How charitable giving affects litigation duration? Empirical evidence from China

Feng Zhu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0316180

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 22, 2024
15 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Jianpeng Fan, Editor PONE-D-24-30529How Charitable Giving Affects Litigation Efficiency? Empirical Evidence from ChinaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. ZHU, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Reviewers 1, 2, and 4 provided positive comments. During this revision, please ensure that you thoroughly address all of the reviewers’ recommendations. If you have a different interpretation of any of the reviewers’ comments, please provide a detailed explanation of your reasoning. I would also like to highlight a specific concern raised by Reviewer 3 regarding the potential for the same or a similar manuscript to be published in two languages, namely English and Chinese. This situation could present copyright issues related to your manuscript. Please submit a detailed response to this matter. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 29 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, Jianpeng Fan 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. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing the DOI/accession number of each dataset or a direct link to access each database. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide these details on a very short timeline. We therefore suggest that you provide this information now, though we will not hold up the peer review process if you are unable. [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: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: PONE-D-24-30529 Title: How Charitable Giving Affects Litigation Efficiency? Empirical Evidence from China The research article is well-written and demonstrates thorough research. The research methodology is organized, and the data collection method is impressive. However, there are still parts that need correction and improvement. Please follow the comments and suggestions below. 1. The author provides a literature review as a very short communication, so it is strongly recommended that a more specific literature review be provided, which would be beneficial for the reader. 2. Could the author please explain more about the functions of Articles 164 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure and what main role they play in governing litigation and the legal system in this study?" 3. The conclusion is too lengthy and resembles an introduction. Please revise and rewrite it clearly. Additionally, I suggest that the author create a separate section for the conclusion, limitations, and directions for future research. 4. Please, the author, carefully revise the paragraph by paragraph; I see some references are missing, so please provide the citation below and also carefully check others in your manuscript. � Corporate reputation represents a significant intangible asset that profoundly influences consumer behavior, market direction, and societal opinion. The events surrounding Wahaha in 2024 underscore the substantial impact corporate reputation can have on stakeholders such as consumers, competitors, and investors. Consequently, numerous enterprises, particularly listed companies, are augmenting their investments in reputation assets, with charitable donations serving as a pivotal strategy � The marginal contributions of this paper are fourfold. Firstly, it broadens the research scope of corporate charitable donations to the realm of judicial litigation, empirically examining the actual impact of such donations on the litigation cycle of listed companies. � In response to the first logical challenge, we employ Reputation Theory to elucidate the underlying mechanisms. � Reputation Theory, originating in the 19th century with economists such as Adam Smith, underscores the significance of reputation as a comprehensive public evaluation of an individual or organization's past behavior and performance in a specific social context. I am very happy to review this scientific research, and I look forward to the revisions. I believe the author will make the necessary improvements. Good Luck! Reviewer #2: This manuscript examines the impact of charitable donations on litigation efficiency. The theoretical discussion of this study is relatively standard, but the flaw lies in its empirical evidence. There are several issues in the econometric analysis: (1) The regression model does not control for any fixed effects. (2) It is not clear at what level clustered standard errors are controlled for. (3) There is a lack of justification for the selection of IV, particularly whether it meets the requirements of relevance and exogeneity. (4) The mechanism analysis only examines the impact of charitable donations on corporate reputation, but lacks justification for the complete causal chain of “charitable donations → corporate reputation → litigation efficiency.” It is also reasonable to question whether there might be a competing causal relationship of “charitable donations → litigation efficiency → corporate reputation.” (5) Table 11 is insufficient to support the examination of the "reputation insurance" function of charitable donations, as the argument is at least incomplete. It is not detailed whether litigation involvement risk and defendant risk differentiate between the current and lagged periods. (6) In Table 4, the two groups have observations of 1010 and 633, but the sum does not equal the total of 1710. (7) In columns 2 and 4 of Table 4, the regression coefficients for law and government are insignificant, which contradicts the discussion in the main text. (8) Heterogeneity analysis shows that in the western regions of China, the regression coefficient for charitable donations is significantly positive, and there is no reasonable explanation for this result. The biggest challenge of this manuscript lies in the insufficient empirical evidence. Reviewer #3: Please note that this article, which is very structured and persuasive, should not be published twice, particularly in journals from China, if you agree to be accepted. Though using the term "efficiency" in the title, I see no strong connection in the main body, where relates more to "litigation duration". Think about changing the term in the main body, or the title. I prefer to "duration", since efficiency is a much complicated term. Though the data is available in the web, you may probably tell me the link of the data source in the footnote, so I can be more convinced. I have searched two websites you provided. There are many data within, and I can't identify which data you are using. Apart from what mentioned above, I think it is a valuable article. Reviewer #4: This is an intriguing study that elucidates how charitable donations, by influencing corporate reputation, alter case processing order and judicial resource allocation, thereby providing a novel theoretical foundation for understanding the complexity and externalities of judicial activities and enriching legal and economic research. The study employs quantitative methods and adequately explains its methodology and data, leading to highly credible conclusions. However, there is several areas for improvement: 1.While the paper addresses endogenous issues using instrumental variables, it would be beneficial to delve into other possible sources, including reverse causality or omitted variable bias. 2.The core contribution is the reputation mechanism as a pathway for charitable donations to impact litigation duration, but its exact function needs deeper revelation. Intermediate variable analysis is suggested to clarify how donations affect litigation through reputation. Additionally, other potential mechanisms like political connections and social networks should not be overlooked; their relationships with variables should be addressed even if not expanded upon. 3.The paper explores the influence of case types and regions on the donation-litigation relationship but lacks discussion on the theoretical mechanisms behind these heterogeneous effects. Its analysis of regional variations in donation, allocation, and litigation duration is somewhat cursory. 4.The mention of the Civil Code's maximum trial duration for civil suits on page 4 contrasts with later comparisons involving administrative, criminal, and arbitration procedures for listed companies. China's legislation sets different trial duration rules for various procedures, which should be distinguished. 5.The conclusion and implications section should further propose specific policy recommendations, such as encouraging corporate donations and improving the judicial system for litigation efficiency, particularly addressing whether current trial duration rules need revision. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Review Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316180.r001
Revision 1
28 Nov 2024 Author Response Dear Reviewers, I would like to express our sincere gratitude to the four reviewers for their careful review and valuable suggestions. I am honoured and encouraged to receive your review comments. Your professional scrutiny, profound insights, and insistence on academic rigour not only provided valuable guidance for our research, but also prompted me to constantly reflect and improve, and strive to make the paper even better. I have carefully reviewed the comments and suggestions from four reviewers, and have made the necessary revisions to address each point. I believe that these changes have strengthened the paper's theoretical framework, methodological approach, and empirical findings. Below is a summary of the revisions I have made. Reviewer-1 Observations Reply indexing 1 The author provides a literature review as a very short communication, so it is strongly recommended that a more specific literature review be provided, which would be beneficial for the reader. In accordance with your valuable suggestion, I have provided a more specific literature review in the main body of the paper. This review offers a more detailed presentation of the research findings related to charitable giving, litigation duration, and the interrelationship between these two aspects. Based on this expanded review, I have highlighted the significance and novelty of the current study. Specifically, I have organized the literature into two main sections: (1)Research on the Motivations for Charitable Giving and CSR: Through a systematic review and analysis of the literature, it becomes evident that existing research on the relationship between charitable giving and judicial activities primarily focuses on the early litigation risks and later litigation outcomes. However, it overlooks an in-depth examination of the litigation process itself. (2)Research on External Factors Influencing Judicial Decision-Making: The analysis reveals that Chinese judicial bodies, when handling cases involving listed companies, may be influenced by factors beyond the law (such as corporate charitable donations). This influence appears to affect the litigation cycle at the procedural law level. See pages 6-11 of the Manuscript. 2 Could the author please explain more about the functions of Articles 164 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure and what main role they play in governing litigation and the legal system in this study?" (1)On the Functions of Article 164 and Article 152 of the Civil Procedure Law: Articles 164 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulate the timeframes for the trial of civil cases under the simplified procedure and the ordinary procedure, respectively. For cases subject to the simplified procedure and ordinary procedure, the time from filing to conclusion is set as "3+1+x" and "6+6+x," meaning that, under normal circumstances, a civil lawsuit should be concluded within 4 months and 12 months, respectively. (2)On the Role of Articles 164 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Law: The inclusion of these articles is intended to demonstrate that the duration of litigation can be assessed and balanced by the court or the presiding judge. Naturally, such assessments are subject to various external factors that may influence this balancing process, such as the positive reputation effects generated by charitable donations, as discussed in this paper. This also reflects the theoretical exploration of a causal relationship between charitable giving and litigation duration. 3 The conclusion is too lengthy and resembles an introduction. Please revise and rewrite it clearly. Additionally, I suggest that the author create a separate section for the conclusion, limitations, and directions for future research. In accordance with your suggestion, I have streamlined the conclusion section and reorganized it following a logical structure: conclusion, recommendations, limitations, and directions for future research. See pages 36-38 of the Manuscript. 4 Please, the author, carefully revise the paragraph by paragraph; I see some references are missing, so please provide the citation below and also carefully check others in your manuscript. I have added the references that you pointed out as missing in the paper and have thoroughly reviewed and refined the other sections of the manuscript. Below are the relevant paragraphs and their corresponding reference sources as mentioned. (1)Corporate reputation represents a significant intangible asset that profoundly influences consumer behavior, market direction, and societal opinion(Guan et al., 2019). [ Guan Kaolei, Zhang Rui. Corporate Reputation and Earnings Management: A Perspective of Effective Contracts or Rent-Seeking? [J]. Accounting Research, 2019, (01): 59-64(in Chinese).]The events surrounding Wahaha in 2024 underscore the substantial impact corporate reputation can have on stakeholders such as consumers, competitors, and investors. Consequently, numerous enterprises, particularly listed companies, are augmenting their investments in reputation assets, with charitable donations serving as a pivotal strategy(Gao et al., 2012).[ Gao Yongqiang, Chen Yajing, Zhang Yunjun. Corporate Reputation, Charitable Donations, and Consumer Responses [J]. Contemporary Economic Management, 2012, 34(06): 20-25(in Chinese).] (2)The marginal contributions of this paper are fourfold. Firstly, it broadens the research scope of corporate charitable donations to the realm of judicial litigation, empirically examining the actual impact of such donations on the litigation cycle of listed companies(Fu et al., 2017).[ Fu Chao, Ji Li. Litigation Risk and Corporate Charitable Donations: An Explanation from the Perspective of "Reputation Insurance" [J]. Nankai Business Review, 2017, 20(02): 108-1211 (in Chinese).] (3) In response to the first logical challenge, we employ Reputation Theory to elucidate the underlying mechanisms(Jean, 1996).[ Tirole, Jean. “A Theory of Collective Reputations (with applications to the persistence of corruption and to firm quality).” The Review of Economic Studies 63 (1996): 1-22.] (4) Reputation Theory, originating in the 19th century with economists such as Adam Smith, underscores the significance of reputation as a comprehensive public evaluation of an individual or organization's past behavior and performance in a specific social context (Smith, 1763). Reviewer-2 1 The regression model does not control for any fixed effects. I have included controls for provincial and year fixed effects in the regression model. To enhance readability for the readers, I have strengthened the corresponding explanations in the model and variable settings section. See page of 14-15the Manuscript. 2 It is not clear at what level clustered standard errors are controlled for. The standard errors used in this paper are heteroscedasticity-robust standard errors. Since the data employed in this study consists of mixed cross-sectional data, which includes multiple distinct individuals, heteroscedasticity is commonly present. Therefore, heteroscedasticity-robust standard errors are applied. Additionally, the type of standard errors used is indicated in the manuscript. See footnote to table 4 on page 21 of the Manuscript. 3 There is a lack of justification for the selection of IV, particularly whether it meets the requirements of relevance and exogeneity. The use of average donations by province, industry, and enterprise nature as an instrumental variable in this paper fulfills the criteria for relevance and exogeneity.Furthermore, the rationale for selecting the instrumental variables is further elaborated in the main text. See page 24-25 of the Manuscript. 4 The mechanism analysis only examines the impact of charitable donations on corporate reputation, but lacks justification for the complete causal chain of “charitable donations → corporate reputation → litigation efficiency.” It is also reasonable to question whether there might be a competing causal relationship of “charitable donations → litigation efficiency → corporate reputation. In response to your suggestion, I have refined the full causal chain argument of "charitable donations → corporate reputation → litigation efficiency." Specifically, I employed the Poisson regression method to capture the mapping relationship between charitable donations and reputation. Additionally, I used the same ordinary least squares (OLS) model as in the baseline regression to fit the relationship between corporate reputation and litigation duration (the supplementary regression results are presented in columns 7 and 8 of Table 7). The refined regression results support the proposed "charitable donations → corporate reputation → litigation efficiency" mechanism and reject the competing causal relationship of "charitable donations → litigation efficiency → corporate reputation." See pages 26-27 of the Manuscript. 5 Table 11 is insufficient to support the examination of the "reputation insurance" function of charitable donations, as the argument is at least incomplete. It is not detailed whether litigation involvement risk and defendant risk differentiate between the current and lagged periods. (1)On the Argument for Charitable Donations as "Reputation Insurance" I used the charitable donations of listed companies in the current year to replace the donations in the subsequent period (Fu et al., 2017), which largely supports the "reputation insurance" function of charitable donations in contrast to existing studies. This is because corporate charitable donations are made continuously throughout the year, and according to descriptive statistics, the average litigation duration is one year. Thus, the charitable donations made by firms in the current year effectively precede the conclusion of the litigation. (2)Explanation of Litigation Risk and Defendant Risk in the Current and Lagged Periods There are two reasons for directly using the current period's donations and litigation risk: First, I referred to studies by Wang et al. (2008) and Lin et al. (2015), and found that in the study of litigation risk, there is limited consideration of lagged effects in academic research. Second, as explained in the first point, since the average litigation duration is one year, corporate charitable donations in the current year precede the ongoing litigation in that same period. Therefore, there is no need to apply a lagged treatment. 6 In Table 4, the two groups have observations of 1010 and 633, but the sum does not equal the total of 1710. The reason why the number of observations in the grouped regression (1010 + 633 = 1643) is smaller than the total sample size of 1710 is that, in the variable representing party identity, in addition to the "plaintiff" and "defendant" categories, there are a small number of observations classified as "third party" or "unspecified." To enhance clarity for readers, I have included a footnote in Table 4 to provide an explanation. See page 21 of the Manuscript. 7 In columns 2 and 4 of Table 4, the regression coefficients for law and government are insignificant, which contradicts the discussion in the main text. The regression coefficients for law and government presented in the main text are based on columns (5) and (6) of Table 4. To avoid potential misunderstandings, I have revised the corresponding statements in the manuscript accordingly. See pages 21-22 of the Manuscript. 8 Heterogeneity analysis shows that in the western regions of China, the regression coefficient for charitable donations is significantly positive, and there is no reasonable explanation for this result. In the subsample analysis for the western region, the significantly positive regression coefficient of charitable donations may be attributed to the disproportionate number of cases where firms from this region are defendants. To address this, I conducted a regional heterogeneity analysis focusing on subsamples where listed companies act as plaintiffs and incorporated the corresponding regression results and interpretations into the manuscript. The results indicate that charitable donations by listed companies in the northeastern region exhibit the most significant effect in reducing litigation duration. Furthermore, when firms in the eastern, central, and northeastern regions serve as plaintiffs, the negative impact of charitable donations on litigation duration is more pronounced, whereas this effect is weaker in the western region. See pages 29-31 of the Manuscript. Reviewer-3 1 Please note that this article, which is very structured and persuasive, should not be published twice, particularly in journals from China, if you agree to be accepted. Though using the term "efficiency" in the title, I see no strong connection in the main body, where relates more to "litigation duration". Think about changing the term in the main body, or the title. I prefer to "duration", since efficiency is a much complicated term. Though the data is available in the web, you may probably tell me the link of the data source in the footnote, so I can be more convinced. I have searched two websites you provided. There are many data within, and I can't identify which data you are using. Apart from what mentioned above, I think it is a valuable article. Thank you for your recognition of this study and for your valuable feedback. Based on your comments, I have made the following responses and revisions: (1)On the Appropriateness of the Term "Efficiency" in the Title As you pointed out, the main focus of the study lies in "litigation duration" rather than "efficiency." To avoid any potential misinterpretation, I have revised the title to replace "efficiency" with "duration." Additionally, all relevant terms in the main text have been updated to ensure consistency with the revised title. (2)On the Clarity of Data Sources The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Data and procedures at http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14238241 If you need the original data you can find it by using the following database addresses and filters: Charitable Giving Data: This was obtained from the CSMAR database. After accessing the database, search using the Chinese terms “non-operating income” and “non-operating expenditure.” After retrieving the raw data, manual sorting of donation items is required to calculate the annual donation amounts for listed companies. Litigation Data: This was retrieved from the CNRDS database. Use the Chinese term “Listed Company Litigation and Arbitration Statistics” in the search bar to locate the relevant data. Control Variable Data: This was sourced from the CSMAR database. Simply search for the names of the specific control variables in the search bar to retrieve the data. If you have any questions regarding the data, please feel free to contact me. I am committed to ensuring the accuracy, transparency, and traceability of the data used in this study, as I recognize the importance of data validation in the review process. (3)On Concerns About Duplicate Submissions Thank you for raising this critical point. I assure you that this study is entirely original and has not been published in any other journal nor submitted elsewhere. I will maintain close communication with the editorial office to ensure full compliance with academic ethics throughout the publication process. Furthermore, I solemnly commit that if this article is accepted , it will not be published or disseminated in any form in other journals, including those in China. I strictly adhere to principles of academic integrity and will ensure the uniqueness and exclusivity of this article. Thank you again for your detailed feedback and support. Please do not hesitate to reach out if further clarification or information is required. Reviewer-4 1 While the paper addresses endogenous issues using instrumental variables, it would be beneficial to delve into other possible sources, including reverse causality or omitted variable bias. I have addressed the potential endogeneity issues arising from reverse causality and omitted variable bias in the manuscript. To mitigate these concerns, I employed an instrumental variable (IV) approach to reduce estimation errors caused by potential endogeneity. The results obtained using the IV me Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316180.r002
9 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Jianpeng Fan, Editor How charitable giving affects litigation duration? Empirical evidence from China PONE-D-24-30529R1 Dear Dr. ZHU, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice 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, Jianpeng Fan Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thank you for your efforts. At present, most reviewers have recommended accepting the manuscript, while one reviewer suggests adding a few related references. Here, I would like to remind you to carefully verify the relevance of these recommended references to the manuscript and decide accordingly whether to accept such suggestions. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: I Don't Know ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Thank you for the author's revision, which included following the reviewers’ suggestions and demonstrating good data management in the manuscript. I strongly recommend that the manuscript be published after minor corrections. Please, author, add a section “Future Research Directions” after the Conclusions section. Additionally, I suggest citing the newly published research articles related to the author’s study, which I have provided below. The requirements for filing a consumer public interest litigation in China. https://doi.org/10.1504/MEJM.2024.135152 Digital Technology Application and Enterprise Competitiveness: The Mediating Role of ESG Performance and Green Technology Innovation. Environ Dev Sustain 2023, doi:10.1007/s10668-023-03979-3. The Role of Technology in the Digital Economy’s Sustainable Development of Hainan Free Trade Port and Genetic Testing: Cloud Computing and Digital Law. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146025 Management Economic Systems and Governance to Reduce Potential Risks in Digital Silk Road Investments: Legal Cooperation between Hainan Free Trade Port and Ethiopia. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12080305 Reviewer #2: I am very glad to find that the author has fully followed my suggestions and has made a lot of detailed revisions, which effectively solve technical problems in the previous round of review. I feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication. Reviewer #4: I think the author really addressed my comments well after taking a close look at the manuscript. Therefore, I recommend publishing this article. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #4: No ******** Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Pl.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316180.r003
Formally Accepted
13 Dec 2024 Acceptance Letter - Jianpeng Fan, Editor PONE-D-24-30529R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhu, 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. Jianpeng Fan Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316180.r004

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 .