Economic Growth in the Digital Era: Limits and Benefits of Globalization and Digital Transformation in KSA
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper attempts to clarify the links between globalization and digitization on one hand, and the GDP per capita on the other. The authors uncover a negative link between the degree of globalization measured by international indices and the GDP per capital dynamics.
While the topic undertaken by the authors is important, the paper has a number of methodological issues, which undermine the results:
1. Saudi Arabia is a state, whose financed are highly reliant on oil revenues (45% of GDP as indicated in the paper). Therefore, the dynamics of oil prices play a crucial role in intermediation or event independently shaping all the processes discussed in the paper. The GDP per capital is likely to be significantly correlated with the dynamics of oil revenues. I am surprised in this context that oil price and volume of trade are not controlled for as a possible factor shaping the investigated relationships.
2. The studied variables are likely to be highly correlated: higher GDP per capita is likely to result in better digitization and greater participation in globalization processes. The authors tried to eliminate the problem of endogeneity, but unfortunately this problem can not be eliminated within the current design of the study.
3. In order to study the causal links between digitization and economic growth, one would need to establish the transmission mechanisms driving the causal link. The authors should indicate, why they would expect digitization to have a positive link with growth.
4. The same applies to globalization. The authors conclude that there is a negative link between globalization and economic growth, but do not discuss, why this happens. Without the discussion of the driving forced behing the discovered relationships, it is impossible to formulate policy implications.
5. The section on policy implications is too short, needs to be much more expended in the context of discussion of the driving forces shaping the investigated relationships.
Author Response
I thank the reviewer for their helpful comments, which greatly improved my paper.
Below is a response to the comments:
Comment 1: Saudi Arabia is a state whose finances are highly reliant on oil revenues (45% of GDP as indicated in the paper). Therefore, the dynamics of oil prices play a crucial role in intermediation or even independently shaping all the processes discussed in the paper. The GDP per capita is likely to be significantly correlated with the dynamics of oil revenues. I find it surprising that the investigated relationships do not account for the influence of oil price and trade volume.
Replay: In the paper, I focused on the relationship between socioeconomic globalization and digitalization, and its effects on economic growth, particularly GDP per capita. I use a composite index, like the index of globalization and the composite index of digitalization, for this reason. I didn’t take the oil price in this study.
Comment 2: The studied variables are likely to be highly correlated: higher GDP per capita is likely to result in better digitization and greater participation in globalization processes. Despite their efforts, the authors were unable to eliminate the endogeneity problem within the current study design.
Replay: We cannot eliminate the problem of endogeneity, for this reason, I diversify the methods of estimation and implemented robustness tests to check performance and stability of the estimation.
Comment 3: In study the causal links between digitization and economic growth, one would need to establish the transmission mechanisms driving the causal link. The authors should explicitly state that they anticipate a positive correlation between digitization and growth.
Replay: The links between digitization and economic growth and its link haven largely discussed in the theoretical and empirical review analysis for this reason, I suppose; Hypothesis 2: Digitalization positively impacts economic growth in the Saudi Arabian economy.
Comment 4: The same applies to globalization. The authors conclude that there is a negative link between globalization and economic growth, but they do not discuss why this occurs. Without discussing the driving force behind discovered relationships, it is impossible to formulate policy implications.
Reply: I add a paragraph expressing the link between digitalization and globalization.
Comment 5: The section on policy implications is too brief and requires a more comprehensive discussion of the driving forces shaping the investigated relationships.
Replay: The results of this study give us an important research perspective, which is detailed in the conclusion. In light of this, the policy implications need more investigation.
I appreciate this second opportunity to improve my manuscript when I re-check all references.
I extend my gratitude and thanks to the assistant editor, Ms. Lorde Wu, for her valuable guidance and valuable feedback.
Best regards,
Dr. Neffati
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTheroetical contributions are missing. You should discuss how your paper contirbutes to prior works and cite them
Too many tables. Are all of them necessary?
When you talk about digital transformation a defintion is needed. You can look at the following articles: Dąbrowska, J., Almpanopoulou, A., Brem, A., Chesbrough, H., Cucino, V., Di Minin, A., ... & Ritala, P. (2022). Digital transformation, for better or worse: a critical multi‐level research agenda. R&D Management, 52(5), 930-954.
Ferrigno, G., Crupi, A., Di Minin, A., & Ritala, P. (2023). 50+ years of R&D Management: a retrospective synthesis and new research trajectories. R&D Management, 53(5), 900-926.
Hypotheses are missing. You should elaborate them before the methdology
Good luck
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1
Comment 1: Too many tables. Are all of them necessary?
Replay 1: All tables are necessary for this reason; I insert them in the text.
Comment 2: When you talk about digital transformation, a definition is needed. You can look at the following articles: Dąbrowska, J., Almpanopoulou, A., Brem, A., Chesbrough, H., Cucino, V., Di Minin, A., ... & Ritala, P. (2022). Digital transformation, for better or worse: a critical multi‐level research agenda. R&D Management, 52(5), 930-954.
Replay 2 I have added a definition of digital transformation based on the suggested reference.
Comment 3: Hypotheses are missing. You should elaborate them before the methodology.
Replay 3: Two hypotheses have been introduced, reflecting the core analysis and examined through econometric validation. The research design, key questions, hypotheses, and methodology have been clarified to ensure a more structured presentation.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the manuscript “Economic Growth in the Digital Era: Benefits of Globalization and Digital Transformation in KSA,” the author addressed empirical confirmation of GPD growth affected by globalization and digitalization. . The research methodology is described in details. Author used mathematical tools to prove statements of the manuscript.
However, some aspects can be improved:
- It is recommended to decode GDP, ARDL, OLS, FMOLS, DOLS, CCR abbreviations in the abstract.
- Line 17-18 Logically contradicts the manuscript title. Maybe “….Benefits and damage of Globalization and Digital Transformation in KSA” will by more relevant. Or something like that.
- Please specify in what units Y axe is presented at Figure 1. Right scale seems to be extra. If not, why? Adding on the right side scale in billions of dollars or euros will be good. Please add the value to the X-axe after 2015.
- Figure 2. It is recommended that the Y axe be presented in dollars or euros. This unit will be easier to interpret for a broader audience.
- Please avoid personal writing “we introduce,” “we investigate,” and so on. Probably, passive voice can be a better choice.
- Line 606. Please be more specific about what Kingdom you mean. Please use the full official state title or abbreviation.
- Please reconsider the style of the conclusions. Please, present conclusions as a list of numbered points emphasizing the main finding in a specific form. Please, do not continue the discussion in the conclusions chapter. Please avoid uncertain statements like “has tied…” (Line 650).
Author Response
Response to Reviewer
Comment 1: It is recommended to decode GDP, ARDL, OLS, FMOLS, DOLS, CCR abbreviations in the abstract.
Reply 1:The abbreviations GDP, ARDL, OLS, FMOLS, DOLS, and CCR have been defined in the abstract for clarity.
Comment 2: Line 17-18 logically contradicts the manuscript title. Maybe “….Benefits and damage of globalization and Digital transformation in KSA” will by more relevant. Or something like that.
Replay2: Regarding Lines 17–18, there is no contradiction with the manuscript title, as I have explained that globalization has a positive effect in the long run. However, I have modified the title to better align with the findings.
Comment 3: Please specify in what units Y axe is presented at Figure 1. Right scale seems to be extra. If not, why? Adding on the right side scale in billions of dollars or euros will be good. Please add the value to the X-axe after 2015.
Replay 3: In Figure 1:
The Y-axis represents the years from 1992 to 2022, as indicated in the figure title.
The right scale mirrors the left scale and is presented solely for clarity.
The X-axis uses a 9-year interval for representation.
Comment 4: Figure 2. It is recommended that the Y axe be presented in dollars or euros. This unit will be easier to interpret for a broader audience.
Replay 4: In Figure 2, the Y-axis represents values in real Saudi Arabian currency. Since the data is provided in national currency, it cannot be changed.
Comment 6: Line 606. Please be more specific about what Kingdom you mean. Please use the full official state title or abbreviation.
Replay 6: In Line 606, I have specified that "Kingdom" refers to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to eliminate ambiguity.
Comment 7: Please reconsider the style of the conclusions. Please, present conclusions as a list of numbered points emphasizing the main finding in a specific form. Please, do not continue the discussion in the conclusions chapter. Please avoid uncertain statements like “has tied…” (Line 650).
Replay 7: The conclusion section has been reorganized and refined for better readability and coherence.
Thank you once again for your time and consideration. I appreciate the opportunity to improve my manuscript based on your valuable feedback.
