The Power of Big Data: The Impact of Urban Digital Transformation on Green Total Factor Productivity
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This is an excellent piece of writing. The format is simple to understand, the information supplied is brief, the data collection/methodologies/models are correct, and the findings are simple to evaluate and validate. It took a few tries for me to recognize the format the authors employed for the findings. Conclusions and recommendations are correct and consistent with the research questions.
However, I have the following tips for this paper that I hope will help make it even better.
1. Is it possible to include a literature study on the impact of big data on the environment in the 2.1 Literature study section?
2. More empirical studies might be included in section 4: for example, regression analyses employing data from a wider sample of cities, the inclusion of instrumental variables to address endogeneity, and so on.
3. In section 5.2, the authors group green patents; could you explain why you do so?
4. More granularity might be provided to section 7.2, i.e., policy advice on how to promote city digitization to increase GTFP.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article 'The Power of Big Data: Impact of Urban Digital Transformation on Green Total Factor Productivity' addresses a research topic that was oriented towards the problem of analysing the impact of big data on green total factor productivity (GTFP), through an orientation towards the construction of a National Big Data Comprehensive Pilot Zone (NBDCPZ). The authors also highlighted the research's mediating effects of industrial structure and green innovation, as well as the identification of the moderating effects of different types of environmental regulation on the relationship between digital urban transformation and GTFP.
The executive summary broadly delineates the focus of the research and outlines the findings. However, there is no articulation of the clear purpose of the paper and the research gap in response to which the research (outline) was developed, which would indicate the contribution of the paper that constitutes its novelty.
The introductory section presents the background to the research and justifies the need for it. It is worth completing a few sentences about the global needs and trends of activities in this field, especially considering the first sentence of the article (the whole world is at the threshold of a digital revolution...). In addition, the title of the article does not indicate that the exclusive area of reference of the research will be China, so I suggest to clarify this to limit to a few general sentences in the introduction. In the general approach, it is useful to move from the global experience to the experience of the country under study.
The introduction presents the steps of the research and its visual formula - layout.
The literature review is interesting but very limited in volume and problematic. I believe that an overview of global needs and trends of activities in this field should be captured also in the literature review (as a consequence of the content signalled in the introduction). It is worth strengthening the global literature and increasing the number of reference references.
I believe that the 'Literature Review and Research Hypothesis' section should be separated problematically. Separately the literature review (a more comprehensive, exhaustive section); separately the hypothesis layout. The layout of the hypotheses is worth combining with the research model and the adopted methodology in a single point in the structure of the article.
Under the figures and tables, the text should be completed (line 70, 160, 182, 224, 237, 252, and others).
The research part of the article looks good and in general I have no comments. Results presented clearly in a tabular layout, supported by a visual form.
What I feel is missing at the end of the paper is a discussion of the literature. I think the implication area should be strengthened. The summary should be directly related to the purpose of the paper as stated in the introductory section. The contribution of the paper to responding to the research gap should be more strongly emphasised to highlight its novelty. The research limitations have been identified.
This is an interesting and valuable article, but it needs refinement before publication.
In summary, refinement is needed:
- summary - clear aim and research gap,
- literature review expand on comments in review,
- strengthen implications - discussion section with literature,
- strengthen the summary according to comments in the review,
- rethink and refine the structure of the article according to comments in the review (separate the literature review, separate the section combining the hypothesis layout, research model, research methods).
- complete the text under the tables, figures.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The abstract presents an in-depth summary of the article's focus and findings. However, there are some areas where it can be improved. Firstly, while the abstract provides a good overview, some parts could be optimized for conciseness. In other words, contemplate about focusing on the key findings and their implications in a more concise manner.
Secondly, although the abstract mentions the mediating effects of industrial structure and green innovation, and the moderating effects of environmental regulations, a brief explanation of these mechanisms could enhance the reader's understanding at this early stage. Similarly, you could shortly touch upon the potential implications of the findings for policymakers, businesses, or researchers in the field of urban development and sustainability.
The introduction contextualizes the role of big data in China's digital transformation, citing specific examples of cities like Shanghai and Beijing. This helps readers understand the broader landscape in which the study is situated. Nevertheless, there are a number of areas that can be improved.
The introduction mentions that the research seeks to discern the environmental implications of big data utilization. It would be beneficial to elaborate on this aspect, specifying the types of environmental impacts that are of interest.
At the same time, the paragraph discussing the structure of the paper could be streamlined for improved readability. Consider breaking it into shorter sentences and ensuring that each sentence flows logically into the next. Equally important, while the roadmap is outlined, adding a sentence at the end of the introduction to explicitly state the research gaps or the unique contribution of the study would make the purpose even clearer.
The introduction introduces Section 7 as "Conclusions, policy recommendations, and limitations" but mentions it twice. This may be a minor clarification point regarding the structure – lines 57 & 58.
Overall, the introduction provides a solid foundation for the research, and the suggested improvements aim to enhance clarity and reader engagement.
The literature review starts with a clear introduction to the concepts of the digital revolution and big data, providing a foundational understanding for readers. To further improve this section, you might consider integrating the cited studies more seamlessly within the text in order to improve the flow. For instance, when discussing the impact of big data on GTFP, referencing specific studies that support these statements would add depth.
In addition, the hypothesis section introduces the idea of moderating variables (environmental regulation), but it could benefit from a brief explanation of why these variables were chosen. Providing a rationale would enhance the understanding of readers.
For the most part, the literature review is well-structured and informative. Addressing the mentioned areas for improvement can enhance its quality.
Next, in terms of the Modeling and Variable Selection chapter you could consider providing a brief explanation of why the construction of the NBDCPZ is treated as a quasi-natural experiment. This can help readers understand the justification for this approach. As a matter of fact, you could explicitly state the potential impact of the selected variables on the model. For instance, why is each control variable chosen, and what economic theories or empirical evidence support their inclusion?
Correspondingly, it might be useful to include a short discussion on the potential limitations or challenges associated with using linear interpolation for filling data gaps. This can provide transparency about the data handling process.
Lastly, contemplate about including a brief summary or transition statement at the end of the chapter that previews what will be covered in the next section. This can help readers anticipate the flow of the research.
Results and Analysis chapter seems comprehensive and informative, but it can benefit from a few improvements to make it more reader-friendly and engaging. Here are some suggestions:
· In certain parts, a bit more detail or explanation could enhance understanding. For example, when discussing the results of the baseline regression, consider providing a brief interpretation of the coefficients and their implications.
· While the chapter is generally well-written, think about providing concise definitions or explanations for variables like GTFP, DID, and others. This can be particularly helpful for readers who may not be familiar with the specific terminology.
· After presenting the results of robustness tests, consider presenting a interpretation or discussion of what these tests imply for the reliability and validity of the findings.
· In the discussion of results, explicitly link the findings back to the hypotheses that were proposed earlier.
The concluding chapter is well-presented and organized. With this in mind, you could consider explicitly linking each conclusion back to the specific research questions or hypotheses. This helps in reinforcing the connection between what was explored and what was discovered.
Secondly, when discussing the conclusions, consider emphasizing not only the statistical significance but also the practical significance of the findings. How do these findings contribute to real-world scenarios and policy decisions?
The limitations are mentioned but could be expanded further. For instance, discussing potential sources of bias or addressing any data limitations in more detail could enhance the transparency of the study.
Remember, these are suggestions, and you can choose to incorporate them based on the specific requirements and style of your research paper. Overall, the conclusions are well-structured, and the policy recommendations provide a valuable contribution to the practical implications of the study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have improved the article.
