PONE-D-25-05885How Can County-Level Industrial Clusters in China Promote Urban-Rural Integration? — A Study on the Configuration Effects Based on fsQCAPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Liang,

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 May 09 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,

Jitendra Yadav, Ph.D.

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 note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: This manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic: the role of county-leve industria clusters in promoting urban-rura integration in China. The use of fsQCA is a potentially valuable approach to understanding the complex interplay of factors contributing to this integration. However, there are severa areas where the manuscript could be significantly strengthened to meet PLOS ONE's standards for publication.

Here are my detailed comments and suggestions, organized for clarity:

1. Clarity of Theoretica Framework: While the paper introduces four pathways (industria linkage, technology transfer, employment coordination, and service balance), the theoretica grounding for why these specific pathways are chosen and how they uniquely contribute to urban-rura integration needs to be more robust. The connection to existing theories (growth pole, spatia interaction, technology diffusion, etc.) is mentioned superficially. It would be beneficia to elaborate on how these theories predict the specific relationships being investigated. For example, you mention technology diffusion theory. Expand on this. How does technology transfer specifically reduce the urban-rura divide? What are the mechanisms? Similarly, for industria linkage, explicitly state how the extension of industria chains, as per growth pole theory, leads to the specific outcomes of urban-rura integration outlined in your indicators (Table 1).

2. Operationalization of Variables: The measurement of key variables needs more detailed justification and explanation.

Urban-Rura Integration: Table 1 provides a list of indicators, but the rationale for choosing these specific indicators and their weighting (or lack thereof) is unclear. Why are these indicators the most appropriate for capturing the multifaceted concept of urban-rura integration? Some indicators seem quite broad (e.g., "County Administrative Region Land Area / Urban Administrative Region Land Area"). How does this ratio reflect integration? More justification is needed.

County-Leve Industria Clusters: The use of Location Quotients (LQ) is standard, but the justification for the specific thresholds used to categorize counties into agricultural, industrial, and service-oriented types is missing. Why are the sums of LQs used in the way they are? Provide a clear rationale or cite relevant literature that supports this classification method.

Mechanism Variables: The coupling degree calculations are centra to the analysis, but the explanation of this method is insufficient. The formula provided in the note to Table 2 is not enough. Explain conceptually what the coupling degree measures in this context. What does a high or low coupling degree mean in terms of, say, industria linkage between urban and rura areas? Provide more intuitive explanations. For example, when measuring "Technology Transfer" using the coupling degree between "centra city effective patents" and "county-leve effective patents," explain why this captures technology transfer. Does a high coupling degree necessarily mean transfer is occurring, or could it simply mean both areas are independently innovative? Consider alternatives or additions, such as data on technology licensing agreements or joint ventures between urban and rura entities.

3. Data Sources and Limitations: While the sources are listed, the limitations of these data sources need to be explicitly acknowledged. Are there potentia biases in the data? Are there any known issues with data quality or completeness, particularly at the county leve in China? The use of linear interpolation and moving averages to handle missing data is mentioned, but the potentia impact of this on the results should be discussed. What percentage of data was imputed? This could significantly affect the findings.

4. fsQCA Methodology: The application of fsQCA needs a more detailed explanation and justification.

Calibration: The rationale for the 75%, 50%, and 25% thresholds for calibration is not provided. While these are common thresholds, the specific context of this study might warrant different choices. Explain why these thresholds are appropriate for this dataset and these variables. Discuss the sensitivity of the results to different calibration choices.

Limited Diversity: The authors acknowledge the issue of limited diversity. While they set the number of antecedent conditions to four, a more thorough discussion of how this choice mitigates the problem is needed. Have they explored alternative configurations with fewer conditions?

Intermediate and Reductive Solutions: The paper states that both intermediate and reductive solutions are considered, but the presentation of results (Table 5) does not clearly distinguish between them. It would be helpfu to present both solutions separately and discuss any differences. This would enhance transparency and allow readers to assess the robustness of the findings.

5. Interpretation of Results: The interpretation of the fsQCA results could be more nuanced.

Causality: While fsQCA can identify configurations associated with an outcome, it does not establish causality. The language used should reflect this limitation. Avoid terms like "driving paths" and instead use language that suggests association or contribution.

Coverage: The overal coverage values (0.78 and 0.72) are relatively high, but the unique coverage values for some pathways are quite low (e.g., 0.03 for P1b). This suggests that some pathways are only relevant to a smal subset of cases. Discuss the implications of this. What characterizes the cases covered by these low-coverage pathways?

"Non-High-Level" Integration: The analysis of "non-high-level" integration is less developed than the analysis of "high-level" integration. The finding that "~industria linkage" is a necessary condition for low-leve integration is interesting but needs more in-depth discussion. What are the policy implications of this finding?

6. Tempora Analysis: The tempora analysis (Figure 2) is a valuable addition, but the discussion of the trends is somewhat superficial. For example, the statement that "technology transfer has rapidly improved" is not sufficiently supported by the figure. Provide a more quantitative description of the trends (e.g., percentage change over time). Also, relate these trends to specific policy changes or events in China that might explain the observed patterns.

7. Relating back to the Literature The conclusion needs to tie back more to the literature. I recommend incorporating Wang, S., & Zhang, H. (2024a) as this focuses on green aspects that can bring a new direction for future research. For example, “The findings regarding the importance of technology transfer align with broader research on the role of inter-organizationa cooperation in promoting innovation, as highlighted by Wang and Zhang (2024a) in their study of digita green supply chains. This suggests that fostering collaborations between urban and rura enterprises, particularly in the sharing of technologica knowledge, is crucia for urban-rura integration.” Wang, S., & Zhang, H. (2024a). Inter-organizationa cooperation in digita green supply chains: A catalyst for eco-innovations and sustainable business practices. Journa of Cleaner Production, 472, 143383.

8. Adding ESG Factors: It might add more to the research to incorporate an ESG dimension; I suggest incorporating Wang, S., & Zhang, H. (2024b). For example,“Future research could explore the role of generative artificia intelligence (GAI) in enhancing ESG performance within the context of urban-rura integration, drawing on insights from Wang and Zhang (2024b) regarding the application of GAI in digita supply chains. This could provide a more holistic understanding of the sustainability implications of industria clusters.” Wang, S., & Zhang, H. (2024b). Promoting sustainable development goals through generative artificia intelligence in the digita supply chain: Insights from Chinese tourism SMEs. Sustainable Development.

9. Discussing Green Entrepreneurship The study needs to consider how GAI can be used. I suggest adding a point to the paper's future work section. Wang, S., & Zhang, H. (2024c). For example, “Further investigations could examine how the adoption of generative artificia intelligence (GAI) can enhance green knowledge management and innovation within county-leve industria clusters, as suggested by Wang and Zhang (2024c), potentially leading to more sustainable and resilient urban-rura development.” Wang, S., & Zhang, H. (2024c). Green entrepreneurship success in the age of generative artificia intelligence: The interplay of technology adoption, knowledge management, and government support. Technology in Society, 79, 102744.

10. English Language and Style: While the manuscript is generally understandable, there are numerous instances of awkward phrasing and grammatica errors. A thorough proofreading by a native English speaker is strongly recommended. The writing style is also somewhat repetitive and could be made more concise.

11. Policy recommendations: Based on your findings, offer specific, actionable policy recommendations for promoting urban-rura integration through county-leve industria clusters. These recommendations should be grounded in your results and consider the different types of clusters identified.

By addressing these points, the authors can significantly improve the rigor, clarity, and contribution of their manuscript, making it suitable for publication in PLOS ONE.

Reviewer #2: After I analyzed and reviewed your manuscript I think it could be a good addition for the Journal's readership.

However, please address the following:

1.The paper should be structured as:

Introduction

Literature review

Methodology

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

2.The literature review is somewhat thin. Please provide a more detailed review relevant to your research topic, and clearly indicate the shortcomings of existing studies.

3.The theoretical foundation states that county - level industrial clusters promote urban - rural integration through four paths: "industry linkage, technology transfer, employment coordination, and service balance." However, it fails to specify the research gaps. What did prior studies overlook? How does the current study build on or diverge from earlier research? Identifying these gaps strengthens the theoretical basis.

4.The result variables borrow primary indicators from China's urban development index system and design secondary indicators for urban - rural integration. The validity of using these to measure county - level urban - rural integration is questionable. Clarify the connection between urban - rural integration indicators and China's urban development index system.

5.Explain the basis for setting the calibration points at 75%, 50%, and 25%.

6.Check whether the sentence: "This indicates that the low level of 'industrial linkage' is a necessary condition for low - level green development, meaning that insufficient industrial linkage is a key constraint in regions with low urban - rural integration development." has any issues, especially the appropriateness of "low - level green development" in this context.

7.The path analysis in Section 4 should be deepened with sample case integration. Add explanations of sample case distribution and provide representative real - world examples for each path.

8.Elaborate on the research methods in stages for better replicability. Include a discussion section to introduce the latest references, compare them with your study or others in the field, and offer guidance and ideas for future research. Introduce the research questions if applicable.

9.The conclusion should include an analysis of the study's limitations and prospects for future research.

**********

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

**********

[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-25-05885R1How Can County-Level Industrial Clusters in China Promote Urban-Rural Integration? — A Study on the Configuration Effects Based on fsQCAPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Liang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. In view of the referees’ feedback and my own reading of your paper, we invite you to address all issues noted below, most of which are relatively minor in nature, but nonetheless essential. In particular, reviewers ask for some clarifications on the methodology and the abstract to remark the contribution of this manuscript to the literature on this topic.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 08 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,

Juan E. Trinidad-Segovia, PhD

Section 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.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: After a thorough review of the revised manuscript, I am satisfied that the authors have effectively addressed all the feedback provided.

In addition, considering that most readers are not native English speakers, it is recommended that language polishing will be more conducive to the dissemination of the study.

Reviewer #3: The Abstract needs to revised, there are some grammar errors.

In the Methodology, there is no modeling equations, how is the proposed model applied is not clear, and importantly, some improvement should be presented.

Minor issue, urban-rural integration should be consistent through the manuscript, but in the title of Figure 1, rural-urban integration is backward;

The language through the manuscript needs to be polished before being accepted.

**********

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 #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

How Can County-Level Industrial Clusters in China Promote Urban-Rural Integration? — A Study on the Configuration Effects Based on fsQCA

PONE-D-25-05885R2

Dear Dr. Liang,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Juan E. Trinidad-Segovia, PhD

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: