PONE-D-24-46519How can government ensure security of information disclosure�Evidence from ChinaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Deng,

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 Jan 10 2025 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,

Dinesh Kumar Saini

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  The American Journal Experts (AJE) (https://www.aje.com/) is one such service that has extensive experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. Please note that having the manuscript copyedited by AJE or any other editing services does not guarantee selection for peer review or acceptance for publication.  Upon resubmission, please provide the following: The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)” 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "Ministry of Education, Humanities and social science projects" Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.  When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 5. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please read the PLOS ONE objectives of the journal. Your article needs major revision. Authors claims that Specifically, "we performed a qualitative analysis of 259 policy documents related to security governance across central, provincial, and prefecture levels, thereby ensuring a comprehensive examination of the diverse strategies employed in policy formulation and implementation". These claims need more justification and clearance how you arrived on decisions and claims.

Authors himeself mentioned it need more work Moreover, the combination and application of policy instruments for GID security governance should be strengthened. Beyond utilizing environmental policy instruments to reinforce information disclosure security review and accountability, the government should also integrate supply-oriented and demand-oriented policy instruments. For supply-oriented tool, there should be increased investment in funding, technology, and talent, with an emphasis on encouraging market participation in security oversight and governance. Regarding demand-oriented tool, the government

needs to enhance cross-level cooperation, coordinating and linking different functional departments or agencies, while also strengthening international exchanges and cooperation to improve security governance capabilities. All these claims look over promised.

[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.

PONE-D-24-46519R1How can government ensure security of information disclosure�Evidence from ChinaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Deng,

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 Jun 19 2025 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,

Karthikeyan Thiyagarajan, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

Your work concerning the improvement of security policy associated with Government Information Disclosure (GID) through coding and subsequent analysis is appreciated. The study utilized the selective data spanning the years from 2007 to 2024. The manuscript lacks precision in writing, and figures and tables were not neatly presented, and it lacks clarity of the results derived. Authors can combine the introduction and review of literature part as one section to make it more precise by avoiding any redundancy. The main issue of the article is how the open, axial, and selective coding and the qualitative statistical test were done. Your manuscript derived the results through the qualitative data-based statistical analysis; hence, it doesn't represent the statistical significance but represents the probability value with the kappa coefficient. The authors missed representing it through an appropriate bar graph or kind of diagrammatic representation or other kinds of illustrations. In this case, it is questionable whether the authors have done the qualitative analysis appropriately and according to the need for deriving the results to specific objectives or aims of the article. Please represent section 4 as the result section directly. Section 4 presents the results; however, this section 4 has a lot of description about methods, policy history, etc., not exactly about the results.

I have some suggestions and comments.

Please present the specific result-orientated points derived from the qualitative analysis using the NVivo tool, as you have mentioned detailed statistical and analytical evaluations.

In section 3.2, Research methods and technical approach, it was not explained how the attributes assignment was done, while you have mentioned the specific informational attributes derived through the conversion of non-quantitative value to quantifiable data. Also, clarification is needed about how the kappa coefficient was done. Have you appropriately assigned the raters to derive the result with the kappa coefficient? Clarification is needed.

At result section 4.1.2, how the coding and categorical assignments were done and how the data were sorted and structured; if the coding and categorical assignments were not done properly, perhaps the results may not be accurate. One of the reviewers also commented that the analysis you did was more on the frequency of the keywords basis rather than the content analysis basis, and clarification is needed.

In the result section, are the policy themes (4.1.3) describing the methodology of how the data extractions were done? Is it a result? In this section you were stating how the analysis was done using specific terms. Subsequent sections indicated how the coding was done and how the two-dimensional framework was represented. So please present the analysis part in the methodology section and present clearly the results derived from the analysis in the result section.

Why didn't you represent any bar graph or clustering tree to understand the relationship among the texts from the matrix tree structure diagram of GID security management policies?

Supporting Information The zip folder-derived file was unable to open and seems related to the NVivo extension file (.nvp). How can the readers read the file in this way, and do readers need to install the software or purchase the software to understand the file? Please provide a directly readable file or any readable alternative file to the same contents of the supporting file.

The contents of the article must be more succinct; all figures may be improved with high resolution, and figures should be self-explanatory. Table 6 looks like it has a typological error, or present the data correctly.

Please note a reviewer has rejected your manuscript with the comments and suggestions, and some of the reviewers provided critical comments and suggestions; please carefully read them and revise and respond accordingly to the suggestions and comments from reviewers and me.

If your upcoming revisions and responses are appropriate and meet the reviewers' concerns and mine, your manuscript may be reconsidered. If not, it may be difficult to consider your manuscript further.

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: (No Response)

Reviewer #7: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: Partly

Reviewer #6: Partly

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: I Don't Know

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper "How can government ensure security of information disclosure: Evidence from China" explores the challenge of balancing government information disclosure (GID) with national security. The authors used the NVivo tool to build a two-dimensional policy analysis framework, analyzing 259 Chinese policy samples. Their analysis reveals an imbalance in policy instrument content and suggests that current policies focus more on implementation and readiness than on enhancing and deploying information disclosure security.

However, the authors need to highlight its marginal contribution to the field. This would strengthen the paper's impact and provide clearer value to readers and researchers.

Reviewer #2: This article is done for addressing all comments or inputs from the reviewer but need more additional for reference particularly from PLOS that related on the issue

Reviewer #3: Is the work clearly and accurately presented? Does it cite the current literature?

The work is clearly and accurately presented, strongly supported by a detailed and systematic methodology. The study clearly outlines its research questions, methodology, and results, notably analyzing 259 policy documents from authoritative Chinese databases using qualitative content analysis with NVivo software. The clear identification of policy instrument dimensions (supply, environmental, demand) enhances the clarity of results. For example, the researchers effectively use figures and tables, such as visual charts showing the distribution of policy tools, making complex findings easy for readers to understand.

The literature review is thorough, well-structured, and effectively combines fundamental theories with contemporary sources. The study distinctly outlines key theories such as the “Contradiction Thesis,” emphasizing the clash between transparency and privacy, along with the “Balance Thesis,” which advocates for a middle ground between openness and security. Moreover, it offers clear examples, such as the risk of identity theft when private financial information is made public. This method helps readers understand the intricate relationship between transparency and security, showcasing the authors' solid understanding of recent research.

Is the study design appropriate and does the work have academic merit?

The study effectively demonstrates robust triangulation through the comprehensive use of data triangulation, clearly analyzing 259 different government policy documents from multiple governmental levels (central, provincial, and local), significantly enhancing the reliability of the findings—for example, it covered various types of documents such as laws and guidelines. It also strongly applies theoretical triangulation, clearly integrating two major theories—Contradiction Theory and Balance Theory—which deepens understanding of the complex relationship between openness and national security; an example is balancing transparent budget information with confidential military details. In terms of methodological triangulation, the research rigorously combines qualitative content analysis with the NVivo software, providing clear visualizations like word clouds to support analysis, thus increasing confidence in the results. Lastly, the study exhibits strong researcher triangulation, clearly involving two researchers with distinct roles (data collection and manuscript review), which ensures high reliability, confirmed by a strong Kappa coefficient of 0.9 from repeated coding exercises.

If applicable, is its interpretation appropriate?

The discussion in the study is appropriate and well-grounded based on the data and methods used. However, it would be better if it were clearly explained using the lens of Governmental Power Market-ing (GPM), particularly its strategies and tactics. The study's core argument—that Chinese government policies emphasize regulation-heavy approaches while lacking citizen-driven tools—aligns with the GPM idea that governments operate like strategic marketers in a chaotic (VU-CHAOS) world. According to the GPM framework, governments use tools like policy branding, cultural resonance, and media control to maintain authority, gain public trust, and ensure compliance. The study highlights how China manages government information disclosure (GID) using environmental instruments (regulations) but lacks "marketed" engagement such as public-driven participation or co-branded incentives—similar to what GPM calls demand-side tactics. For example, instead of just issuing rigid laws (a supply strategy), GPM would suggest branding the policies as tools of empowerment (like Estonia's e-Governance) or aligning them with culturally familiar values (as seen in China's use of Guanxi). This interpretation is appropriate because it connects the study's findings—especially the imbalance in policy instruments—to GPM's model of modern governance, where control is no longer only top-down but negotiated through branding, strategic communication, and public sentiment.

Reference

Jermsittiparsert, K., Gohwong, S., Pavapanunkul, S., Mahittichatkul, N. (2023). Governmental power market-ing in the VU-CHAOS world. PA: IGI Global.

Reviewer #4:  1. Scientific Merit and Research Significance

Strengths:

The topic of balancing government information disclosure (GID) and national security is highly relevant, especially in the digital governance context.

The manuscript attempts to contribute by building a two-dimensional analytical framework combining policy instruments and content dimensions using NVivo-based qualitative analysis.

Critical Issues:

The contribution to knowledge is weakly positioned. The manuscript does not clearly identify how it extends or challenges existing theories of governance, public administration, or information security.

The discussion fails to engage deeply with existing international scholarship; it is overly localized to the Chinese context without generalizable theoretical implications.

2. Methodological Clarity and Rigor

Critical Weaknesses:

The qualitative coding strategy lacks transparency. The authors state that NVivo was used for grounded coding, but it’s unclear who conducted the coding, how inter-rater reliability was ensured beyond mentioning a Kappa value, or how thematic saturation was achieved.

The selection of 259 policy documents appears exhaustive, but the inclusion/exclusion criteria are not sufficiently justified in terms of relevance, date, or document type. For instance, why are policies from 2007 relevant to discussions on AI or cross-border data flows in 2024?

The paper claims to perform “quantitative analysis of qualitative data” but lacks detail on the statistical validity or any triangulation strategies to ensure the robustness of findings.

3. Results and Interpretation

Overstatements:

Many of the authors' policy recommendations are overly optimistic and under-supported by evidence. For example, suggestions like enhancing cross-level governance or integrating CIO systems are presented as actionable, but the data does not convincingly show gaps these would fill.

The link between results and discussion is tenuous. The tables and figures (e.g., tool proportions, word frequencies, X-Y dimension mapping) are heavily descriptive and not well connected to practical or policy-oriented insights.

Visual Presentation Issues:

The manuscript relies on generic visualizations (e.g., word clouds, matrix trees) that are visually unengaging and do not add substantial analytical value. More comparative or inferential visualizations (e.g., heatmaps, cluster analyses) would strengthen the work.

4. Structure, Language, and Readability

Major Concerns:

Repetitive phrasing and verbosity throughout the paper detract from clarity. Much of the text could be condensed without losing meaning.

Inconsistent terminology: The paper alternates between “policy tool,” “instrument,” and “dimension” without always clearly defining distinctions.

There are occasional translation awkwardness and idiomatic errors (e.g., “policy forest” as a metaphor is not widely understood in English-language scholarship).

5. Specific Suggestions for Improvement

To bring this paper up to PLOS ONE standards, the authors need to:

✍� Substantive Improvements:

Reframe the study with a clear research gap and contribution to theory—not just a descriptive audit of policies.

Apply more rigorous qualitative methodology, possibly integrating mixed methods or stakeholder interviews to validate policy impacts.

Expand the comparative context beyond China to show international relevance or application of the framework.

Structural Fixes:

Condense the manuscript by at least 20% to improve flow and remove redundancy.

Refine the figures and tables to present meaningful comparisons or patterns—not just frequency counts.

Strengthen the discussion to address not just what policies exist, but why they are structured that way, and what the implications are for actual GID practice.

Figures & Appendices:

Consider adding supplementary figures showing policy trends over time by region or agency.

Ensure all figures are publication-quality (e.g., vector format, with accessible fonts, consistent styling).

Reviewer #5: There does not seem to be a specific set of code descriptions for the content analysis other than the references to the percentage or frequency of key words. There is not explanation of how these key words were used for the content analysis. This makes the study appear to be a frequency analysis instead of a content analysis. The inclusion of a codebook or table with coding definitions would improve the validity of this paper.

Additionally, several of the tables repeat information and introduce variables before they are defined (Table 3 introduces Policy Instrument Dimension before it is defined for example).

Several claims based on the frequency of certain phrases are made that require more evidence such as sample language from the text itself. For example, on page 18 several claims are made based solely on the frequency of phrases with out the benefit of text samples that would provide evidence that the use of these phrases directly relates to the claims made.

The discussion of the kappa coefficient needs further explanation of how coding was completed and compared. Was this a comparison of the policy instrument coding and the x and y dimensions, or just one?

The discussion delves more into the content but there is no evidence of the actual content of these documents other than the frequencies of certain phrases or words in the results of the paper.

Reviewer #6: 1. Check some of your citations to make sure they are quite relevant.

2. If you can descriptively explain your methods from the methods section, it will make readers understand the method better.

3. Provide justification for the sufficiency of the 259 valid policy samples. (Why 259 and not more or less)

Reviewer #7: The revised manuscript titled “How can government ensure security of information disclosure: Evidence from China” presents a considerably improved and well-structured study that offers valuable insights into the security governance of government information disclosure (GID) in the Chinese context. I feel that the authors have clearly responded to earlier concerns by expanding on the methodological justification, refining the discussion of policy instrument integration, and grounding their arguments more carefully within existing legal and policy frameworks.

In terms of its technical soundness, I feel that the paper is technically sound, and the data analysis supports the conclusions. The authors have convincingly explained, especially, their choice of 259 policy documents across central, provincial, and prefecture levels. The revision clarified the document selection criteria with three guiding principles - focusing on issuing bodies, content relevance to GID security, and types of government policy documents - thereby increasing transparency and enhancing methodological rigor. Additionally, the NVivo-assisted coding strategy and the resulting analytical framework, which integrates both policy instrument dimensions and policy content dimensions, provide a robust basis for interpreting the evolution and characteristics of GID security governance in China.

Statistical analysis is appropriate given the qualitative nature of the study. I personally find that the decision to employ the combination of grounded theory and content analysis through NVivo gives credibility to the results. While this is not a study based on statistical inference in the traditional sense, I believe the authors provide adequate analytical depth and a logical structure to support their claims. Additionally, the discussion around coding levels - open, axial, and selective coding - is clearly explained and aligns well with accepted qualitative standards. The visual presentation of data (e.g., frequency trees and temporal distribution graphs) adds clarity without overcomplicating the narrative.

The manuscript is well-written and presented in clear, standard English. The revisions have enhanced readability, especially by smoothing out earlier overgeneralizations. These improvements help to ground the manuscript’s implications in practical policy applications.

If any suggestion for improvement remains, it would be to enhance the discussion in the conclusion section by slightly extending the global policy implications. While the authors have made a stronger case for why their study is internationally significant, further elaboration on how their proposed framework might be tested or adapted in other political systems (e.g., democratic versus authoritarian regimes) would enrich the practical utility of the findings. This would not detract from the China-specific nature of the research but rather help open a dialogue across governance models.

**********

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: Yes:  ALFROJEMS

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Srirath Gohwong, Ph.D.

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: Yes:  OLUWAFEMI VICTOR OLUDU

Reviewer #7: 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.

PONE-D-24-46519R2Instrumental strategies and symbolic legitimacy: analyzing government information disclosure security policies in ChinaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Deng ,

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 16 2025 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,

Karthikeyan Thiyagarajan, PhD

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:

Dear Authors,

I appreciate your revisions and responses.

One of the reviewers has recommended a minor revision; thus, please revise accordingly.

Please provide an authorization letter from the authorized person or Head of the Department stating that "The university has authorized the authors (name of the authors) to conduct the study and allowed to publish the work entitled "Title of the manuscript" based on the mutual agreement between the university (university name) and the government of China." Something like this; please provide a letter with university letterhead.

I further suggest you please add this letter as a supplementary file in your manuscript and describe the authorization of your study in the manuscript.

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 #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #6: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: N/A

**********

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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have adequately addressed all comments raised in a previous round of review. This manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

Reviewer #2: This article is good just need to elaborate more and add few references as discussion's part. Minor revision need for the follow up of this article.

Reviewer #3: While the authors seem to have addressed the main issues in the updated manuscript and provided detailed answers, I recommend accepting it with certain lingering uncertainties. The improvements in writing clarity and academic rigor are apparent, as is the more transparent documentation of their grounded theory methodology (including sample justification, coding methods, and reported inter-coder reliability). However, the intricate theoretical blend of Governmental Power Marketing, while considered deep, can also be perceived as a justification for potentially exploitative actions by the government. The strong empirical examination, employing qualitative NVivo methods and visual aids, could still lack in essential reflexivity. The comparisons across regimes, although placing China's strategy in a global context, might simplify intricate political realities. Although these concerns remain, the manuscript currently satisfies the requirements for publication as a theoretically sound and methodologically comprehensive addition to research on government information transparency and digital governance, yet its findings should be interpreted with care.

Reviewer #4: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Overall, the research addresses a relevant and timely topic and offers a significant contribution to the field. The methodology used is clearly articulated, and the results are well presented. I recommend your manuscript for publication.

Reviewer #5: Overall, the addition of clarification of coding and reduction of redundancy makes the arguments and claims easier to follow. The expansion and clarification of theoretical basis of study makes a much stronger case for the use of the document analysis using the dual approach, highlighting the contrast between transparency and security.

Reviewer #6: The validity for the sample can be explained better to better explain the rationale for limiting the sample to such number. How will a larger sample affect the result.

**********

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 #3: Yes:  Srirath Gohwong, Ph.D.

Reviewer #4: Yes:  Sandi Lubis

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: Yes:  OLUWAFEMI OLUDU

**********

[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.

Instrumental strategies and symbolic legitimacy�analyzing government information disclosure security policies in China

PONE-D-24-46519R3

Dear Dr. Deng,

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,

Karthikeyan Thiyagarajan, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

After careful scientific evaluations with peer reviews, I am pleased to confirm the manuscript entitled "Instrumental strategies and symbolic legitimacy: analyzing government information disclosure security policies in China" has been accepted for publication in PLOS ONE. Please ensure the attachment of the two authorization letters as supplementary files in the manuscript. Please thoroughly check for typos, as it was mentioned as 'ininformation' instead of 'information' in some places in the title.

Kind regards,

Karthikeyan Thiyagarajan PhD

Academic Editor, PLOS ONE.

Reviewers' comments: