
6. The mediation effect test modeling approach is verbose.
7. In section 3.1 Model Setting, the model should be described in relation to the hypotheses it is used to test.
8. The text of the legend in Figure 1 is ambiguous. Additionally, the text mentions 'kernel density estimation chart to reflect its dynamic evolution and development trend,' suggesting that the use of linear trend charts would better reflect the dynamic change of the variable.
9. The authors should add a table to show variable definitions and abbreviations. Table 1 is too large to be included in the appendix section.
10. The description of the results in the robustness section is confusing, and the motivation and implementation process should be presented for each of the five robustness testing methods in Table 4.
11. Section 4.4.2 should be reasonably divided into paragraphs.
12. The quality of the tables in the paper should be improved; for example, a value spanning two rows is inappropriate.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Comments 1: The title of the paper mentions 'prosperity' twice, which may confuse the meaning; it is suggested to improve the title.

Response 1: We're extremely grateful for your perceptive comment. The repetition of 'prosperity' did risk obscuring the title's clarity. After researching commonly used academic terms, we've changed the title to “The Revitalization of Rural Industries”. This new title not only removes ambiguity but also more precisely reflects our study's core. The updated title is on the title page of the revised manuscript. This change better captures our research's essence and aligns with current academic discourse in rural development research.

Comments 2: The citation format of references in the text is incorrect.

Response 2: We sincerely appreciate the editor's feedback. We fully acknowledge the issue with the reference citation format in the text. In response, we have carefully revised all in-text citations to strictly adhere to the citation style requirements of Sustainability. A thorough review was conducted throughout the manuscript to ensure full compliance with the journal's formatting guidelines, including proper author-year citations and reference list organization. The updated citations and corresponding references can be found on page 25-26 and in the revised reference section.

Comments 3: There are traces of machine translation in the paper, and it is suggested that the author should revise the entire text.

Response 3: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We fully agree that clear and precise English is essential for conveying our research effectively. To ensure the highest language quality, we have carefully revised and proofread the entire manuscript ourselves. This involved meticulous checks for grammar, spelling, and clarity, while also refining sentence structures to enhance readability and adherence to academic standards. We are confident that these improvements will better reflect the scientific rigor of our work.

Comments 4: The discussion on the mechanism of role in the second part of the theoretical analysis should be more concise. Overly wordy expressions will reduce the clarity of the statements.

Response 4: We sincerely appreciate the editor's feedback. In response, we have revised the theoretical analysis section (specifically pages 4-6) to streamline discussions. Highlighted sections now feature simplified explanations of the role mechanism, with redundant phrasing eliminated and language refined for clarity. The revised content maintains core concepts while improving readability, enhancing the section's overall quality and accessibility.

Comments 5: The symbols in equation (1) should be defined immediately instead of being placed in later paragraphs.​

Response 5: We sincerely appreciate the editor's valuable comment. We have addressed this issue by providing detailed definitions of each symbol directly beneath the relevant models. Specifically, in the revised manuscript, the definitions of all symbols are clearly stated in the text immediately following each model on page 10, lines 389-393, 400, 408-409, and 417-418. This adjustment ensures that readers can easily understand the meaning of the symbols as they encounter the equations, improving the readability and clarity of the paper.

Comments 6: The mediation effect test modeling approach is verbose.
Response 6:  We truly appreciate the editor's comment. Regarding the mediation effect test modeling approach, we have carefully reviewed the content and streamlined the description to enhance conciseness. Specifically, the revised version on page 10, lines 394-404, presents a more succinct explanation while retaining all critical details. Redundant phrasing has been removed, and sentence structures optimized to ensure clarity without compromising academic rigor. These adjustments aim to improve readability while maintaining the methodological integrity of the analysis.

Comments 7: In section 3.1 Model Setting, the model should be described in relation to the hypotheses it is used to test.

Response 7: We sincerely thank the editor for this valuable comment. In response, we have revised Model Setting (specifically on page 10) to explicitly link each model to the corresponding hypothesis or theoretical framework it addresses. Each model is now preceded by a brief explanation of the hypothesis it tests, ensuring alignment between methodology and research objectives. This adjustment enhances the logical flow of the section and clarifies the purpose of each modeling approach. The revised content can be found on page 10 of the manuscript.

Comment 8: The text of the legend in Figure 1 is ambiguous. Additionally, the text mentions 'kernel density estimation chart to reflect its dynamic evolution and development trend,' suggesting that the use of linear trend charts would better reflect the dynamic change of the variable.

Response 8: We sincerely appreciate the editor's meticulous review and this valuable comment. We acknowledge the need to improve Figure 1, specifically addressing the ambiguous legend text and chart type selection. In the revised manuscript, the legend has been clarified to align with the linear trend chart now used to visualize dynamic changes. Additionally, redundant textual explanations have been removed to enhance readability. The updated figure and revised legend can be found on page 7, lines 299-303 of Figure 1. This adjustment ensures clearer representation of variable trends while maintaining methodological rigor and improving overall text efficiency.

Comment 9: The authors should add a table to show variable definitions and abbreviations. Table 1 is too large to be included in the appendix section.​

Response 9: We sincerely appreciate the editor's comment and have revised Table 1 by retaining only the Criterion layer, Primary index, and Secondary index columns while moving detailed variable definitions and abbreviations to a supplementary table placed in the revised Appendix at the end of the manuscript (page 27). This adjustment maintains the core structure of the indicator system in the main text while providing comprehensive supplementary information in the Appendix, ensuring both conciseness and data integrity. All tables adhere to journal formatting guidelines, and supplementary materials are included as required.

Comment 10: The description of the results in the robustness section is confusing, and the motivation and implementation process should be presented for each of the five robustness testing methods in Table 4.​

Response 10: We sincerely appreciate the editor's insightful comment. After careful review, we recognized that combining the motivation and implementation processes of the last three robustness tests in a single paragraph may have caused confusion. To address this, we have restructured the robustness section (4.2. Robustness Test) to present each of the five methods in dedicated subsections. Specifically, the revised content detailing the rationale and execution of each test can be found on page 12, lines 454-477. This adjustment enhances the logical flow by clearly distinguishing each testing approach while maintaining alignment with the corresponding results in Table 4. We believe this revision significantly improves the transparency and comprehensibility of our robustness analysis.

Comment 11: Section 4.4.2 should be reasonably divided into paragraphs.​

Response 11: We are thankful to the editor for this valuable comment. In the original version of Section 4.4.2, we had a rather long single - paragraph structure which, as the editor pointed out, might lead to redundancy. In response, we have carefully reviewed this section and divided it into four paragraphs according to the logical flow of the language. By doing so, we believe the content will be more organized and easier to read, enhancing the overall readability of this part of the paper.

Comment 12: The quality of the tables in the paper should be improved; for example, a value spanning two rows is inappropriate.​

Response 12: We sincerely appreciate the editor's comment regarding the quality of the tables in our paper. To address this, we have rectified instances of values spanning multiple rows and implemented Word's "Repeat Header Rows" feature to ensure table headers remain visible across pages for multi-page tables. Additionally, we conducted a comprehensive review of language, structure, and formatting throughout the manuscript to maintain consistency and clarity. These revisions enhance table readability while preserving data integrity, with the header repetition function specifically improving accessibility for complex tables.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses a timely and important topic, focusing on rural prosperity in China and the balance between government and market forces. It introduces a theoretical model that integrates the concept of a productive government and an efficient market. However, the manuscript would benefit from some improvements:

1. The title could be clearer and more concise.
2. The literature review should be better structured, for example, by dividing it into well-defined subsections.
3. The definitions and measurement methods of key variables, such as "efficient market" and "productive government," should be clearly stated at the beginning of the model section.
4. Many arguments are repeated across different sections; synthesizing key points would improve readability and make the text more fluid.
5. The discussion should further explore how the results can be applied to guide public policies and rural development programs.
6. A thorough language revision by a native English speaker is recommended to correct errors and enhance the overall clarity and fluency of the writing.

With these refinements, the study could significantly strengthen its impact and clarity, making it more suitable for publication

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. A thorough language revision by a native English speaker is recommended to correct errors and enhance the overall clarity and fluency of the writing.

Author Response

Comment 1: The title could be clearer and more concise.​

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate the editor's valuable comment. The original title of our paper was "Rural Industry Prosperity and the Common Prosperity of Inhabitant of village in China. Discussing the Efficient Government and the Effective Market". We acknowledge that this title had issues of ambiguity and verbosity. To clarify the main theme of the article and improve its conciseness, we have revised the title to "Rural Industrial Revitalization and the Common Prosperity of Rural Inhabitants in China: Exploring Synergies Between Efficient Governance and Effective Markets ". This revision reduces unnecessary prepositions without compromising the core message of the paper.​

Comment 2: The literature review should be better structured, for example, by dividing it into well-defined subsections.

Response 2:  We sincerely appreciate the editor's valuable comment. In response, we have inserted detailed subsections in the initial part of the article to streamline the literature review. Specifically, we have added "1.2. The Mechanism Linking Rural Industry Revitalization and Rural Residents' Common Prosperity" and "1.3. The Correlation and Drivers of Rural Industry Revitalization and Common Prosperity". These subsections can be found on pages 2 - 3 of the revised manuscript. They will enable readers to more easily follow the logical development of prior research in this area. They facilitate a more in - depth examination of the relationships and driving forces associated with rural industry revitalization and rural residents' common prosperity, thereby improving the comprehensiveness and clarity of our literature review.

Comment 3: The definitions and measurement methods of key variables, such as "efficient market" and "productive government," should be clearly stated at the beginning of the model section.​

Response 3: We sincerely appreciate the editor's comment. In line with the editor's instruction, we've made adjustments to the paper's structure. In the revised manuscript, we've reordered the sections in the model part, placing "3.2. Variable Selection and Data Explanation" and "3.3. Data Sources and Descriptive Statistics" before "3.1. Model Setting". Now, at the start of the model section, in "3.2. Variable Selection and Data Explanation", we systematically elaborate on the definitions, measurement methods, and theoretical basis of core variables such as "efficient market" and "productive government". Detailed results can be found on pages 7-10 of the revised manuscript. This rearrangement helps readers grasp fundamental concepts and measurement approaches faster, which in turn makes it easier for them to follow the subsequent analysis and discussions, enhancing the readability of this part of the paper.

Comment 4: Many arguments are repeated across different sections; synthesizing key points would improve readability and make the text more fluid.​

Response 4: We sincerely appreciate the editor's perceptive comment. To address this issue, we have adopted a professional approach. We meticulously combed through the entire paper, identifying and eliminating redundant arguments that appeared across different sections. Instead, we synthesized key points and presented them in a more concise and integrated manner. This not only improves the readability of the paper but also ensures a more fluid flow of the text.

Comment 5:The discussion should further explore how the results can be applied to guide public policies and rural development programs.

Response 5: Thank you for this valuable comment. We wholeheartedly agree with your perspective. In response, we've significantly enhanced the conclusion section, adding substantial research contributions and optimizing policy recommendations on China's common prosperity vision. Our research, based on the “efficiency - impetus transformation” framework, offers new insights into rural industry's role in promoting farmers' prosperity. The relevant updates are on pages 23 and 25, from line 781 to line 862 of the revised manuscript. Thank you again for your guidance in improving our work.

Comment 6: A thorough language revision by a native English speaker is recommended to correct errors and enhance the overall clarity and fluency of the writing.​

Response 6: We sincerely appreciate the editor's constructive comment. Recognizing the importance of language precision in academic writing, we have conducted a comprehensive proofreading of the entire manuscript. This involved meticulous revision of grammar, syntax, and terminology to ensure clarity and consistency. Additionally, we have aligned the text with academic writing standards by refining sentence structures and enhancing logical flow. These efforts were guided by professional editing tools and adherence to rigorous language protocols, resulting in a more polished and professional presentation of our research.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been revised.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I would like to congratulate you on the work you have done in revising the manuscript. After a detailed reading of the new version, I can see that all the suggestions made by the reviewers have been carefully considered and implemented with quality.