PONE-D-23-22945Research on the generative logic and Configuration effects of the policy implementation environment in China's grass-roots digital construction: traceability based on grounded theory and validation of csQCA methodPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bangfan,

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 Mar 15 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,

Tinggui Chen

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. You indicated that ethical approval was not necessary for your study. We understand that the framework for ethical oversight requirements for studies of this type may differ depending on the setting and we would appreciate some further clarification regarding your research. Could you please provide further details on why your study is exempt from the need for approval and confirmation from your institutional review board or research ethics committee (e.g., in the form of a letter or email correspondence) that ethics review was not necessary for this study? Please include a copy of the correspondence as an ""Other"" file.

3. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

   " NO.The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. 

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOE ONE.

I have completed my evaluation of your manuscript. The reviewers recommend reconsideration of your manuscript following major revision. I invite you to resubmit your manuscript after addressing the comments below.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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 manuscript Using NVivo12plus software, this paper constructs a generation model of policy implementation environment in China's grass-roots digital construction by taking 37 Chinese grass-roots civil servants' interview texts as the research object. Combining the results of the analyses, the authors make recommendations that can facilitate the creation of an environment for policy implementation and policy impact of digital construction in China. Overall, an interesting paper is presented on an important topic area. The writing style is well structured and logical and the methodology clearly delineated. An interesting and enjoyable read that deserves to be published subject to amendments.

�The contributions and research questions are not mentioned clearly in the introduction section.

�In the introduction section, authors need to state why the focus of the study is China.

�Provide a reference for the claim stated in “...the policy implementation environment in grass-roots digitization construction involves many aspects such as organization, technology, system and mechanism, and is affected and restricted by compound causality, which is not suitable for linear causality explanation.”

�In China, the Big Data Authority (BDA) is a key government body coordinating the construction and management of government information network systems, government data centres, e-government infrastructure, and basic and public government informatisation projects. So, in my opinion, the authors should explain why the research interview group did not include anyone from the BDA.

�As the development of grass-roots digital government is highly correlated with local information infrastructure development and economic levels, variability is a factor that cannot be ignored. Is the research group covered by this manuscript representative as it focuses on a specific region (MPA students at University Yanshan)?

�How to link the results with the Chinese governance practice is important for discussions especially when it involves the international implications.

�The article has a lot of grammar mistakes, and the author should carefully check.

�Other references are incorrectly cited and should be checked by the authors. When published in Chinese databases, the literature should not be directly translated for citation.

Fu Liping, Chen Qin, Dong Yongqing, et al. How does technological governance affect township cadres' actions? -- Based on the analysis of the implementation process of the targeted poverty alleviation policy in X City. Review of Public Administration, 21,14(04):119-136

Jiang Bao, Cao Taixin, Kang Wei. A study on the Organizational Structure Reform of Grass-roots Government driven by Digital government -- based on the case of Nanhai District Government of Foshan City. Journal of Public Administration, 202,19(02):72-81.

�In order to facilitate the understanding and tracking of the papers by a global audience, authors should replace a large number of references from Chinese databases. The current way of citing references is fundamentally wrong.

Reviewer #2: 1. This is a good paper; however, it needs to be presented neatly in terms of formatting (spacing, line spacing). Tables must be justified.

2. The author needs to proofread this paper as the English is not good in terms of word choice and grammar. Example: Yuan Mingbao (2018) believes that digitalization and

textualization have brought about the lack of poverty governance. [1]Wang Yaling (2019) believes that the lack of public

participation leads to problems in smart city construction, such as focusing on technology over application, stereotyping,

insufficient public perception, and the digital divide between urban and rural areas. [2]Huang Jianwei et al. (2019) believe that

while it is important to solve the technical dilemma of grassroots digital governance, it is more important to pay attention to the

construction of ethics and ethics and promote the humanization of digital governance. Instead of using the word "believe," the author can opt for alternative terms to convey the same idea. For example: Yuan Mingbao (2018) argues that digitalization and textualization have resulted in the absence of effective poverty governance. [1] Wang Yaling (2019) asserts that the insufficient participation of the public leads to challenges in smart city construction, such as a disproportionate focus on technology over application, stereotyping, inadequate public perception, and a digital divide between urban and rural areas. [2] Huang Jianwei et al. (2019) posit that while addressing the technical challenges of grassroots digital governance is crucial, it is even more imperative to prioritize the construction of ethics and values, promoting the humanization of digital governance. Using terms like "argue," "assert," and "posit" adds a slightly more assertive tone to the statements while maintaining the author's attribution of perspectives to the respective researchers.

3. The author need to enhance the clarity and depth of the result and analysis: a) Define and Explain the Result Formula: Clearly define and explain the components of the result formula (CO * em * BE * ST). Provide a brief explanation of each variable to aid the reader's understanding. Example: Result Formula Explanation: The result formula, CO * em * BE * ST, represents the interaction of cognitive (CO), emotional (~ em), behavioral (BE), and normative (ST) dimensions. The "~" symbol denotes negation or the combination of lowercase letters. b) Connect Results to Overall Objective: Clearly articulate how Path 1 contributes to achieving the overall objective, emphasizing the positive environmental effects of policy execution in grassroots digital construction. Example: Path Contribution to Objective: Path 1 underscores the significance of generating cognitive, behavioral, and normative dimensions in policy execution within our country's grassroots digital construction. This path is crucial for realizing positive environmental effects stemming from effective policy implementation. c)Detailed Case Study Integration: Provide more detailed insights from the interview cases (NC, NX). Include direct quotes or specific examples to illustrate the perspectives of interviewees. Example: Interviewee Perspectives (Table 11): Table 11 outlines the main views of interviewees "03 Liu *" and "27 Zhang **." Their insights offer valuable nuances to the analysis, providing specific examples of challenges and opportunities within the identified path. d)Thorough Discussion of Obstacles: Elaborate on obstacles, such as leaders' digital cognition and quality. Discuss the practical implications and propose strategies for overcoming these obstacles. Example: Obstacle Analysis and Recommendations: The analysis reveals that leaders' digital cognition and quality present a substantial cognitive dimension obstacle. It is imperative to address the root cause— the relationship and transformation between digital and traditional organizational power. Future efforts should focus on straightening out this relationship to facilitate effective grassroots digital construction. e) Comparative Analysis Enhancement: Strengthen the comparative analysis between the digitization processes of the grassroots business side and the government side. Provide deeper insights into challenges and potential solutions. Example: Comparative Analysis of Digitization Processes: Despite considerable behavioral exploration by grassroots entities under state guidance, challenges persist. Notably, digital products lack grounding, digital fragmentation is prevalent, and organizational structures are not sufficiently flat. Moreover, a comparative analysis reveals that the digitization process on the grassroots business side outpaces that of the government side, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions. f) Future Recommendations: Offer specific recommendations for future actions, research, or policy changes based on the identified challenges and opportunities. Example: Future Recommendations: Based on the current analysis, future efforts should prioritize straightening out the relationship between digital and traditional organizational power. Additionally, a focused initiative to address challenges in digital product grounding, fragmentation, and organizational structure is warranted. Furthermore, creating a conducive emotional environment for grassroots digitalization should be a key consideration for policymakers and practitioners.

By incorporating these recommendations, the author can provide a more comprehensive and actionable analysis of the NVivo results.

4. In term of reference: a) Ensure consistency in how author names are presented. For instance, the first reference uses "Fang Fei, Zhang Enjian," while the fourth reference uses "Sun Zong-feng, Sun Yue." the author may consider standardizing the format. b)Ensure that the journal titles are accurate and consistently formatted. For instance, in the second reference, the journal title is "Leadership Science." Make sure this is the correct and complete title. c)Standardize the representation of page numbers. For instance, in the fourth reference, use "16-26" instead of "16(03):16-26" for clarity. d) If the publications have Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) or URLs, consider including them for additional accessibility and verification.

**********

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: Yes: Dr. Farah Adilla Ab Rahman

**********

[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.

Research on the generative logic and Configuration effects of the policy implementation environment in China's grass-roots digital construction: traceability based on grounded theory and validation of csQCA method

PONE-D-23-22945R1

Dear Dr. Bangfan,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Tinggui Chen

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

**********

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

**********

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: 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

**********

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: As a result of the author's revisions, I think the quality of this manuscript has been greatly improved and is ready to be published.

Reviewer #2: It's evident that you've put in considerable effort to address all the necessary corrections. Wishing you all the best in your future endeavors and looking forward to more of your articles

**********

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: Yes: Hongxin Ma

Reviewer #2: No

**********