Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 10, 2023
Decision Letter - Difang Huang, Editor

PONE-D-23-33108Spatiotemporal Pattern and Distribution Dynamic Evolution in County Agricultural Economy Resilience in ChinaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. YU,

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 Dec 02 2023 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,

Difang Huang, 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 suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following: 

● The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

● A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

● A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. We note that Figures 1, 2 and 4  in your submission contain map/satellite images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 2 and 4 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

1. Improving the literature review:

We recommend that you incorporate some relevant papers from the provided publication list into your literature review. These papers can help strengthen the context of your study and provide valuable insights into the factors affecting agricultural economic resilience. Specifically, we suggest the following papers:

- Bao, Z., & Huang, D. (2021). Shadow banking in a crisis: Evidence from FinTech during COVID-19. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 56(7), 2320–2355.

- Chen, M., Li, N., Zheng, L., Huang, D., & Wu, B. (2022). Dynamic correlation of market connectivity, risk spillover and abnormal volatility in stock price. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 587, 126506.

- Li, N., Chen, M., Gao, H., Huang, D., & Yang, X. (2023). Impact of lockdown and government subsidies on rural households at early COVID-19 pandemic in China. China Agricultural Economic Review, 15(1), 109–133.

Li, N., Chen, M., & Huang, D. (2022). How Do Logistics Disruptions Affect Rural Households? Evidence from COVID-19 in China. Sustainability, 15(1), 465.

Wu, B., Huang, D., & Chen, M. (2023). Estimating contagion mechanism in global equity market with time-zone effect. Financial Management, 52, 543–572.

Yu, D., & Huang, D. (2023a). Cross-sectional uncertainty and expected stock returns. Journal of Empirical Finance, 72, 321–340.

Yu, D., & Huang, D. (2023b). Option-Implied Idiosyncratic Skewness and Expected Returns: Mind the Long Run. Available at SSRN 4323748.

Yu, D., Huang, D., & Chen, L. (2023). Stock return predictability and cyclical movements in valuation ratios. Journal of Empirical Finance, 72, 36–53.

The paper by Bao and Huang (2021) investigates the role of shadow banking during the COVID-19 crisis, which can provide insights into the financial mechanisms that may affect agricultural economic resilience. Chen et al. (2022) explore the dynamic correlation of market connectivity, risk spillover, and abnormal volatility in stock prices, which can help understand the potential impact of market fluctuations on agricultural economic resilience. Li et al. (2023) examine the impact of lockdown and government subsidies on rural households during the early COVID-19 pandemic in China, which can offer valuable information on the effects of external shocks and policy interventions on agricultural economic resilience.

By incorporating these papers into your literature review, you can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors affecting agricultural economic resilience and better contextualize your study within the existing literature.

2. Detailed comments to improve the submission:

- Please provide a more detailed explanation of the methodology used to calculate the agricultural economic resilience index. This will help readers better understand the process and the rationale behind the chosen method.

- Consider discussing the potential limitations of your study, such as data availability, the representativeness of the sample, and the generalizability of the findings to other regions or countries.

- It would be helpful to include a discussion on the policy implications of your findings. For example, what specific policies or interventions can be implemented to improve agricultural economic resilience in the regions with lower resilience levels?

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

[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.

Revision 1

Dear Difang Huang Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Spatio-temporal Pattern and the evolution of the distributional dynamics of county-level agricultural economic resilience in China” (ID: PONE-D-23-33108). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Fuyou Guo, Editor

PONE-D-23-33108R1Spatio-temporal pattern and the evolution of the distributional dynamics of county-level agricultural economic resilience in ChinaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. YU,

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.

==============================

Reviewer 1 Comments:

At the current stage of China's high-quality economic development, the driving factors in the agricultural sector make a significant contribution. Using the entropy weight method based on data from 2000 to 2020, covering 2545 counties, this study calculated the economic elasticity of 180 indicators in agriculture. The research focused on the spatio-temporal patterns and evolutionary dynamics of China's county-level agricultural economic resilience. The findings hold crucial reference significance for agricultural development.

Revisions are as follows:

1. Please indicate the map review number for the Chinese map in the article, and ensure consistency in elements like the legend and compass orientation.

2. Tables should be formatted using the three-line table format.

3. For the discussion section, consider organizing paragraphs to present one point per paragraph for a more aesthetically pleasing layout.

4. While the introduction introduces the research background, there is limited mention of the summary and shortcomings of past research. Additionally, the innovative aspects and practical significance of this study are not clearly emphasized. It is recommended to supplement this information.

Reviewer 2 Comments:

1. The article should first write about the construction of the indicator system, and then write about the research methods

2. The research methods are all mature and there is no need to introduce them in such detail

3. There are certain problems with the indicator system, such as the lack of necessary connection between rural electricity consumption and innovation capacity

4. The sample range is said to be 31 provinces, but there are no 31 provinces in Table 2

5. The paper lacks innovation

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 10 2024 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,

Fuyou Guo, (Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Reviewer 1 Comments:

At the current stage of China's high-quality economic development, the driving factors in the agricultural sector make a significant contribution. Using the entropy weight method based on data from 2000 to 2020, covering 2545 counties, this study calculated the economic elasticity of 180 indicators in agriculture. The research focused on the spatio-temporal patterns and evolutionary dynamics of China's county-level agricultural economic resilience. The findings hold crucial reference significance for agricultural development.

Revisions are as follows:

1. Please indicate the map review number for the Chinese map in the article, and ensure consistency in elements like the legend and compass orientation.

2. Tables should be formatted using the three-line table format.

3. For the discussion section, consider organizing paragraphs to present one point per paragraph for a more aesthetically pleasing layout.

4. While the introduction introduces the research background, there is limited mention of the summary and shortcomings of past research. Additionally, the innovative aspects and practical significance of this study are not clearly emphasized. It is recommended to supplement this information.

Reviewer 2 Comments:

1. The article should first write about the construction of the indicator system, and then write about the research methods

2. The research methods are all mature and there is no need to introduce them in such detail

3. There are certain problems with the indicator system, such as the lack of necessary connection between rural electricity consumption and innovation capacity

4. The sample range is said to be 31 provinces, but there are no 31 provinces in Table 2

5. The paper lacks innovation

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

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: (No Response)

**********

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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: No

**********

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

**********

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: At the current stage of China's high-quality economic development, the driving factors in the agricultural sector make a significant contribution. Using the entropy weight method based on data from 2000 to 2020, covering 2545 counties, this study calculated the economic elasticity of 180 indicators in agriculture. The research focused on the spatio-temporal patterns and evolutionary dynamics of China's county-level agricultural economic resilience. The findings hold crucial reference significance for agricultural development.

Revisions are as follows:

1. Please indicate the map review number for the Chinese map in the article, and ensure consistency in elements like the legend and compass orientation.

2. Tables should be formatted using the three-line table format.

3. For the discussion section, consider organizing paragraphs to present one point per paragraph for a more aesthetically pleasing layout.

4. While the introduction introduces the research background, there is limited mention of the summary and shortcomings of past research. Additionally, the innovative aspects and practical significance of this study are not clearly emphasized. It is recommended to supplement this information.

Reviewer #2: 1. The article should first write about the construction of the indicator system, and then write about the research methods

2. The research methods are all mature and there is no need to introduce them in such detail

3. There are certain problems with the indicator system, such as the lack of necessary connection between rural electricity consumption and innovation capacity

4. The sample range is said to be 31 provinces, but there are no 31 provinces in Table 2

5. The paper lacks innovation

**********

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

**********

[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.

Revision 2

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Spatio-temporal pattern and the evolution of the distributional dynamics of county-level agricultural economic resilience in China” (ID: PONE-D-23-33108R1). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval, the detailed corrections are listed below:

1.SUGGESTIONS 1 FROM REVIEWER 1: Please indicate the map review number for the Chinese map in the article, and ensure consistency in elements like the legend and compass orientation.

We respond to the comments from the reviewer 1:Thank you very much for your suggestion. First of all, for the issue of review number, we have replaced "Review No." with "Map Review Number for the Chinese:" under Figs. 1, 2, 4, etc., in which GS (2022) 1873 is the map review number. Secondly, regarding the compasses and legends of Figs. 1 and 4, we have improved the compass of Fig. 2. Moreover, in our article, the legends of Figures 1 and 4 are consistent with the compass, whereas the legend of Figure 2 is somewhat different because of what it represents. Therefore, we changed the compass and did not modify the legend. Finally, if there are still problems with our charts, we will continue to improve them. Thank you for your valuable comments and we hope that our changes will satisfy you.

2.SUGGESTIONS 2 FROM REVIEWER 1: Tables should be formatted using the three-line table format.

We respond to the comments from the reviewer 1:We are very sorry that the formatting error led to such problems in our article. According to the reviewer's suggestion, we have revised Table 1 and 2 to three-line table format, and we are very grateful to the reviewer for his valuable comments, and we hope that our revisions will be satisfactory to you.

3.SUGGESTIONS 3 FROM REVIEWER 1: For the discussion section, consider organizing paragraphs to present one point per paragraph for a more aesthetically pleasing layout.

We respond to the comments from the reviewer 1:Thank you very much for your suggestions and giving us the opportunity to improve the article. We have added three sub-chapters to the “Discussions” section of the article: conclusions, policy recommendations, limitations and future recommendations. We hope that our revisions will satisfy you.

4.SUGGESTIONS 4 FROM REVIEWER 1: While the introduction introduces the research background, there is limited mention of the summary and shortcomings of past research. Additionally, the innovative aspects and practical significance of this study are not clearly emphasized. It is recommended to supplement this information.

We respond to the comments from the reviewer 1:The reviewer's suggestion was very relevant, pointing out that our article was missing a part of the content. We explained that we have included the summary of past studies and their shortcomings in the second part of the article (Literature Review). We also point out that most of the spatial mechanism studies in the literature are limited to regional "proximity" or "similarity", but lack the overall perspective of correlation, and are mostly based on "relationship" rather than "quantity". We have not yet considered the correlation from a holistic perspective, and we have mostly studied the spatial and temporal patterns of agricultural economic resilience from the perspective of "relationship" rather than "quantity". Meanwhile, in the last paragraph, we propose three possible contributions or innovations of this study. We hope that our explanations will satisfy the reviewers, and we thank them for their suggestions.

6.SUGGESTIONS 1 FROM REVIEWER 2: The article should first write about the construction of the indicator system, and then write about the research methods.

We respond to the comments from the reviewer 2:We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments, which helped us to improve our article. According to the reviewer's suggestion, we have moved "construction of the indicator system" to the front of "research methods". We hope that you will be satisfied with our revision.

7.SUGGESTIONS 2 FROM REVIEWER 2: The research methods are all mature and there is no need to introduce them in such detail.

We respond to the comments from the reviewer 2:The suggestions made by the reviewers were very reasonable. Since the reviewers suggested a detailed explanation of the methodology for measuring the economic resilience of agriculture during the first round of review, we have introduced the entropy right method extensively. Therefore, we are also very grateful for this valuable advice and have abridged the introduction of the entropy right method. As for the other research methods, we think there is no main content missing and a short introduction has been made, so no addition or deletion of content has been made, and we have only revised and improved the entropy right method. We thank the reviewers for their suggestions, and hope that our revision will satisfy you.

8.SUGGESTIONS 3 FROM REVIEWER 2: There are certain problems with the indicator system, such as the lack of necessary connection between rural electricity consumption and innovation capacity.

We respond to the comments from the reviewer 2:Many thanks to the reviewers for pointing out the problems with the indicators in our article, such as the lack of the necessary link between rural electricity consumption and innovation capacity. Here we make explanations:

1. electricity is an important driver of innovation: electricity is the basis of modern agriculture and scientific and technological development, and it provides the necessary energy for innovative activities. With a stable supply of electricity, all kinds of innovative activities in rural areas can be carried out smoothly, from the research and development of agricultural technology to the operation of rural enterprises, all of which need the support of electricity.

2. Rural electricity consumption reflects the level of economic development: Generally speaking, the electricity consumption of a region can be used as an important indicator to measure its level of economic development. Higher electricity consumption usually means that there is more business and industrial activity in the area, which provides the necessary economic base and market environment for innovation.

3. The relationship between electricity consumption and education, training and access to information, e.g.: in rural areas, an increase in the availability of electricity may also mean an increase in education and training opportunities. More electricity means more possibilities to use modern technological means (e.g. the Internet) to access knowledge and information, which is crucial for fostering a sense of creativity and enhancing innovation.

4. Electricity consumption has an important relationship with technology adoption and innovation: an increase in rural electricity consumption is likely to promote the adoption and diffusion of agricultural technologies, including more efficient irrigation systems, agricultural mechanization, etc. This not only directly enhances agricultural production, but also increases the availability of agricultural technologies. This not only directly improves the efficiency of agricultural production, but also provides the necessary material basis for agricultural innovation.

5. Rural electricity consumption is related to infrastructure development: Government investment in infrastructure in rural areas, including the construction of electricity networks, may directly contribute to rural economic development and innovative activities. For example, by providing electricity, the government may create a more innovation-friendly environment in rural areas.

In summary, rural electricity consumption not only directly reflects the level of economic development and commercial and industrial activity in the region, but also indirectly affects innovation capacity by influencing education and access to information, technology adoption, and the building of an innovative environment. Therefore, rural electricity consumption is an important reference point when assessing the indicator of reconfigured innovation capacity.

Finally, we would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments and hope that our explanations will satisfy you.

9.SUGGESTIONS 4 FROM REVIEWER 2: The sample range is said to be 31 provinces, but there are no 31 provinces in Table 2.

We respond to the comments from the reviewer 2:Many thanks to the reviewers for their suggestions, we rechecked the contents of Table 2 and determined that it was a range that included 31 provinces. It is possible that we did not have a three-line table, which caused the table to be unclear, so we have changed the form of the table to a three-line table. We hope that our explanation is satisfactory to you.

10.SUGGESTIONS 5 FROM REVIEWER 2: The paper lacks innovation.

We respond to the comments from the reviewer 2:Many thanks to the reviewers for pointing out the lack of innovation in our article. In this regard, we have done the following two aspects to improve the innovation: on the one hand, most scholars' research scale is only centered on provincial and prefecture-level city units [39-47], but our innovation in this study is to take 2,545 county units as the scope of the study, which improves the innovation of the study in terms of the research scale. On the other hand, we apply the methods of "three-stage nested Theil index" and "stochastic Kernel density estimation" to the spatial differences and dynamic distribution of agricultural economic resilience, which can serve as a reference for related studies. Moreover, these two methods have certain novelty in themselves. To sum up, although there are many existing studies on the toughness of agricultural economy, there is still a big difference with our study, and the purpose of this study is to analyze the shortcomings of China's agricultural economic development, in order to build a strong agricultural country, and to improve the toughness of agricultural economy in the lower counties, which will help to improve China's agricultural economy as a whole. Finally, we are very grateful to the reviewers for pointing out the problems, and we hope that our explanations will satisfy the reviewers. Meanwhile, we are already studying the mechanism of digital finance, production services, digital economy and other elements on the resilience of the agricultural economy, which is used to make up for the current shortcomings in front of us.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer.docx
Decision Letter - Fuyou Guo, Editor

Spatio-temporal pattern and the evolution of the distributional dynamics of county-level agricultural economic resilience in China

PONE-D-23-33108R2

Dear Dr. Yu,

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,

Fuyou Guo, (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

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: The relevant comments and opinions have been revised and improved, and the paper is accepted for publication.

**********

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

**********

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Fuyou Guo, Editor

PONE-D-23-33108R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yu,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Associate professor Fuyou Guo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .