PONE-D-24-19514Assess the efficacy of China’s Inter-provincial Government Services Policy: A Quantitative Evaluation Based on PMC-Index ModelPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wu,

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 Jul 26 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,

Pengpeng Ye

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. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: 

"This work was supported by National Social Science Foundation of China (No. 23CSH057)，Hebei Natural Science Foundation (No. G2023203015).The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. 

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #3: 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: ABSTRACT

The abstract effectively introduces a study evaluating China's Inter-provincial Government Services Policy using a quantitative approach based on the PMC model. It succinctly presents the findings regarding policy design, consistency, and identified weaknesses, along with proposed optimization recommendations. However, it could benefit from clearer language and organization to enhance readability and impact.For instance, the author could consider restructuring the abstract to begin with a concise statement of the research aim or problem addressed by the Inter-provincial Government Services Policy. Then, provide a brief overview of the methodology employed, followed by a clear presentation of the key findings and their implications. Additionally, using simpler language and avoiding jargon can improve accessibility for readers unfamiliar with the PMC model or policy evaluation terminology.

INTRODUCTION

The introduction could benefit from clearer organization and language to improve readability. For instance, dividing the introduction into subsections such as Background, Significance of the Policy, Research Objective, and Highlights of the Paper would provide clearer structure. Using more concise language to convey key points would enhance readability and make the introduction more engaging.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review provides a comprehensive overview of existing research on the Inter-provincial Government Services Policy and policy evaluation methods. To enhance clarity and readability, consider implementing the following suggestions:

a) The author can introduce clear subheadings for each subsection of the literature review to help readers navigate through different topics more easily. For example, the author could use subheadings like "Perspectives on Inter-provincial Government Services Policy" and "Methods of Policy Evaluation."

Recommendation:

Perspectives on Inter-provincial Government Services Policy

Collaborative Governance

Digital Transformation

Holistic Theoretical Approaches

b) The author needs to ensure that the language used is clear and accessible to readers from diverse backgrounds. Avoid overly technical terms or jargon unless it necessary.Recommendation:

Instead of: "The endogenous endowment of 'public-technical governance-overlapping action' of cross-domain governance of government services is refined by some scholars, who put forward three practice modes of cross-domain governance of government services: vertically embedded, internally originated hair style, and governance of government and society (enterprise), and constructed the development path of cross-domain governance of government services in the four dimensions of strategy, supply and demand, technology, and ecology development path."

Use: "Scholars refine the concept of 'public-technical governance-overlapping action' and propose three practice modes for cross-domain governance of government services: vertically embedded, internally originated, and governance of government and society."

RESEARCH DESIGN

a)The section lacks clear subheadings to delineate different aspects of the research design. Adding subsection headings such as "Research Sample and Methodology," "Policy Feature Recognition," "Construction of PMC Index Model," and "PMC Surface Drawing" would enhance readability and organization. Recommendation:

Before: "3.1 Research Sample and Methodology"

After: "3.1 Research Sample and Methodology: Selection Criteria and Data Collection"

b) The text contains lengthy explanations and repetitive phrases, which could be streamlined for brevity. For instance, instead of repeating phrases like "the high frequency of terms such as," the author could use more concise language to convey the same meaning.Recommendation:

Before: "From the perspective of policy guarantee mechanism, terms such as 'integration, management, acceptance, lead, docking coordination, support, guidance, coordination, supervision, and reliance' appear more frequently, indicating that accelerating the construction of Inter-provincial Government Services requires a variety of ways of coordination..."

After: "Policy guarantee mechanisms, including integration, management, acceptance, and coordination, are crucial for accelerating the construction of Inter-provincial Government Services."

c) The author needs to ensure smooth transition sentences between paragraphs can improve the flow of ideas. Connecting sentences that link each step of the research design process would provide readers with a clearer understanding of the methodology's progression. Recommendation:

Before: "3.2 Policy Feature Recognition. On the basis of obtaining the policy text..."

After: "3.2 Policy Feature Recognition: Following the acquisition of policy texts, the next step involves..."

d)Some sentences may be difficult for readers to comprehend. Simplifying complex phrases and using straightforward language would enhance clarity. Recommendation:

Before: "The visualization results show that keywords 'government', 'services', 'departments', 'sharing' and 'platforms' have a high centrality."

After: "The visualization results indicate that certain keywords, such as 'government' and 'services', hold significant centrality within the semantic network."

e) While the text references tables and figures, it would be beneficial to integrate them more seamlessly into the narrative. Directly referring to specific figures in the text and explaining their relevance to the discussion would enhance understanding.Recommendation:

Before: "The PMC surface figure is a symmetric surface based on the values of nine first-level indexes, which can show the pros and disadvantages of various policies, so as to better evaluate Inter-provincial Government Services policies formulated by the Chinese government."

After: "The PMC surface figure (Figure 1) displays a symmetric surface representing the values of nine first-level indexes, providing insights into the strengths and weaknesses of Inter-provincial Government Services policies."

RESULT AND COMPARATION ANALYSIS

a)The section title "Results and Comparative Analysis" could be clearer if it explicitly mentions what is being analyzed. Also, consider breaking down the content into smaller subsections for easier navigation and comprehension. Recommendation:

Before: "4. Results and Comparation analysis"

After: "4. Evaluation and Comparative Analysis of Inter-provincial Government Services Policies"

b) Some sentences contain redundant phrases or repetitive information. Try to convey the same meaning with fewer words to improve readability and efficiency. Recommendation:

Before: "From the calculation results of the PMC index of the 28 policies (see Table 6), the PMC index scores range from [6.45 to 8.62], with a mean value of 7.71, and 15, 16, and 19 are acceptable levels, while the rest of the policies are excellent levels, and there are no bad and perfect policies. perfect level policies."

After: "The PMC index scores of the 28 policies ranged from 6.45 to 8.62, with a mean value of 7.71. Notably, policies 15, 16, and 19 attained acceptable levels, while the others achieved excellence."

c)The author need to introduce smoother transitions between subsections to improve the flow of the analysis. Clear transitions help guide the reader through the logical progression of ideas. Recommendation:

Before: "4.2.1 Characterization of overall policies"

After: "4.2.1 Overview of Policies: Analyzing Overall Characteristics"

d) The author needs to simplify complex sentences and technical language to ensure clarity and accessibility for all readers. Recommendation:

Before: "Comparing the scores of each level of policy variables with the mean value, it is found that..."

After: "Upon comparing the scores of each policy variable with the mean value, it becomes evident that..."

e) The author needs to ensure that references to figures are clear and seamlessly integrated into the text. Figures should complement the analysis and be introduced in a way that enhances understanding.Recommendation:

Before: "In order to visualize the results of PMC index calculation, the first-level index scores of each policy can be transformed into a third-order matrix as shown in Eq.(5), and then the internal consistency level of each policy can be analyzed by observing the concavity and convexity of the surface."

After: "To visually represent the PMC index calculation results, we transform the first-level index scores of each policy into a third-order matrix (Eq. 5), facilitating analysis of each policy's internal consistency level through surface concavity and convexity."

CONCLUSION

The author needs to:

(a) Divide the conclusion into smaller paragraphs focusing on specific aspects, such as findings, recommendations, and future research directions.

(b) Ensure consistent use of terminology, such as "Inter-provincial Government Services Policy," throughout the conclusion.

(c) Refer to relevant figures, such as the PMC index calculation results, to support statements about policy effectiveness or areas for improvement.

Reviewer #2: 1. In the literature review, the contents of Section 2.1 are not strongly related to its title, Research on Inter-provincial Government Services Policy. The authors mainly illustrate collaborative governance, digital transformation, and holistic governance, with limited research reviews on Inter-provincial Government Services Policy.

2. What is the significance of the keyword network analysis in Section 3.2? How does it contribute to the construction of the PMC index model? Please make the rationale clearer.

3. In Section 3.3.4, PMC Surface Drawing, the text mentions three figures (Figures 2-4), but only Figure 2 is seen at the end of the paper. Please confirm whether the uploaded images are correct.

4. In the conclusion section, the author states that the main body of policy formulation is the government, and that experts, think tanks, and research institutions are not involved in policy formulation. How was this conclusion reached? How did the author obtain information on the composition of policy participants from text analysis and the PMC index model?

5. The article lacks discussions on the limitations.

6. The study uses the PMC index model to evaluate China’s Inter-provincial Government Service Policy, but the theoretical contribution and practical significance of the study are not well embodied.

Reviewer #3: This paper applies the PMC Index Model to quantitatively assess inter-provincial government services policies in China to explore the effectiveness of policy implementation, which indeed is a beneficial research direction. The literature review is clearly structured, advances critical analysis of existing research, and achieves positive results in its conclusions.

The introduction directly presents the research question and clearly lists the contributions of the study. However, I believe that the choice of research methods should be briefly described at the beginning, highlighting the systematic, holistic, and predictive features and advantages of the policy text evaluation method to smoothly transition into the subsequent research.

The paper's conclusions focus on proposing policy optimizations, which need to be more grounded in the research data and results. I perceive some issues with parts of the conclusions where the derivations from the data and data analysis seem less validating than verifying, and the depth of the conclusions appears somewhat lacking. I recommend that the author:

Precisely align the logic connection between data analysis results and conclusions.

Strengthen causal inferences to ensure all conclusions and recommendations are directly based on data analysis results.

The manuscript is clearly written and meets the norms of English academic writing, but there are still some inaccuracies in grammar and word choice that might affect reader comprehension. Further polishing of the language is needed to meet the standards of academic publication.

Overall, the article is suitable for publication in a journal.

**********

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: Yes: FARAH ADILLA AB RAHMAN

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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.

Assess the efficacy of China’s Inter-provincial Government Services Policy: A Quantitative Evaluation Based on PMC-Index Model

PONE-D-24-19514R1

Dear Dr. Wu,

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,

Pengpeng Ye

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 #3: 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 #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: 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: Dear Dr. Jian Wu,

I want to extend my sincere appreciation for the thoughtful revisions you've made based on my earlier suggestions. The restructuring of the abstract, particularly the addition of a concise statement of the research aim, has significantly improved the clarity and impact of your study. Additionally, the reorganization of the introduction and literature review, along with the enhancements in language simplicity, have greatly contributed to the readability of your work.

Your attention to detail, such as integrating subheadings in the research design and simplifying complex phrases, has made the methodology and findings more accessible to a broader audience. The adjustments in the results and comparative analysis sections, including the refined transitions and references to figures, have also strengthened the overall flow and coherence of your paper.

It has been a pleasure to review your work, and I am confident that these changes will greatly benefit your readers. I wish you all the best in your future research endeavors and look forward to seeing your continued contributions to the field.

Best regards,

Dr. Farah Adilla Ab Rahman

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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: Dr. Farah Adilla Ab Rahman

Reviewer #3: No

**********