PONE-D-25-31895Research on the Spatiotemporal Coupling and Coordinated Development of Rural Tourism and Rural Revitalization: A Case Study of Jiangsu ProvincePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ding,

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.

==============================

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful review, we are pleased to invite you to revise and resubmit your manuscript. The reviewers have provided helpful feedback, and with revisions, your work has the potential to meet the journal's standards for publication.

We look forward to receiving your revised submission. Thank you for considering PLOS ONE.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 06 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,

Chunguang Hu

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 Figures 3-4 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 3-4 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

3. We notice that your supplementary figures are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

4. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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 presents a comprehensive study on the spatiotemporal coupling and coordinated development of rural tourism and rural revitalization in Jiangsu Province, using panel data from 2012 to 2023. The methods are rigorous, and the results are supported by solid data. The presentation is clear. The manuscript is recommended for publication in PLOS ONE. Some minor revisions are suggested below.

1. Is there any correlation between driving factors?

2. Will different models produce the same results?

3. How is “rural tourism resource density” defined?

4. The authors give differentiated policy recommendations: northern Jiangsu should focus

on talent attraction and the integration of culture and tourism, while southern Jiangsu should explore mechanisms to facilitate the two-way flow of urban-rural elements. The problem is how could northern Jiangsu attract more talents?

5. Besides data, some surveys, which may reflect some hidden reasons, are highly suggested.

6. There are some typos in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: Overall comments:

The manuscript explores the spatiotemporal coupling and coordinated development of rural tourism and rural revitalization in Jiangsu Province, utilizing a combination of entropy-based weighting, coupling coordination degree models, and geographical detectors. This is a timely and policy-relevant topic that adds value to the academic discourse surrounding rural transformation and tourism development, particularly in the context of developed regions in China. The topic is relevant and potentially significant in understanding regional development dynamics, especially in the context of developed regions undergoing rural transformation. The manuscript demonstrates a strong empirical foundation and introduces a critical reflection on classical theories such as resource dependence and industrial integration.

However, several aspects of the manuscript require substantial revision before it can be considered for publication.

1. Title and Abstract

• What Needs Improvement:

The title is overly long and could be more concise without losing clarity. The abstract is informative but densely packed with technical detail (e.g., p-values, q-values) that may not be suitable for a general audience.

• Recommendation:

Simplify the title while retaining key terms. Revise the abstract to follow a clearer structure (objective, methods, key results, implications), avoid excessive statistics, and highlight the study’s unique contribution.

2. Introduction

• Strength:

The introduction provides a relevant overview of urbanization and the need for rural revitalization in China.

• What Needs Improvement:

Some of the opening statements are too generic. The research gap is not clearly articulated until later in the section.

• Recommendation:

Clarify the problem statement and theoretical gaps earlier in the introduction. Frame the study’s objective more precisely to distinguish it from past research.

3. Literature Review

• Strength:

The review covers both domestic and international studies and discusses relevant theoretical perspectives.

• What Needs Improvement:

The section is overly descriptive and reads more like an annotated bibliography than a synthesis.

• Recommendation:

Reorganize this section thematically. Focus more on identifying what is not known rather than summarizing what is already established. Include a conceptual framework to clearly justify the study design.

4. Methodology

• Strength:

The methods employed (entropy method, coupling coordination degree model, and geographical detector) are appropriate and robust.

• What Needs Improvement:

The methodological section is lengthy, technical, and lacks interpretive clarity. There is no sensitivity analysis or explanation of why specific indicators were chosen over others.

• Recommendation:

Condense and clarify the methodological descriptions. Justify the choice of indicators and models with supporting literature. Consider adding robustness checks or model validation.

5. Results and Discussion

• Strength:

The results are comprehensive and presented with supporting figures and tables.

• What Needs Improvement:

The discussion is largely descriptive and does not critically engage with previous literature or explore the implications of the findings in depth.

• Recommendation:

Enhance the analytical depth of the discussion by comparing results with past studies. Avoid overuse of numerical data in text and focus more on interpretation and significance.

6. Conclusions and Policy Implications

• Strength:

The conclusions present relevant recommendations for regional development and tourism policy.

• What Needs Improvement:

The theoretical claims (e.g., revision of resource dependence theory) are ambitious and need stronger empirical validation.

• Recommendation:

Temper broad theoretical assertions unless backed by comparative evidence. Emphasize practical contributions and highlight potential applications beyond Jiangsu Province.

7. Data and Reproducibility

• What Needs Improvement:

Not all data are openly available; some are obtained through government correspondence, limiting reproducibility.

• Recommendation:

Clearly specify which data are publicly available and which are not. If possible, provide anonymized datasets or aggregated indicators for reproducibility.

8. Limitations and Future Research

• Strength:

The authors acknowledge several important limitations.

• What Needs Improvement:

Some limitations, such as the selection bias in indicators and restricted data scope, could be further elaborated.

• Recommendation:

Strengthen this section by discussing how future comparative or longitudinal studies (e.g., using county-level data or other provinces) could improve the generalizability of findings.

Reviewer #3: This study uses the entropy method, coupling coordination degree model, and geographical detector to elucidate the nonlinear dynamics and driving factors of their spatio-temporal evolution in Jiangsu province in China from 2012 to 2023.

1. The abstract should be reorganized. The contents of main findings should be reduced, and those of methodologies and research contents in this manuscript should be supplemented.

2. In Line 27 ‘.037 and .156.’, it should add zero before decimal point.

3. The international background of the study should be provided in Section Introduction.

4. The importance of the study should be mentioned in Section Introduction.

5. The research gap should be identified to show the novelty of this study. Section 2.4 cannot show the research gap in current research progress, the novelty of this study and contribution to the theories.

6. Why the indicators are selected in Section 3.2 and Table 1? There is no explanation. The evidence or citations should be provided.

7. Section 3.3 is too simple. The data collection progress, data cleaning and preprocess are missing. Which indicator is from Jiangsu Statistical Yearbook, and which is from Jiangsu Tourism Yearbook, statistical yearbooks of local cities, or relevant government websites? Where individual indicator data were unavailable, historical statistical materials and reports were used to infer the values. How to infer the unavailable data? This section cannot show the reliability of the data, which may affect the results.

8. The standard for the classification of coupling degree C and coupling coordination degree D should be cited.

9. Why the indicators are selected in Table 3? The reasons and explanations should be provided. The data source of these variables should be given.

10. The analysis of Section 6.2 should be discussed in more depth combined with policies and development level of the variables.

11. The clarity of all figures should be improved.

12. There are some Chinese parentheses in this manuscript. Please have a check.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  MICHAEL CHRISTIAN

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.

<p>Spatiotemporal Coupling and Coordinated Development of Rural Revitalization and Rural Tourism in Jiangsu

PONE-D-25-31895R1

Dear Dr. Ding,

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,

Chunguang Hu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewer #2:

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 #2: 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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: The authors have undertaken substantial revisions that significantly strengthen the manuscript. The abstract is now clearer and less technical, the introduction frames the research gap earlier and in a global context, the literature review is thematically reorganized with a conceptual framework, and methodological rigor has been enhanced through indicator justification and robustness checks. The discussion engages more critically with prior studies, theoretical claims have been moderated, and limitations are more thoroughly acknowledged with constructive directions for future research. Minor improvements are still possible in condensing descriptive literature review passages, simplifying figures, and more explicitly emphasizing the novelty of theoretical contributions, but these do not detract from the overall quality.

**********

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 #2: Yes:  MICHAEL CHRISTIAN

**********