Can Digital–Real Economy Integration Enhance Urban Green Innovation Efficiency? Evidence from Environmental and Intellectual Property Regulation Perspectives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title

The topic needs to be reworked especially the second aspect of the topic (from the perspective of…). Please rework it (Can Digital–Real Integration Quality enhance the Efficiency of Urban Green Innovation? Evidence from Environmental and Intellectual Property Regulation Perspectives).

In-text referencing

The in-text referencing needs serious attention. It is wrong.

Introduction and literature review

This section must be renamed and revamped. The section must focus on introducing the main variables (introduction) and also provide background on the context and area under investigation. In this case, the introduction must show what digital–real integration quality and urban green innovation are. Furthermore, a clear explanation of the purported relationship between these two variables must be provided. This will help the reader understand why the study was conducted. In addition, the problem that drove the study should be briefly discussed. The literature review must have its own section where both the theoretical and empirical aspects of the literature are surveyed. In the introduction section, a brief and condensed literature analysis must be presented to justify the study. This must not be more than a paragraph.

Policy background

Provide a detailed discussion of the policy phases. Do not just mention the phases in passing. Make sure the discussion is connected to the two main variables; otherwise, the purpose of this section would be non-existent. It would simply be a section that seeks to increase the number of pages.

Remove the theoretical analysis from the title of Section 2.

Literature review

Add a literature review section where thae theoretical analysis and empirical analysis are presented. Where is Figure 1 coming from? Where was it extracted from? Why was it not discussed anywhere in the respective section?

Main variables and description

How was the model constructed? From whom was it adopted? The specification of the model must also be shown.

What purpose does Figure 2 serve?

On what basis were the instrumental variables selected? A justification must be provided.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

 

We sincerely thank the editors and reviewers for their valuable comments on our paper, "Can Digital-Reality Integration Enhance the Efficiency of Urban Green Innovation? Evidence from Environmental and Intellectual Property Regulation Perspectives" (sustainability-3860931). These comments and suggestions were crucial in improving the quality of the paper and deepening our academic thinking. We carefully reviewed these comments and made every effort to revise the manuscript accordingly. Detailed responses are itemized in the "Response to the Review Report" section below. Additionally, changes and additions in the revised manuscript are highlighted in red.

 

Sincerely,

Feng Yongqing

Email: yongqing0906@outlook.com

 

Response to the Review Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1、Title

The topic needs to be reworked especially the second aspect of the topic (from the perspective of…). Please rework it (Can Digital–Real Integration Quality enhance the Efficiency of Urban Green Innovation? Evidence from Environmental and Intellectual Property Regulation Perspectives).

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestions. The title has been changed as requested to "Can digital-real economy integration enhance Urban Green Innovation Efficiency? Evidence from Environmental and Intellectual Property Regulation Perspectives".

 

2、In-text referencing

The in-text referencing needs serious attention. It is wrong.

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestion. We have revised the citation format in the text to "[number]" format.

 

3、Introduction and literature review

This section must be renamed and revamped. The section must focus on introducing the main variables (introduction) and also provide background on the context and area under investigation. In this case, the introduction must show what digital–real integration quality and urban green innovation are. Furthermore, a clear explanation of the purported relationship between these two variables must be provided. This will help the reader understand why the study was conducted. In addition, the problem that drove the study should be briefly discussed. The literature review must have its own section where both the theoretical and empirical aspects of the literature are surveyed. In the introduction section, a brief and condensed literature analysis must be presented to justify the study. This must not be more than a paragraph.

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestions.

(1) Introduction

We have added an overview of the research background and field, clarified the connotation of digital-physical integration and urban green innovation, clearly explained the connection between digital-physical integration and green innovation efficiency, and demonstrated the research value through a refined literature analysis. The revised introduction is available on pages 1-2, lines 33-72 of the revised manuscript.

 

(2) Literature Review

We have separated the literature review into a separate chapter, elaborating on it from both theoretical and empirical perspectives. This chapter focuses on the connotation and measurement methods of digital-physical integration, the connotation, measurement methods, and influencing factors of green innovation efficiency, and the impact of the digital economy on urban green innovation efficiency. The revised literature review is available on pages 2-5, lines 73-184 of the revised draft.

 

 

4、Policy background

(1) Provide a detailed discussion of the policy phases. Do not just mention the phases in passing. Make sure the discussion is connected to the two main variables; otherwise, the purpose of this section would be non-existent. It would simply be a section that seeks to increase the number of pages.

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestions. The article has organized the development of digital-physical integration into four stages and discussed the interactive relationship between digital-physical integration and urban green innovation. The revised policy background can be found on pages 5-7, lines 186-218 of the revised manuscript.

 

(2) Remove the theoretical analysis from the title of Section 2.

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestion. We have deleted "Theoretical Analysis" from the title of Section 2 in the original paper.

 

5、Literature review

Add a literature review section where the theoretical analysis and empirical analysis are presented. Where is Figure 1 coming from? Where was it extracted from? Why was it not discussed anywhere in the respective section?

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestions.

(1) Following the reviewer's suggestions, we have added a literature review section and overhauled the content.

(2) Figure 1 in the original manuscript was a theoretical framework diagram. Could the reviewer be referring to Figure 2, which is a diagram of the level of digital-realistic integration? In order to better reflect the core and theme of this study, Figure 2 has been deleted. Thank you for the reviewer's careful review.

 

6、Main variables and description

(1) How was the model constructed? From whom was it adopted? The specification of the model must also be shown.

 

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestions.

(1) We have added a formula for calculating green innovation efficiency to better illustrate the calculation process. The added formula for green innovation efficiency is on page 10, lines 340-354 of the revised manuscript.

(2) We have supplemented the ideas for constructing the digital-physical integration evaluation index system. The revised digital-physical integration measurement can be found on page 11, lines 377-389 of the revised manuscript.

 

(2) What purpose does Figure 2 serve?

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestion. Figure 2 originally showed the level of deep fusion of digital and real data. Considering that it has little relevance to other content, we have deleted Figure 2.

 

(3) On what basis were the instrumental variables selected? A justification must be provided.

R: We are very grateful for the reviewer's suggestions.

(1) We have selected one-period lagged explanatory variables as instrumental variables, and have now cited the references. The revised endogeneity test can be found on pages 18-19 of the revised manuscript, and the reference for the one-period lagged model can be found on page 19, line 562.

(2) In addition, to further test whether the model is endogenous, we have added propensity score matching as a test of endogeneity. The results of propensity score matching are consistent with those of the baseline regression. The added propensity score matching is found on pages 18-19, lines 539-561 of the revised manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a rigorous and timely study that makes a significant contribution to the literature on the digital economy, institutional environments, and green innovation. The research is well-motivated, the theoretical framework is sophisticated, the methodology is generally sound, and the policy implications are relevant. The paper is of high quality and nearing publication readiness. However, several specific points require clarification, correction, or strengthening to enhance its clarity, rigor, and impact.

Specific Points for Review:

1. Lines 1-4: The title is accurate but lengthy. The keyword "digital-real integration" could be phrased more conventionally as "digital-real economy integration." A more concise title should be considered.
2. Lines 20-23: The abstract states a single threshold value of 0.9657, but the conclusion (Section 5.1) and policy recommendations (Section 5.2) mention a different value of 0.4977 (lines 566-571). This critical discrepancy must be resolved.
3. Verify all instances of the threshold value throughout the manuscript (Abstract, Table 7, Section 4.2.2, Section 5.1, Section 5.2) to ensure consistency. The value in Table 7 (0.9657) is likely correct, as it is supported by empirical results.
4. The literature review is comprehensive but could be more critically synthesized. It effectively lists studies and their findings but should more explicitly contrast them to build a compelling narrative for the necessity of this specific study. Furthermore, the introduction and literature review should be separated into two distinct sections.
5. Lines 95-102: Add a short paragraph at the end of the literature review to forcefully summarize the identified gaps (e.g., "While studies A and B have shown X and Y, they have predominantly focused on single mechanisms. Furthermore, the assumption of a linear relationship has been challenged by C, but the precise threshold value and the role of institutions at that threshold remain unexplored. Therefore, this study aims to...").
6. Theoretical framework and hypotheses (Section 2, lines 120-151): The theory primarily draws from microeconomic and management perspectives (e.g., the Porter hypothesis). Briefly mentioning a macro-institutional theory (e.g., Institutional Theory) could strengthen the foundation for analyzing how formal institutions like environmental regulation (ER) and intellectual property protection (IPP) mediate the relationship. Consider adding a sentence in Sections 2.2.2 or 2.2.3 framing the study through the lens of Institutional Theory, which examines how regulatory structures influence organizational behavior such as innovation.
7. The use of the Super-SBM model is appropriate. However, the description of the input/output indicators is slightly confusing. While it correctly states that undesirable outputs are included, the sentence on lines 290-293—"industrial sulfur dioxide emissions... are selected as output components"—should explicitly label these as "undesirable outputs" to avoid ambiguity.
8. Lines 353-361: The section title "3.1.4 Instrumental Variables" is a significant misnomer. The variables described (ER and IPP) are mediating variables, not instrumental variables (IVs). IVs are used to address endogeneity in the main explanatory variable (DRIQ), which is dealt with later using lagged variables. This section should be renamed "Mediating Variables" and the text adjusted accordingly. This is a crucial terminological correction.
9. Lines 407-419, Table 4 - Benchmark Regression: The negative signs for GDP and FIN are interesting but lack immediate explanation. The authors should offer a brief speculative explanation in the text for why higher per capita GDP and financial development might suppress green innovation efficiency (e.g., a potential resource curse effect, or an initial stage of development where growth remains resource-intensive).
10. Lines 430-436, Table 5 - Mediation Results: The coefficient for DRIQ on IPP is only significant at the 10% level (p<0.1), which is weaker than the strong significance for ER. This should be acknowledged in the discussion, as it suggests the mediation path through IPP, while statistically present, may be less robust than the path through ER.
11. Lines 455-467, Table 7 - Threshold Effect: As noted above, the threshold value here is 0.9657. This must be consistent throughout the paper.
12. Lines 471-479, Endogeneity Test (Table 8): Using a lagged variable is a common method, though it is not the strongest IV approach. The fact that the results hold is good, but this methodological choice could be noted as a limitation in the discussion (which the authors do in Section 5.3).
13. Lines 593-597: The policy recommendations are well-structured but should be more tightly linked to the specific findings. For example, Recommendation 3 discusses the threshold effect but uses the incorrect value (0.4977). The authors must ensure all policy recommendations directly reference the correct empirical results.

Formatting and Minor Errors:

1. Some in-text references are incomplete (e.g., "Chen et al.;" on page 3, line 113 lacks a publication year).
2. There are minor typographical errors, such as "numerical-real integration" instead of "digital-real integration" on line 442.

General Revisions:

The authors should format the manuscript according to the target journal's template for spacing, tables, and figures.

The figures should be redrawn professionally for clarity and visual consistency.

The page number format should be revised for consistency with the journal's style guide.

 

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

 

We sincerely thank the editors and reviewers for their valuable comments on our paper, "Can Digital-Reality Integration Enhance the Efficiency of Urban Green Innovation? Evidence from Environmental and Intellectual Property Regulation Perspectives" (sustainability-3860931). These comments and suggestions were crucial in improving the quality of the paper and deepening our academic thinking. We carefully reviewed these comments and made every effort to revise the manuscript accordingly. Detailed responses are itemized in the "Response to the Review Report" section below. Additionally, changes and additions in the revised manuscript are highlighted in red.

 

Sincerely,

Feng Yongqing

Email: yongqing0906@outlook.com

 

Response to the Review Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a rigorous and timely study that makes a significant contribution to the literature on the digital economy, institutional environments, and green innovation. The research is well-motivated, the theoretical framework is sophisticated, the methodology is generally sound, and the policy implications are relevant. The paper is of high quality and nearing publication readiness. However, several specific points require clarification, correction, or strengthening to enhance its clarity, rigor, and impact.

 

Specific Points for Review:

• Lines 1-4: The title is accurate but lengthy. The keyword "digital-real integration" could be phrased more conventionally as "digital-real economy integration." A more concise title should be considered.

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestion. We have updated the title to "Can digital-real economy integration enhance Urban Green Innovation Efficiency? Evidence from Environmental and Intellectual Property Regulation Perspectives"

 

• Lines 20-23: The abstract states a single threshold value of 0.9657, but the conclusion (Section 5.1) and policy recommendations (Section 5.2) mention a different value of 0.4977 (lines 566-571). This critical discrepancy must be resolved.

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestion. We confirmed that the threshold is 0.9657 and have revised the threshold to 0.9657 in the conclusions and policy recommendations. Thank you for the reviewer's careful review.

 

• Verify all instances of the threshold value throughout the manuscript (Abstract, Table 7, Section 4.2.2, Section 5.1, Section 5.2) to ensure consistency. The value in Table 7 (0.9657) is likely correct, as it is supported by empirical results.

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestion. The threshold has been changed to 0.9657.

• The literature review is comprehensive but could be more critically synthesized. It effectively lists studies and their findings but should more explicitly contrast them to build a compelling narrative for the necessity of this specific study. Furthermore, the introduction and literature review should be separated into two distinct sections.

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestions. We have divided the introduction and literature review into two distinct sections with a clear comparison, and supplemented the rationale for this particular study. The revised literature review is available on pages 2–5, lines 73–184 of the revised manuscript.

 

• Lines 95-102: Add a short paragraph at the end of the literature review to forcefully summarize the identified gaps (e.g., "While studies A and B have shown X and Y, they have predominantly focused on single mechanisms. Furthermore, the assumption of a linear relationship has been challenged by C, but the precise threshold value and the role of institutions at that threshold remain unexplored. Therefore, this study aims to...").

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestions. The end of the literature review has been revised. The specific changes are shown on page 5, lines 169-176 of the revised manuscript.

 

• Theoretical framework and hypotheses (Section 2, lines 120-151): The theory primarily draws from microeconomic and management perspectives (e.g., the Porter hypothesis). Briefly mentioning a macro-institutional theory (e.g., Institutional Theory) could strengthen the foundation for analyzing how formal institutions like environmental regulation (ER) and intellectual property protection (IPP) mediate the relationship. Consider adding a sentence in Sections 2.2.2 or 2.2.3 framing the study through the lens of Institutional Theory, which examines how regulatory structures influence organizational behavior such as innovation.

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestions. We have revised the paper as requested, including the reference to institutional theory. The specific changes are shown in 3.2.2 of the revised manuscript, page 8, lines 252-255.

 

• The use of the Super-SBM model is appropriate. However, the description of the input/output indicators is slightly confusing. While it correctly states that undesirable outputs are included, the sentence on lines 290-293—"industrial sulfur dioxide emissions... are selected as output components"—should explicitly label these as "undesirable outputs" to avoid ambiguity.

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestions. The selection of green innovation efficiency indicators has been clarified, including inputs, expected outputs, and unexpected outputs. For specific revisions, see 4.1.1 of the revised manuscript, pages 10-11, lines 354-367.

 

• Lines 353-361: The section title "3.1.4 Instrumental Variables" is a significant misnomer. The variables described (ER and IPP) are mediating variables, not instrumental variables (IVs). IVs are used to address endogeneity in the main explanatory variable (DRIQ), which is dealt with later using lagged variables. This section should be renamed "Mediating Variables" and the text adjusted accordingly. This is a crucial terminological correction.

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestion. We have revised it to "mediating variable" as requested. For details, see revised manuscript 4.1.4, page 13, line 408.

 

• Lines 407-419, Table 4 - Benchmark Regression: The negative signs for GDP and FIN are interesting but lack immediate explanation. The authors should offer a brief speculative explanation in the text for why higher per capita GDP and financial development might suppress green innovation efficiency (e.g., a potential resource curse effect, or an initial stage of development where growth remains resource-intensive).

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestion. We have added relevant explanations and possible reasons, which are detailed in revised manuscript 5.1, page 15, lines 473-488.

 

• Lines 430-436, Table 5 - Mediation Results: The coefficient for DRIQ on IPP is only significant at the 10% level (p<0.1), which is weaker than the strong significance for ER. This should be acknowledged in the discussion, as it suggests the mediation path through IPP, while statistically present, may be less robust than the path through ER.

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestion. We accept the reviewer's suggestion and have added a discussion in the mediation mechanism test that the mediating path of IPP, while statistically present, may not be as robust as the path through ER. See the revised manuscript 5.2.1, page 16, lines 501-506 for details.

 

• Lines 455-467, Table 7 - Threshold Effect: As noted above, the threshold value here is 0.9657. This must be consistent throughout the paper.

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestion. We settled on a threshold of 0.9657 and will ensure this is consistent throughout the paper.

 

• Lines 471-479, Endogeneity Test (Table 8): Using a lagged variable is a common method, though it is not the strongest IV approach. The fact that the results hold is good, but this methodological choice could be noted as a limitation in the discussion (which the authors do in Section 5.3).

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestion. We have added propensity score matching to further test for endogeneity in the model. The results of propensity score matching are consistent with those of the baseline regression. The additional propensity score matching is shown on pages 18-19, lines 539-561 of the revised manuscript.

 

13、Lines 593-597: The policy recommendations are well-structured but should be more tightly linked to the specific findings. For example, Recommendation 3 discusses the threshold effect but uses the incorrect value (0.4977). The authors must ensure all policy recommendations directly reference the correct empirical results.

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestions. We have revised the policy recommendations to ensure that they incorporate the correct empirical evidence. The policy recommendations are now available on page 23 of the revised manuscript.

Formatting and Minor Errors:

• Some in-text references are incomplete (e.g., "Chen et al.;" on page 3, line 113 lacks a publication year).

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestions. We have thoroughly reviewed and checked the references and have added relevant references.

 

2、There are minor typographical errors, such as "numerical-real integration" instead of "digital-real integration" on line 442.

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestions and careful review. We have revised the paper to adopt digital-real integration.

 

General Revisions:

1、The authors should format the manuscript according to the target journal's template for spacing, tables, and figures.

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestions. We have adjusted the format of the manuscript according to the target journal's spacing, table and figure templates.

 

2、The figures should be redrawn professionally for clarity and visual consistency.

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestions. We have optimized the figures.

 

• The page number format should be revised for consistency with the journal's style guide.

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestion. We have revised the page numbering format.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Reference. Please capitalize first letter.
2. There is no 4.4.2 or 4.4.3 in Heterogeneity Test. And by the way, it should be analysis not test for heterogeneity.
3. What I mean in detail for point 2 is there should be more detail Heterogeneity Test in order to make conclusions and provide countermeasure according appropriate feature or characteristics of the sample which selected as the research fields and research intension.
4. Could the manuscript provide the appendix for the core variable that is DRIQ of the selected urban from 2013 to 2023?
5. And same to the dependent variable of UGIE, along with the input and output for UGIE and the appropriate method for calculating UGIE.
6. What I mean in detail for point 5 is there should detail presentation and discussion for the methodology and the selected indexes along with data to calculate and determine the very important dependent variable

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

 

We sincerely thank the editors and reviewers for their valuable comments on our paper, "Can Digital-Reality Integration Enhance the Efficiency of Urban Green Innovation? Evidence from Environmental and Intellectual Property Regulation Perspectives" (sustainability-3860931). These comments and suggestions were crucial in improving the quality of the paper and deepening our academic thinking. We carefully reviewed these comments and made every effort to revise the manuscript accordingly. Detailed responses are itemized in the "Response to the Review Report" section below. Additionally, changes and additions in the revised manuscript are highlighted in red.

 

Sincerely,

Feng Yongqing

Email: yongqing0906@outlook.com

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1、Reference. Please capitalize first letter.

R:Thanks very much for the reviewer's suggestions. We have made revisions to the references section.

 

2、There is no 4.4.2 or 4.4.3 in Heterogeneity Test. And by the way, it should be analysis not test for heterogeneity.

R:Thanks very much for the reviewer's suggestion. We have changed the term "heterogeneity test" to "heterogeneity analysis", with a subtitle added. Please see the "Heterogeneity Analysis" section of the revised manuscript for details, page 20, line 579.

 

3、What I mean in detail for point 2 is there should be more detail Heterogeneity Test in order to make conclusions and provide countermeasures according to the appropriate features or characteristics of the sample which was selected as the research fields and research intention.

R:Thanks very much for the reviewer's suggestion. We have conducted a more detailed heterogeneity analysis of cities by geographical location, specifically including southern and northern cities, as shown on page 22, lines 628-656 of the revised manuscript.

 

4、Could the manuscript provide the appendix for the core variable that is DRIQ of the selected urban from 2013 to 2023?

R:Thanks very much for the reviewer's suggestion. We have provided the core variable data appendix, which can be found in lines 391-394 of the revised manuscript.

 

5、And same to the dependent variable of UGIE, along with the input and output for UGIE and the appropriate method for calculating UGIE.

R:Thanks very much for the reviewer's suggestion. We have provided the dependent variable data in the appendix, see lines 335-336 of the revised manuscript.

 

6、What I mean in detail for point 5 is there should be a detail presentation and discussion of the methodology and the selected indexes along with data to calculate and determine the very important dependent variable
R:Thanks very much for the reviewer's suggestion. We have provided a detailed description of the calculation of the dependent variables.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a timely and relevant question about how the quality of digital-real integration influences the efficiency of urban green innovation, highlighting the mediating roles of environmental regulation and intellectual property protection. The dataset is comprehensive and the econometric approach (fixed effects, mediation, threshold analysis, heterogeneity) is rigorous and convincing.
However, the manuscript could be improved. 
1- Some sections (e.g., introduction and policy context) are overly descriptive and repetitive. Simplification would improve readability.
2- Although the institutional framework is well justified, the contribution in comparison with the international literature should be highlighted more explicitly.
3- The current discussion remains descriptive; it should critically compare the conclusions with previous studies, identifying where the results confirm, diverge from, or extend previous work.
4- Although addressed, they could be expanded beyond the Chinese context to demonstrate international relevance.
Overall, the article presents valuable empirical evidence and a solid methodological contribution, but requires improvements in presentation, writing, and critical discussion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript needs professional polishing in English to improve fluency and accuracy.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

 

We sincerely thank the editors and reviewers for their valuable comments on our paper, "Can Digital-Reality Integration Enhance the Efficiency of Urban Green Innovation? Evidence from Environmental and Intellectual Property Regulation Perspectives" (sustainability-3860931). These comments and suggestions were crucial in improving the quality of the paper and deepening our academic thinking. We carefully reviewed these comments and made every effort to revise the manuscript accordingly. Detailed responses are itemized in the "Response to the Review Report" section below. Additionally, changes and additions in the revised manuscript are highlighted in red.

 

Sincerely,

Feng Yongqing

Email: yongqing0906@outlook.com

 

Response to the Review Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The article addresses a timely and relevant question about how the quality of digital-real integration influences the efficiency of urban green innovation, highlighting the mediating roles of environmental regulation and intellectual property protection. The dataset is comprehensive and the econometric approach (fixed effects, mediation, threshold analysis, heterogeneity) is rigorous and convincing.

However, the manuscript could be improved.

1- Some sections (e.g., introduction and policy context) are overly descriptive and repetitive. Simplification would improve readability.

R:Thank you very much for the reviewers' suggestions. We have streamlined the Introduction and reorganized the policy context. The revised introduction is available on pages 1-2, lines 33-72 of the revised manuscript. The revised policy context can be found on pages 5-7, lines 186-218 of the revised manuscript.

 

2- Although the institutional framework is well justified, the contribution in comparison with the international literature should be highlighted more explicitly.

R:Thank you very much for the reviewers' suggestions. We have further highlighted the comparative contributions of this paper in relation to the international literature. The revised literature review is available on pages 2-5, lines 73-184 of the revised draft.

 

3- The current discussion remains descriptive; it should critically compare the conclusions with previous studies, identifying where the results confirm, diverge from, or extend previous work.

R:Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestions. We have compared the conclusions of this paper with previous studies. For details, please see the Conclusion section of the revised manuscript, page 23.

 

4- Although addressed, they could be expanded beyond the Chinese context to demonstrate international relevance.

R:Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestions. We have discussed international research in the literature review. Please see the literature review section of the revised manuscript for details.

 

Overall, the article presents valuable empirical evidence and a solid methodological contribution, but requires improvements in presentation, writing, and critical discussion.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript needs professional polishing in English to improve fluency and accuracy.

R: Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestions. We have performed professional polishing in English.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has a lot of improvement after first revisions. However, the manuscript requires some revisions before it can be considered for publication.

Journal Formatting and Template: Overall, the author should use the template provided by the journal. The current manuscript exhibits inconsistencies in spacing, font type, font size, title formatting, section headings, reference style, and other layout aspects. Please read and carefully adhere to the journal's core template to ensure a professional presentation.

Figure Quality (Line 338): The author should use a professional editor or software to improve the quality and clarity of Figure 2 (Likelihood Ratio Function Graph). The current resolution and professional appearance are insufficient for publication. This issue was noted in a previous round of review and remains unresolved.

Table Placement (Line 420): The author should adjust the layout to ensure Table 2 (Assessment Framework) is not cut across two pages. If the table is too long to fit on one page, it should be moved entirely to the next page. If modifying the table is difficult, a standard practice is to repeat the table header on the subsequent page for readability.

Threshold Model Specification (Line 400): The threshold model (Equation 5) appears to be incorrectly specified. The dependent variable is listed as Mi,t​ (the mediating variables), but the analysis in Section 4.2.2 clearly uses UGIE as the dependent variable. This is a critical error that affects the interpretation of the results.

Inconsistent Threshold Value (Table 7 / Conclusion): There is a critical inconsistency in the reported threshold value. Table 7 (Line 468) correctly states the threshold value as γ1 = 0.9657. However, the text in the conclusion (Lines 550-577) incorrectly states: "When the DRI coupling degree crosses the threshold value of 0.4977...". The value 0.4977 is not mentioned elsewhere and is incorrect. This major error must be corrected throughout the manuscript to maintain the integrity of the findings.

Mediation Analysis (Line 437, Table 5): The mediation analysis, as presented, is incomplete. Table 5 only shows the first stage of the causal chain (the effect of DRI on the mediators, ER and IPP). To robustly establish mediation, the authors must also show the effect of the mediators on UGIE while controlling for DRI. The authors should either:
a) Present the full three-step mediation model (DRI -> Mediator -> GIE) and perform a formal test (e.g., Sobel test or bootstrap confidence intervals), or b) Explicitly follow and report all steps of a established mediation procedure (e.g., Baron & Kenny, 1986) to demonstrate the indirect effect.

Clarity - Undefined Variables (Line 371, Table 3): The descriptive statistics table (Table 3) includes variables 'GTI' and 'IS' which are not defined in the main text or the variable definition sections (Sections 4.1.1 - 4.1.4). The authors must clearly define what these variables represent to ensure the reader can fully understand the dataset and analysis.

Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We sincerely thank the editors and reviewers for their valuable comments on our paper, "Can Digital-Reality Integration Enhance the Efficiency of Urban Green Innovation? Evidence from Environmental and Intellectual Property Regulation Perspectives" (sustainability-3860931). These comments and suggestions were crucial in improving the quality of the paper and deepening our academic thinking. We carefully reviewed these comments and made every effort to revise the manuscript accordingly. Detailed responses are itemized in the "Response to the Review Report" section below. Additionally, changes and additions in the revised manuscript are highlighted in red.

Sincerely,

Feng Yongqing

Response to the Review Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has a lot of improvement after first revisions. However, the manuscript requires some revisions before it can be considered for publication.

1、Journal Formatting and Template: Overall, the author should use the template provided by the journal. The current manuscript exhibits inconsistencies in spacing, font type, font size, title formatting, section headings, reference style, and other layout aspects. Please read and carefully adhere to the journal's core template to ensure a professional presentation.

R: Thank you for the reviewer's suggestions. We have read and carefully followed the journal's core template and revised the manuscript's format.

2、Figure Quality (Line 338): The author should use a professional editor or software to improve the quality and clarity of Figure 2 (Likelihood Ratio Function Graph). The current resolution and professional appearance are insufficient for publication. This issue was noted in a previous round of review and remains unresolved.

R: Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. We have used professional software to improve the quality and clarity of Figure 2 (likelihood ratio function graph). (Manuscript line 512)

3、Table Placement (Line 420): The author should adjust the layout to ensure Table 2 (Assessment Framework) is not cut across two pages. If the table is too long to fit on one page, it should be moved entirely to the next page. If modifying the table is difficult, a standard practice is to repeat the table header on the subsequent page for readability.

R: Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. We have adjusted the layout and repeated the table header on the next page of Table 2.  (Manuscript line 388)

4、Threshold Model Specification (Line 400): The threshold model (Equation 5) appears to be incorrectly specified. The dependent variable is listed as Mi,t​ (the mediating variables), but the analysis in Section 4.2.2 clearly uses UGIE as the dependent variable. This is a critical error that affects the interpretation of the results.

R: Thank you for the reviewer's suggestions. The threshold model formula has been modified and optimized.  (Manuscript line 448)

5、Inconsistent Threshold Value (Table 7 / Conclusion): There is a critical inconsistency in the reported threshold value. Table 7 (Line 468) correctly states the threshold value as γ1 = 0.9657. However, the text in the conclusion (Lines 550-577) incorrectly states: "When the DRI coupling degree crosses the threshold value of 0.4977...". The value 0.4977 is not mentioned elsewhere and is incorrect. This major error must be corrected throughout the manuscript to maintain the integrity of the findings.

R: Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. We have revised the check throughout the manuscript to ensure the consistency of the threshold γ1 = 0.9657. (Manuscript line 652)

6、Mediation Analysis (Line 437, Table 5): The mediation analysis, as presented, is incomplete. Table 5 only shows the first stage of the causal chain (the effect of DRI on the mediators, ER and IPP). To robustly establish mediation, the authors must also show the effect of the mediators on UGIE while controlling for DRI. The authors should either:
a) Present the full three-step mediation model (DRI -> Mediator -> GIE) and perform a formal test (e.g., Sobel test or bootstrap confidence intervals), or b) Explicitly follow and report all steps of an established mediation procedure (e.g., Baron & Kenny, 1986) to demonstrate the indirect effect.

R: Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. In the mediation model test, the three-step method and the two-step method are two commonly used methods. However, although the traditional "three-step method" (also known as the Baron & Kenny method) is widely used, it has been questioned by many scholars in recent years (Jiang Ting, 2022; Dell, 2010). The core reason why these scholars oppose the three-step method is that this method has problems such as weak statistical logic, poor causal identification ability, weak economic applicability, and ease of misleading researchers' understanding of the mechanism. Therefore, we adopted the two-step method for testing.

(1) Jiang Ting. Mediation effect and moderation effect in empirical research on causal inference [J]. China Industrial Economy, 2022, (05): 100-120. DOI: 10.19581/j.cnki.ciejournal.2022.05.005.

(2) Dell M. The persistent effects of Peru's mining mita[J]. Econometrica, 2010, 78(6): 1863-1903.

In addition, before constructing the empirical mediation model, we cited relevant references to demonstrate the impact of mediating variables (ER and IPP) on UIGE and explained the use of a two-step approach, as follows. (Manuscript line 440)

4.3.2. Mediating Effect Model

Given the inherent limitations of the traditional three-step approach for testing mediation effects, this paper refers to Dell (2010) [71] and adopts the two-step method. Based on existing literature that has verified the positive effect of ER and IPP on GIE [35][72], we directly examine the impact of DRI on both ER and IPP and construct a mediation model, as shown in formula (5): 

7、Clarity - Undefined Variables (Line 371, Table 3): The descriptive statistics table (Table 3) includes variables 'GTI' and 'IS' which are not defined in the main text or the variable definition sections (Sections 4.1.1 - 4.1.4). The authors must clearly define what these variables represent to ensure the reader can fully understand the dataset and analysis.

R: Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. Due to a writing error, the variables "GTI" and "IS" in the descriptive statistics table have been deleted. (Manuscript line 421)

Good luck!

Thank you, and best wishes to you!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx