Is the Rural Population Caught in the Whirlwind of the Digital Divide?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

thank you for writing an interesting paper about digital skills in rural areas. In the attached file you can find some revisions to be made, in order for the paper to be more sound and scientific. Especially, the main concern is about subjectivity when you write. Be more objective and include relevant references.

Best regards!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Please find attached the answers to your comments. Thank you verry much for helping us to improve the manuscript. 

Best regards, 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper evaluates the differences in terms of access and use of technology in rural areas using a survey carried out in Span. The paper is well structured and the analysis is clear. However, I have some suggestions for the authors to consider.

First, the first three paragraphs of the introduction section are all about technological innovations in agricultural sector, which can be shortened. Additionally, the research gap of this study should be clearly clarified in the introduction part (probably after the discussion of Digital Divide).

Second, when talking about hypothesis, we normally mean a provisional theory set forth to explain some kind of phenomena. However, the hypotheses proposed in this paper are all research questions instead of the statement of some causal relationship. I suggest the authors either reformulate them or change them into research questions.

Third, the limitations of the survey should be discussed. While the authors claim that the responses were randomly selected, it is not clear how this is done. It should be noted that random sampling has very strict procedures and requirements. It seems the sampling method used by the authors (e.g., email survey, social network approach) is more like convenience sampling than random sampling.

Finally, there are some typos (e.g., Line 92, 217, 259, 513), which need further proofread.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your suggestions. Please find attached our answer. 

Best regards, 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx