Digital Economy Development and Urban–Rural Integration in Northeast China: An Empirical Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the Authors:

Thank you for your efforts in this study. This study constructs an evaluation index system to assess the degree of urban-rural integration and examines the development of the digital economy in Northeast China from 2010 to 2020. It also studies the impact of the digital economy industry on urban-rural integration. I have reviewed the paper with great interest and would like to suggest several revisions to improve its quality.

1. Authors should emphasize the research implications at the end of the abstract.
2. Adding some data on the digital economy development in the introduction would help readers to understand the importance of the digital economy.
3. The innovations of this paper should be more clearly highlighted by comparing it with existing research, specifying unresolved issues, and explaining the groundbreaking contributions. Additionally, Lines 40-89 would benefit from further literature review.
4. The authors need to further explain the reasons for choosing northeastern China as the study area.
5. The selection of indicators for urban-rural integration needs to be more fully justified.
6. Although the entropy weighting method is widely used, it is advisable to briefly mention the advantages or applicability of the entropy weighting method. In addition, it is advisable to present the entropy weighting results of the indicators in Table 1.
7. The selection of control variables also needs to be more fully justified.
8. Updating the research data will improve the reliability of the results and support more realistic policy recommendations.
9. Many scholars have already studied the impact of China's digital economy on urban-rural Integration. The authors should further emphasize the new contributions of their own research.
10. Some sentences are quite similar in wording and structure. To improve readability, consider rephrasing them to add variety.
11. The paper cites some non-SCI/SSCI literature. As a study for possible publication in international journals, it is better to add more international literature.
12. Check the references. For example, References [7] contains one Chinese character.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The literature review is dominated by Chinese studies. The article could be beneficiated from discussing studies applied in other areas or the World, studies on digital economies, rural-urban environments and rural integration. Please also add more information regarding different approaches to conceptualize urban-rural integration.
2. Authors need to add more information regarding the criteria and justification for choosing the indicators.
3. Could you perform a sensitivity test or a robustness test for the calculated index?
4. Add details about the construction of the spatial weights’ matrix.
5. I suggest not applying bivariate spatial autocorrelation but univariate spatial autocorrelations for two variables separately.
6. Could nonlinearities exist in the threshold model?
7. Please expand your Discussion comparing your results with results of investigations developed in other areas of the World beyond China.
8. The limitations section omits important methodological issues (e.g. potential measurement error, spatial spillovers beyond the study region, lack of sensitivity test, etc.). You should also discuss the limitation of your study in the sense of external validity for other parts of China or the Global South.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Many arguments in the manuscript lack sufficient literature support (e.g., Lines 47-107, Lines 195-226).
2. The selection of indicators should also be well-supported by literature rather than based on self-inference.
3. The authors used outdated data. Therefore, they need to explain the applicability of their policy recommendations to the present (2025 and beyond) in the manuscript.
4. The paper cites some non-SCI/SSCI literature. The authors should expand their reading of international literature and replace these references.

Author Response

请参阅附件

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have addressed all my comments

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx