PONE-D-25-16487Characteristics of spatio-temporal evolution and convergence analysis of e-commerce development in ChinaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

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 11 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,

Vanessa Carels

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [his research was Funded by 2025 Hebei Province Higher Education Teaching Reform Research and Practice Project(Project Name:Research on the Innovation of the 'Learning-Practice-Competition-Reflection-Application-Innovation' Talent Cultivation Model for Cross-Border E-Commerce Undergraduate Programs)(2025GJJG396); This research was Funded by Science Research Project of Hebei Education Department (BJS2024097); This research was Supported by Ministry of Education,Industry-University Cooperation Collaborative Education Project (230825052507181).]. 

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.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: [This research was Funded by 2025 Hebei Province Higher Education Teaching Reform Research and Practice Project(Project Name:Research on the Innovation of the  ’Learning-Practice-Competition-Reflection-Application-Innovation’ Talent Cultivation Model for Cross-Border E-Commerce Undergraduate Programs)(2025GJJG396); This research was Funded by Sciece Research Project of Hebei Education Department (BJS2024097); This research was Supported by Ministry of Education,Industry-University Cooperation Collaborative Education Project (230825052507181).]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: [his research was Funded by 2025 Hebei Province Higher Education Teaching Reform Research and Practice Project(Project Name:Research on the Innovation of the 'Learning-Practice-Competition-Reflection-Application-Innovation' Talent Cultivation Model for Cross-Border E-Commerce Undergraduate Programs)(2025GJJG396); This research was Funded by Science Research Project of Hebei Education Department (BJS2024097); This research was Supported by Ministry of Education,Industry-University Cooperation Collaborative Education Project (230825052507181).]. 

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

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: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

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: Comments and Suggestions about the Article

1. Consider the title, "Spatio-Temporal Evolution and Convergence Patterns of E-Commerce Development in China: Regional Disparities and Policy Implications" to give more clarity of the purpose of the paper.

2. Abstract. Add a phrase such as “using panel data from [year–year]” or mention key data sources to give readers idea as early as in the abstract stage.

3. The paper’s title is generally clear and informative, accurately reflecting the key themes of spatio-temporal evolution and convergence in e-commerce development in China.

4. The study employs a robust and well-structured methodological approach that aligns effectively with its research objectives. The integration of spatial statistical methods, σ-convergence, β-convergence, and regression analysis demonstrates a rigorous analytical framework suitable for examining both spatial disparities and convergence trends in e-commerce development. While the methodology is rigorous, the paper could further benefit from a brief justification for the choice of each model, particularly for readers unfamiliar with spatial econometrics.

Overall, the paper is in order and a good addition to PLOS journals.

Reviewer #2: This paper offers a thorough and solid analysis of the convergence and spatiotemporal evolution of China's e-commerce boom. The authors use a well-organized analytical framework that combines models of σ-convergence, β-convergence, spatial econometrics (such as the Spatial Durbin Model), and entropy weighting. Utilizing panel data that spans over ten years, the study provides insightful policy implications.

Advantages:

The approach is exacting and in line with the goals of the study. A strong empirical basis is provided by the combination of convergence analysis and spatial statistical techniques.

The subject is current and pertinent to policy, especially in light of China's continuing regional digital transformation. Actionable insights for encouraging balanced e-commerce growth are provided by the findings on regional inequalities and convergence tendencies.

The use of Moran's I and the Dagum Gini coefficient deepens the analysis, particularly when it comes to identifying intra- and inter-regional disparities.

Suggestions for Improvement:

Literature Review: While the study builds on prior work, the manuscript would benefit from more explicit comparisons with existing studies, particularly those using similar models or examining developing economies. Clarifying what this paper does differently would enhance its originality.

Data Limitations and Interpolation: The authors mention missing data and the use of interpolation. A more detailed explanation of the interpolation techniques used and any potential biases they may introduce would improve transparency and trust in the results.

Figures and Maps: Some of the LISA cluster maps and regional distribution figures are low-resolution and may be difficult to interpret in print or on smaller screens. Improving the resolution and adding clearer legends would help readers interpret these visuals more easily.

Language and Style: Although the manuscript is generally clear, it contains occasional grammatical and stylistic errors. A professional language edit is recommended to enhance readability, especially in the abstract and conclusion.

Reviewer #3: This study aims to investigate the spatial-temporal distribution characteristics of e-commerce in China and assessing its convergence trends across different regions. Overall, the manuscript is easy to follow. However, there are some important issues:

1. The motivation for such an exploration is not clear. Why is so critical to understand the spatial-temporal dynamics and the convergence trends?

2. The data cover 2000 to 2023, a three-year COVID period may have caused huge changes to China, which was not discussed.

3. The results are mainly descriptive based, which added very little new insight to existing knowledge. Consequently, meaningful and actionable practical suggestions would also be very limited.

Reviewer #4: This manuscript provides a timely and relevant empirical contribution by exploring the spatio-temporal dynamics and regional convergence of e-commerce development across China’s provinces from 2013 to 2023. The integration of entropy-based composite indices, spatial statistical tools (Global and Local Moran’s I), and convergence models (σ- and β-convergence) is sound and broadly rigorous. The authors also employ the Spatial Durbin Model to explore spatial heterogeneity, which is well-justified given the research context.

However, while the study is methodologically well-grounded, several areas require minor yet important clarifications and enhancements to improve transparency, reproducibility, and analytical depth:

Clarify the Spatial Weight Matrix

The authors employ spatial econometric models but do not specify the type of spatial weight matrix used (e.g., queen contiguity, k-nearest neighbors, inverse distance). This should be clarified and briefly justified, as different spatial matrices can lead to different inference structures in SDM models.

Detail the Conditional β-Convergence Variables

The section on conditional β-convergence omits a detailed specification of the control variables. The manuscript would benefit from a clear table listing these variables, their sources, and theoretical rationale for inclusion.

Expand Data Transparency

Although the authors declare that “all relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files,” a tabular summary of indicator definitions, years, and coverage (e.g., Table A1) would greatly improve transparency and data accessibility. Please consider adding this in a supplementary appendix.

Integrate the Maps Analytically

The local Moran’s I cluster maps (LISA) are visually informative but deserve more analytical integration. For example, regions identified as HH or LL clusters should be contextualized with explanatory factors (infrastructure, policy intensity, etc.), not merely described.

Include a Limitations Section

The manuscript would benefit from a concise section acknowledging its main limitations—particularly regarding data interpolation, potential endogeneity in the spatial models, and the sensitivity of the entropy-based weighting. Transparency in this regard will enhance the study’s credibility.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Leo D. Manansala, PhD., Vice Dean, College of Professional and Graduate Studies, De La Salle University- Dasmarinas, Dasmarinas City, Cavite, Philippines

Reviewer #2: Yes: Mohamed Shili

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.

Spatio-Temporal Evolution and Convergence Patterns of E-Commerce Development in China: Regional Disparities and Policy Implications

PONE-D-25-16487R1

Dear Dr. Wang,

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,

Tianlong You, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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

**********

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

**********

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 study is methodologically sound and addresses a meaningful research gap. The minor editorial revisions recommended were addressed to enhance clarity, precision, and impact—particularly in how findings and contributions are articulated in the abstract and of the entire manuscript.

Reviewer #2: please provide proofreading for grammatical and syntactical errors

My comments are addressed

In summarising my review, I must point out that the article requires thorough reconsideration and refinement both in terms of the literature it utilises and the practical examples it presents.

Reviewer #3: I’m satisfied with the authors’ revision, and have no further comments. Thus, I would like to recommend the paper be accepted.

Reviewer #4: The revised manuscript addresses all previously raised concerns in a satisfactory manner. The spatial weight matrix is now clearly specified and justified, control variables for conditional β-convergence are well explained, and data transparency has improved through detailed indicator tables. The integration of LISA results is more analytical, and the study's limitations are appropriately acknowledged. The language has also been refined. Overall, the manuscript is now technically sound, transparent, and ready for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Leo D. Manansala, PhD

Reviewer #2: Yes: Mohamed Shili

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********