Evaluating the Impact of Rural Construction Land Marketization on Rural Industrial Integration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study offers valuable insights into the role of COCLEM in promoting rural industrial integration. However, the paper can be strengthened by addressing the some issues, such as improving clarity in methodology, offering more detailed explanations of results, and ensuring a deeper connection between the findings and the policy recommendations. Additionally, expanding the literature review and providing more data details would make the research more robust and persuasive.

1. The literature review section should be expanded to include more references that compare the methods of SCM and DID in similar studies. This will help establish the gap in the existing literature and justify the approach taken by the study.
2. The literature review should include a comparison of how previous studies have tackled rural industrial integration (RII) and how COCLEM has been applied in similar contexts. Also, the literature review would benefit from the inclusion of a theoretical framework explaining the mechanisms by which COCLEM affects RII.
3. While the use of SCM and DID is mentioned, the section could benefit from more detailed information on how these methods were applied specifically to the dataset. A step-by-step approach would make it easier for readers to understand how the analysis was conducted.
4. The variables used in the study should be clearly defined. The authors should explain how they measured "RII" and other key factors and why these were chosen as indicators for the analysis.
5. The results section could be organized more clearly, with separate subsections for each method (DID and SCM) and a clearer comparison of their outcomes.
6. While the study presents significant findings, the implications of these results for policy-making could be explained in more depth. Specifically, how can COCLEM be optimized to achieve better results for RII? What specific recommendations arise from the analysis?
7. Although the authors mention the limitations of the study (e.g., the small number of experimental groups), they could elaborate on potential biases in the analysis and how these might affect the interpretation of the results.
8. While the policy recommendations are strong, they would benefit from a deeper connection to the study’s findings. How do these policy implications directly follow from the results? For instance, how do the findings support the claim that local governments should invest more in infrastructure or agricultural technology?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

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

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study utilizes panel data from 86 counties in Hunan Province(2011–2022) and employs the synthetic control method(SCM) along with a mediation effect model to evaluate the impact of the rural collective operating construction land  entering the market(COCLEM) on rural industrial integration(RII) and its underlying mechanisms. The study provides new empirical methods and theoretical insights for detailed research on the development of RII. It is recommended that the paper be accepted for publication after major revisions and improvements; however, the author should address and clarify the following issues.

1. Note that the title of the article should be in uniform capitalization.
2. Lines 227 to 236 and 251 to 258 are written in a confusing format.
3. Subheadings are also not uniformly written, with some uppercase and some lowercase.
4. For the Abbreviations section (Lines 606 to 614), it is recommended that the first word "the" should be removed from the full name of each abbreviation.
5. All the figures are not clear enough to read, it is recommended to modify them to meet the corresponding resolution as required by the journal.
6. There are no legends in Figures 6, 7 and 11.
7. The reference with serial number 4 is missing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language is acceptable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an important study with strong potential for publication. To enhance its clarity, rigor, and interpretability, I recommend the following revisions:

1. Please provide a more detailed justification for the selection of indicators presented in Table 1, particularly for rural infrastructure. The use of fixed-line telephone users may no longer accurately reflect infrastructure development in the current context. Consider revising this proxy or acknowledge its limitations.
2. The conclusion that COCLEM has no significant impact on rural infrastructure should be presented with more caution. Discuss whether this null effect may be due to data limitation or the use of inadequate indicator.
3. While several findings are statistically significant (e.g., a 13.9% increase in RII), their practical or policy relevance is not fully discussed. Please clarify whether these changes represent substantive improvements in rural industrial integration beyond statistical significance.
4. The SCM results indicate a widening gap in RII after 2020. Consider whether external factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic or concurrent regional policies may have influenced these results and briefly address their potential impact.
5. Please clarify whether multicollinearity was addressed in the mediation models. Also consider discussing the potential for spillover effects between Liuyang and neighboring counties, which could affect the reliability of the control group in your analysis.
6. Correct the following in figures and tables:
• Improve the clarity and labeling of Figures 12 and 13 by including legend and enhancing visual quality (resolution).
• Remove the duplicated Table 2.
• Ensure all tables and figures are clearly referenced in the text (e.g., missing in-text reference to a table in line 266).
7. Lastly, the manuscript would benefit from professional language editing. In particular, please address:
• Minor typos (e.g., lines 184–185)
• Inconsistent formatting of equations (e.g., lines 188–193)
• Inconsistent spacing and typography (e.g., lines 199, 201, 203; 204–206)
• Formatting of chapter titles (e.g., line 271)
• Missing or incorrect references (e.g., line 320)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality should be improved with proofreading.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic has certain practical significance, but there are serious defects in research design, data quality, methodological application and result interpretation, and the overall research value is relatively limited.

 

1. The abstract does not clearly articulate the substantive innovation of this study compared to existing literature, limiting its originality.
2. The theoretical basis and practical necessity of the research question in the introduction are inadequately elaborated and lack depth.
3. Insufficient justification for choosing SCM and DID methods, failing to clearly illustrate why this combination is superior to other methodologies.
4. The robustness tests are overly simplistic and lack thorough sensitivity analysis, resulting in insufficient robustness of the conclusions.
5. The economic interpretation of research findings is extremely limited, failing to adequately discuss the practical economic impact of policy implementation.
6. general and unspecific.
7. The conclusions are overly broad and fail to accurately reflect the research content and findings.
8. Methodological innovation is insufficient; the application of existing methods remains superficial.
9. The potential endogeneity between variables is inadequately considered, possibly causing biased model results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposed evaluation on the impact of rural construction land marketization on rural industrial integration. I think this paper can be accepted after revision.

1. Have you done any data pre-processing / augmentation?
2. The reproducibility statement such as publicly accessible data and code link is missing. Currently, most solid papers provide data and code links.
3. Your work used SCM modeling. There is a similar modeling work, https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2024.3384333, which also introduces a later temporal attention for modeling. How can later temporal attention help improve your future work? Discuss this work, and discuss your future work based on ANN with later temporal attention in the Discussion Section.
4. Your work used SCM for modeling. There is a similar work, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-84695-4, which used a k-means clustering based ANN for modeling. How can this work inspire your future work? Discuss this work, and discuss your future work based on k-means clustering based ANN in the Discussion Section.
5. Provide the details on hyperparameters of methods in the results section.
6. What is your motivation?
7. The figures are too blurry.
8. What scientific problem did your paper propose and solve? Please elaborate on the scientific problem you are solving. Our journal wants to publish one scientific report rather than one experimental report.
9. The contributions should by listed by items in the introduction section.
10. The structure of the paper should be described in the introduction section.

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 your thoughtful and thorough response to my comments. It is evident that you have carefully considered each point raised and made significant revisions to improve the manuscript. I appreciate your efforts in addressing the feedback and providing clear explanations for the changes made.

Regarding the conclusion, I suggest further enhancing it by incorporating clear, data-driven evidence that directly links the policy recommendations to measurable outcomes. This approach would make your recommendations more compelling and actionable for policymakers. Including statistics such as the impact of infrastructure investment on rural GDP growth, or the effectiveness of skill development in boosting employment rates, would provide tangible evidence of the benefits of implementing the COCLEM system. This would not only strengthen your argument for policy implementation but also provide concrete data that policymakers can use to justify and monitor progress over time.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

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

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The drawings in the manuscript are still crude.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my concerns, and this paper should be accepted. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf