How does the development of the digital economy in RCEP member countries affect China’s cross-border e-commerce exports?

Dong Wang; Peiyuan Xu; Bowen An; Yingying Song

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0310975

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 12, 2024
12 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Madhabendra Sinha, Editor PONE-D-24-19141How does the development of the digital economy in RCEP member countries affect China's cross-border e-commerce exports?PLOS ONE Dear Dr. An, 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 Aug 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, Dr Madhabendra Sinha Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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. In the online submission form, you indicated that ""The·datasets used and analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request."" All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 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 Additional Editor Comments: The manuscript needs major revision as per comments given by Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 3. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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: The study carries special importance in order to offer some good policy suggestions to policy operators. The authors have gone through rigorous exercise from the empirical front to derive the results. Reviewer #2: The article demands relevance in the context of the development of digital economy and its effect in facilitating e-commerce across countries. Identification of research gap, formation of hypothesis, selection of methodological technique, discussion of results are found to be appropriate. I recommend for publication of this manuscript. Reviewer #3: Referee Report on: How does the development of the digital economy in RCEP member countries affect China's cross-border e-commerce exports? This paper takes up an interesting issue, relating China's cross-border e-commerce export performances to digitalization of rest of REEP member countries by utilizing multi-dimensional panel data from 2012 to 2021. The research results show that, in terms of direct impact, the development of the digital economy in RCEP member countries has promoted China's cross-border e-commerce export, and its impact is heterogeneous. Regarding indirect impact, improving the quality of RCEP member countries' transportation infrastructure and institutional quality are moderating factors promoting China's e-commerce export. See comments as attachment. ****** 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: Sreemanta Sarkar Reviewer #3: Yes: Amit K. Biswas ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-19141_Review.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310975.r001
Revision 1
22 Jul 2024 Author Response 1.Table 1 has constructed index weights for evaluation indicators for the digital economy development level of RCEP member countries using Entropy Method. But the readers can’t get any insight from table 1 how is this done! Even a small note on the mechanism in the form of an appendix could have been better. In section 4.1, the calculation steps of the entropy method have been added to explain how the index weights and comprehensive scores for the digital economy development level are calculated. 2.The paper uses “Economic Freedom” as an indicator of institutional quality! But World Bank Group’s databank provides a separate “institutional quality” indicator under the head of “Worldwide Governance Indicators”. If data for RECP member countries are available for the study period, the authors should use that(those) indicator(s), instead of “Economic Freedom” which is more general in nature. Based on the reviewers' suggestions, the institutional quality indicators from the World Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicators database have been adopted in section 5.1 to replace the original economic freedom indicators. Corresponding changes have been made to the variables in the model. 3.In table 3, should it be “sample size” or number of observations! The paper uses macro and institutional data and hence nothing is taken as “sample”. Based on the reviewers' comments, the "sample size" in Table 3 of section 5.2 has been revised to "Number of observations". 4.In table 4, the results are very good. “Dei”, “Open” and “Dis” are strongly affecting e-com exports but “GDP” and “Tar” are having relatively lesser effects. “Tar” effect is understandable perhaps because tariff rates are pretty low and/or unchanging but why “Pop” is having a weak effect – what could be reasons for that? Section 5.3.1 provides further explanation and clarification on the potential reasons for the relatively weak impact of the population size factor (Pop) on China's cross-border e-commerce exports. 5.What is digital economy readiness index (Der)? How is it constructed or what is its data source? In section 5.3.2, the Digital Economy Readiness Index has been corrected to the Network Readiness Index. Additionally, an explanation and clarification regarding the data sources and indicator composition of the Network Readiness Index have been provided. 6.In line 560 – 62, it is said: “It uses the fixed telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in RCEP member countries in 2007 as an instrumental variable to measure the level of digital economic development among RCEP member countries.” I wonder whether this is a proper proxy measurement of level of digital economic development among RCEP member countries for the period 2012 – 21. In section 5.3.2, the discussion of endogeneity and the rationale and logic for using the 2007 fixed telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in RCEP member countries as an instrumental variable to measure the level of digital economic development in RCEP member countries have been revised and improved. 7.In conclusion at line 767, it is said that “……optimize the domestic digital economy environment.” Assuming it is suggested for China, did the author test how can China’s enhanced digitalization positively affect its own e-com export? Or is it a mere suggestion. I think the conclusion can be properly presented based on the findings of the empirical exercises. Based on the reviewers' comments and the empirical research findings of the paper, the third part of the conclusions and recommendations has been revised and improved accordingly. 8.Did the author provide data source for “the quality of transportation infrastructure” and “economic freedom”? I might have missed as couldn’t find! The data sources for the transportation infrastructure quality indicators and institutional quality indicators have been added to section 5.1. 9. Finally and most importantly, the data period is very interesting! Given that the time period is 2012 – 21 and COVID took place in between, if further data are available till 2023 – a very interesting exercise could have been the pre and post COVID differences with an effort to identify the presence of structural break. Two reasons for that – (a) China and most of the RCEP members were the worst victims of the viral outbreak and (b) post COVID, people were forced to develop a better digital technology in every field of life including trade practices. So it could have been quite interesting to see how did the interplay affect the outcome as the supply chain must have been affected. In Section 5.5, an analysis of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been added to discuss how the development of the digital economy among RCEP member countries affects the changes in China's cross-border e-commerce exports against the backdrop of the pandemic outbreak. Due to data limitations, the study only extended the research data beyond 2023, focusing primarily on analyzing the impact of changes in China's cross-border e-commerce exports from 2020 to 2021 due to the development of the digital economy among RCEP member countries post the pandemic outbreak. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310975.r002
30 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Madhabendra Sinha, Editor PONE-D-24-19141R1How does the development of the digital economy in RCEP member countries affect China's cross-border e-commerce exports?PLOS ONE Dear Dr. An, 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 Sep 13 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, Dr Madhabendra Sinha 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's comments are not found to be addressed in the latest revised manuscript. It needs revision again and responses to the Reviewer 1's comments are also needed. Manuscript has to be also revised following the Reviewer 1's comments as Follows: The authors have done a good job in their capacity. Keeping in mind the scientific contributions of the article I recommend for Major revision. Reviewer’s Report The study has endeavoured a good topic of research on the role of the development of the digital economy in RCEP member countries upon China's cross-border e-commerce exports. Having the countries’ dependence towards the digital world in today’s business, the study carries special importance in order to offer some good policy suggestions to the global policy operators. The authors have gone through rigorous exercise from the empirical front to derive the results which are theoretically expected. In reviewing the article I found some areas of concern that are to be handled properly to have good research outputs. The comments and suggestions are given below. 1. First of all, the Abstract should not contain any unidentified terms such as RCEP, though it is a popular term. 2. The theoretical conceptualisation is not sufficient. As the study has contained many explanatory and control variables, I suggest the theoretical underpinning should be such that it can explain the core relationships among the variables capturing all of them. The authors may also use the functional forms of the interrelationships among the variables. 3. The study should categorically explain the motivation and importance of the study. Having a moderate score in e commerce index for China, why the authors have considered China, not even Singapore like countries who have very high index values. It should use updated research articles to find the appropriate research gaps. 4. As the study largely depends on the index score of the digital economy of the member countries, the authors should discuss the method of index computations in detail to ease the readability of the readers from the multi-disciplinary areas. 5. Before going to have the econometric estimations in the panel data format, the authors could have tried for pair-wise correlation analysis to have a primary view on the degree of associations among the variables. 6. As having variations in the index scores among the group of RCEP, the authors may segregate/cluster the countries in two different panels to carry out the similar econometric exercise to have better results for two sets of countries to have proper policy formulations. Decision: Major revision [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310975.r003
Revision 2
5 Aug 2024 Author Response Reviewer 1 1.First of all, the Abstract should not contain any unidentified terms such as RCEP, though it is a popular term. The abstract section has been revised. 2.The theoretical conceptualisation is not sufficient. As the study has contained many explanatory and control variables, I suggest the theoretical underpinning should be such that it can explain the core relationships among the variables capturing all of them. The authors may also use the functional forms of the interrelationships among the variables. The research focus of this paper has been clarified before Section 3.1. Additionally, the relationships between the digital economy development of RCEP member countries, China's cross-border e-commerce exports, and the moderating variables (transportation infrastructure quality and institutional quality) have been further elucidated. 3.The study should categorically explain the motivation and importance of the study. Having a moderate score in e commerce index for China, why the authors have considered China, not even Singapore like countries who have very high index values. It should use updated research articles to find the appropriate research gaps. The final paragraph of Section 1, Introduction, has been revised and supplemented to clarify the motivation and significance of this study. Although China's digital economy development score is low, as a core member of RCEP, China has actively participated in formulating and signing the agreement. Compared to countries with higher digital economy development scores, China's cross-border e-commerce exports significantly promote international trade and economic cooperation. Therefore, as clarified in the Introduction, this paper selects China as the research subject. Based on the reviewer's suggestions, the latest research literature has also been incorporated into the literature review section. 4.As the study largely depends on the index score of the digital economy of the member countries, the authors should discuss the method of index computations in detail to ease the readability of the readers from the multi-disciplinary areas. In section 4.1, the calculation steps of the entropy method have been added to explain how the index weights and comprehensive scores for the digital economy development level are calculated. 5.Before going to have the econometric estimations in the panel data format, the authors could have tried for pair-wise correlation analysis to have a primary view on the degree of associations among the variables. Section 5.3.1 has been expanded to examine the correlation and multicollinearity of the empirical data. The results of these tests have been analyzed and explained to elucidate the relationships among the data. 6.As having variations in the index scores among the group of RCEP, the authors may segregate/cluster the countries in two different panels to carry out the similar econometric exercise to have better results for two sets of countries to have proper policy formulations. Section 5.4.3 has been expanded to include an analysis of the heterogeneity in digital economy development levels. Using the previously discussed digital economy development scores, RCEP member countries were categorized into high and low digital economy development groups for empirical testing. The results were compared to explore the differences and analyze the potential reasons for these discrepancies. Reviewer 2 1.Table 1 has constructed index weights for evaluation indicators for the digital economy development level of RCEP member countries using Entropy Method. But the readers can’t get any insight from table 1 how is this done! Even a small note on the mechanism in the form of an appendix could have been better. In section 4.1, the calculation steps of the entropy method have been added to explain how the index weights and comprehensive scores for the digital economy development level are calculated. 2.The paper uses “Economic Freedom” as an indicator of institutional quality! But World Bank Group’s databank provides a separate “institutional quality” indicator under the head of “Worldwide Governance Indicators”. If data for RECP member countries are available for the study period, the authors should use that(those) indicator(s), instead of “Economic Freedom” which is more general in nature. The institutional quality indicators from the World Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicators database have been adopted in section 5.1 to replace the original economic freedom indicators. Corresponding changes have been made to the variables in the model. 3.In table 3, should it be “sample size” or number of observations! The paper uses macro and institutional data and hence nothing is taken as “sample”. The "sample size" in Table 3 of section 5.2 has been revised to "Number of observations". 4.In table 4, the results are very good. “Dei”, “Open” and “Dis” are strongly affecting e-com exports but “GDP” and “Tar” are having relatively lesser effects. “Tar” effect is understandable perhaps because tariff rates are pretty low and/or unchanging but why “Pop” is having a weak effect – what could be reasons for that? Section 5.3.1 provides further explanation and clarification on the potential reasons for the relatively weak impact of the population size factor (Pop) on China's cross-border e-commerce exports. 5.What is digital economy readiness index (Der)? How is it constructed or what is its data source? In section 5.3.2, the Digital Economy Readiness Index has been corrected to the Network Readiness Index. Additionally, an explanation and clarification regarding the data sources and indicator composition of the Network Readiness Index have been provided. 6.In line 560 – 62, it is said: “It uses the fixed telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in RCEP member countries in 2007 as an instrumental variable to measure the level of digital economic development among RCEP member countries.” I wonder whether this is a proper proxy measurement of level of digital economic development among RCEP member countries for the period 2012 – 21. In section 5.3.2, the discussion of endogeneity and the rationale and logic for using the 2007 fixed telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in RCEP member countries as an instrumental variable to measure the level of digital economic development in RCEP member countries have been revised and improved. 7.In conclusion at line 767, it is said that “……optimize the domestic digital economy environment.” Assuming it is suggested for China, did the author test how can China’s enhanced digitalization positively affect its own e-com export? Or is it a mere suggestion. I think the conclusion can be properly presented based on the findings of the empirical exercises. Based on the reviewers' comments and the empirical research findings of the paper, the third part of the conclusions and recommendations has been revised and improved accordingly. 8.Did the author provide data source for “the quality of transportation infrastructure” and “economic freedom”? I might have missed as couldn’t find! The data sources for the transportation infrastructure quality indicators and institutional quality indicators have been added to section 5.1. 9. Finally and most importantly, the data period is very interesting! Given that the time period is 2012 – 21 and COVID took place in between, if further data are available till 2023 – a very interesting exercise could have been the pre and post COVID differences with an effort to identify the presence of structural break. Two reasons for that – (a) China and most of the RCEP members were the worst victims of the viral outbreak and (b) post COVID, people were forced to develop a better digital technology in every field of life including trade practices. So it could have been quite interesting to see how did the interplay affect the outcome as the supply chain must have been affected. In Section 5.5, an analysis of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been added to discuss how the development of the digital economy among RCEP member countries affects the changes in China's cross-border e-commerce exports against the backdrop of the pandemic outbreak. Due to data limitations, the study only extended the research data beyond 2023, focusing primarily on analyzing the impact of changes in China's cross-border e-commerce exports from 2020 to 2021 due to the development of the digital economy among RCEP member countries post the pandemic outbreak. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310975.r004
27 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Madhabendra Sinha, Editor PONE-D-24-19141R2How does the development of the digital economy in RCEP member countries affect China's cross-border e-commerce exports?PLOS ONE Dear Dr. An, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 11 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, Madhabendra Sinha, PhD in Economics 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: The article has to be revised again based on the comments given by Reviewer 1, as follows: The authors have done a good job in their capacity. Keeping in mind the scientific contributions of the article I recommend for Major revision. Reviewer’s Report The study has endeavoured a good topic of research on the role of the development of the digital economy in RCEP member countries upon China's cross-border e-commerce exports. Having the countries’ dependence towards the digital world in today’s business, the study carries special importance in order to offer some good policy suggestions to the global policy operators. The authors have gone through rigorous exercise from the empirical front to derive the results which are theoretically expected. In reviewing the article I found some areas of concern that are to be handled properly to have good research outputs. The comments and suggestions are given below. 1. First of all, the Abstract should not contain any unidentified terms such as RCEP, though it is a popular term. 2. The theoretical conceptualisation is not sufficient. As the study has contained many explanatory and control variables, I suggest the theoretical underpinning should be such that it can explain the core relationships among the variables capturing all of them. The authors may also use the functional forms of the interrelationships among the variables. 3. The study should categorically explain the motivation and importance of the study. Having a moderate score in e commerce index for China, why the authors have considered China, not even Singapore like countries who have very high index values. It should use updated research articles to find the appropriate research gaps. 4. As the study largely depends on the index score of the digital economy of the member countries, the authors should discuss the method of index computations in detail to ease the readability of the readers from the multi-disciplinary areas. 5. Before going to have the econometric estimations in the panel data format, the authors could have tried for pair-wise correlation analysis to have a primary view on the degree of associations among the variables. 6. As having variations in the index scores among the group of RCEP, the authors may segregate/cluster the countries in two different panels to carry out the similar econometric exercise to have better results for two sets of countries to have proper policy formulations. Decision: Major revision [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310975.r005
Revision 3
28 Aug 2024 Author Response Reviewer 1 1.First of all, the Abstract should not contain any unidentified terms such as RCEP, though it is a popular term. The abstract section has been revised. 2.The theoretical conceptualisation is not sufficient. As the study has contained many explanatory and control variables, I suggest the theoretical underpinning should be such that it can explain the core relationships among the variables capturing all of them. The authors may also use the functional forms of the interrelationships among the variables. The research focus of this paper has been clarified before Section 3.1. Additionally, the relationships between the digital economy development of RCEP member countries, China's cross-border e-commerce exports, and the moderating variables (transportation infrastructure quality and institutional quality) have been further elucidated. 3.The study should categorically explain the motivation and importance of the study. Having a moderate score in e commerce index for China, why the authors have considered China, not even Singapore like countries who have very high index values. It should use updated research articles to find the appropriate research gaps. The final paragraph of Section 1, Introduction, has been revised and supplemented to clarify the motivation and significance of this study. Although China's digital economy development score is low, as a core member of RCEP, China has actively participated in formulating and signing the agreement. Compared to countries with higher digital economy development scores, China's cross-border e-commerce exports significantly promote international trade and economic cooperation. Therefore, as clarified in the Introduction, this paper selects China as the research subject. Based on the reviewer's suggestions, the latest research literature has also been incorporated into the literature review section. 4.As the study largely depends on the index score of the digital economy of the member countries, the authors should discuss the method of index computations in detail to ease the readability of the readers from the multi-disciplinary areas. In section 4.1, the calculation steps of the entropy method have been added to explain how the index weights and comprehensive scores for the digital economy development level are calculated. 5.Before going to have the econometric estimations in the panel data format, the authors could have tried for pair-wise correlation analysis to have a primary view on the degree of associations among the variables. Section 5.3.1 has been expanded to examine the correlation and multicollinearity of the empirical data. The results of these tests have been analyzed and explained to elucidate the relationships among the data. 6.As having variations in the index scores among the group of RCEP, the authors may segregate/cluster the countries in two different panels to carry out the similar econometric exercise to have better results for two sets of countries to have proper policy formulations. Section 5.4.3 has been expanded to include an analysis of the heterogeneity in digital economy development levels. Using the previously discussed digital economy development scores, RCEP member countries were categorized into high and low digital economy development groups for empirical testing. The results were compared to explore the differences and analyze the potential reasons for these discrepancies. 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. The references were carefully checked and revised. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310975.r006
11 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Madhabendra Sinha, Editor How does the development of the digital economy in RCEP member countries affect China's cross-border e-commerce exports? PONE-D-24-19141R3 Dear Dr. An, 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, Madhabendra Sinha, PhD in Economics Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The manuscript may be accepted. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310975.r007
Formally Accepted
11 Oct 2024 Acceptance Letter - Madhabendra Sinha, Editor PONE-D-24-19141R3 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. An, 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 Dr. Madhabendra Sinha Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310975.r008

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 .