PONE-D-22-19357Digital Economy, Scientific and Technological Innovation, and High-Quality Economic Development: A Mediating Effect Model Based on the Spatial PerspectivePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 01 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Atif Jahanger, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 7200041940) and the 16th Student Research Project of Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics (Grant No. 20210917194037967)"

  

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study explores the impact of digital economy on the high-quality economic development from the mediating of scientific and technological innovation using the Spatial econometrics method. I think this paper is interesting and organized. But before accepted, some modifications should be conducted as follows:

1. The abstract section is not well written. Authors should simply give the purpose of this paper, and mainly focus on the main findings of this paper. You can refer the following papers: doi: 10.1007/s40821-020-00178-2.

2. The introduction section does not clearly give the main contributions of this paper, and the differences with the other literature.

3. Why does this paper use the SDM method, not the SEM or SLM etc?

4. Authors construct the index for digital economy, STI and the high-quality economic. But there some same variables among them. I suggest authors use different proxy for digital economy or STI for robustness testx.

5. The Table 5 states that the min and max values of de, inn, hd are 0.0094 and 0.8741, why you conduct log in the empirical analyses?

6. In this paper, authors have cited a large number of papers from Chinese journals, I suggest authors should cite more English journals, such as SSCI or SCI journals. Besides, authors should summary literature and find out the knowledge gaps, instead of listing literature. You can refer to: doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120286

7. In empirical application section, authors should give some discussion and analysis, rather than a brief report of the results.

8. Authors needs to check the full text.

Reviewer #2: The authors proposed an interesting study “The impact of transport energy consumption and foreign direct investment on CO2 emissions in ASEAN countries”. The paper is well-structured and conveys a deal of information. I want to suggest a few suggestions to improve the manuscript quality and better readability.

1. The English language needs more work. The paper needs to be edited by a native English speaker.

2. The introductory line of the Abstract is not convincing. The authors should start with the purpose of this study.

3. There are only two acronyms in the abstract. It is better to write full abbreviations in the Abstract section accordingly.

4. In the first paragraph of the introduction section, the authors report the 21st century. The term st should be in superscript.

5. The major defect of this study is the debate or argument is not clearly stated in the introduction session. Hence, the contribution is weak in this manuscript. I would suggest the author enhance your theoretical discussion and arrives at your theoretical argument.

6. The introduction part of the study needs improvement and story flow and the authors need to give proper contributions to their study.

7. The indicators of influencing factors are not introduced specifically.

8. It is suggested to present the structure of the article at the end of the introduction section accordingly.

9. There is a need to do a more rigorous and systematic literature review. The authors should clearly mention the literature gap.

10. A flowchart should be added to the article to show the research methodology.

11. The authors should report the data sources in proper reference shape with website links.

12. All acronyms should be in capital letters.

13. Much more explanations and interpretations must be added for the results, which are not enough.

14. Also, I’m so disappointed regarding the policy formulation. It’s very common and presented in many previous studies. I suggest to the authors that they should suggest some new practical and managerial implications for a sustainable environment.

15. What are the future research directions of this study?

Reviewer #3: Dear Editor,

The authors proposed an interesting study “Digital Economy, Scientific and Technological Innovation, and High-Quality Economic Development: A Mediating Effect Model Based on the Spatial Perspective”. The paper is well-structured and conveys a deal of information. I want to suggest a few suggestions to improve the manuscript quality and better readability.

1.I suggest the authors revise the introduction of the study per the comments raised. Authors can also use the following points below as a guideline to help them come out with an interesting introduction that is more scientific.

• Background & Significance: (What general background does the reader need in order to understand the manuscript and how important is it in the context of scientific research).

• Problem definition: (What are the research questions to fill in the gaps of the existing knowledge body or methodology).

• Motivations & Objectives: (Why are you conducting the study and what are goals to achieve?)

2.Concerning the theoretical underpinning of the study, the reason for variable selection is not clear. Therefore, I will suggest that authors systematically give the theoretical rationale or reasons for selecting variables.

3.Conclusions of the study should be improved, where it is necessary to suggest the real policy recommendations and constructive solutions for the possible problems which were found.

4.Kindly follow the right style of citation (references) throughout the manuscript by checking the guidelines of (Plos one) journal or any previously published paper in the journal.

5.Overall, the quality of English used in this study requires significant improvement.

Reviewer #4: The author has attempted to test the nexus between digital economy, scientific and technological innovation, and high-quality economic development taking into account the panel data from 31 provinces of China. And in doing so, the author has explored the double-fixed effect spatial Durbin model (SDM). The overall work is good. However, the article is suffering from some loopholes and therefore a thorough revision is required before it can be published. For my suggestions please refer to the enclosed file for details.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Yang Yu

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: plos one review sheet.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Plos one review.pdf

Digital economy, scientific and technological innovation, and high-quality economic development: A mediating effect model based on the spatial perspective

PONE-D-22-19357R1

Dear Dr. Zhu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Atif Jahanger, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors have revised all the concerns of all the reviewers. I am very satisfied with the author's revision, and think it can be accepted for publication.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Paper Title: Digital Economy, Scientific and Technological Innovation, and High-Quality Economic Development: A Mediating Effect Model Based on the Spatial Perspective

The authors have improved the paper according to the suggestions. Well done. I am happy about the progress so far. Just fix the following issue:

Key words: Dear authors, I mentioned that ONLY the first alphabet of the first key word should be in Capital letter. Not all of the keywords. Please fix this issue.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes: Mohammad Razib Hossain

**********