Does local government tax competition promote industrial transformation and upgrading?

Yuxin Meng; Xiaodong Yang; Chunji Zheng

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0335886

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 27, 2025
21 Jul 2025 Decision Letter - Mingjun Hu, Editor PONE-D-25-34958-->-->Does local government tax competition promote industrial transformation and upgrading?-->-->PLOS ONE?> Dear Dr. Zheng, 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 Sep 04 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. 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, Mingjun 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 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. 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. 4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 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. 6. 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: Dear Dr. Zheng, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. We have now received and reviewed the reports from two expert reviewers. After carefully considering their comments and the content of your manuscript, we would like to invite you to revise and resubmit your paper. Both reviewers acknowledge the potential academic value of your work, particularly in addressing the nonlinear impact and transmission mechanism of industrial transformation under the framework of local tax competition, as well as the moderating role of technological innovation. However, they also raised several substantive concerns that must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered further. The main issues identified include: 1.The manuscript requires substantial language polishing and refinement to improve clarity and avoid redundancy. 2.The literature review should be more concise and focused. 3.Greater consistency is needed in the theoretical logic, particularly in the discussion of direct taxation and tax competition. 4.The description and calculation of control variables should be supported by appropriate references. 5.The interpretation of regression results could be clearer, especially regarding the magnitude and meaning of coefficients. 6.It is recommended that English references be used wherever possible. 7.Some figure elements (e.g., variable definitions in Figure 3) should be better explained, ideally in footnotes. In light of the above, we are inviting a major revision of your manuscript. We encourage you to carefully address all reviewer comments in your revision and provide a detailed response explaining how each point has been handled. We appreciate your contribution to the journal and look forward to receiving your revised submission. Best regards, Mingjun Hu Academic Editor PLOS ONE [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? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** Reviewer #1: This article systematically explains the nonlinear impact and transmission mechanism of industrial transformation and upgrading from the perspective of local tax competition, and tests the regulatory effect of technological innovation between the two, which has very important research value and significance for promoting high-quality economic development. However, it is undeniable that the thesis still has room for improvement, and there are some flaws and deficiencies that need to be further supplemented and improved: 1.The second paragraph of Section 3.2 describes the negative impact on industrial transformation and upgrading when the intensity of local government tax competition exceeds a reasonable threshold. Local governments should further reduce the proportion of direct taxes when the intensity of tax competition exceeds a reasonable threshold. However, the sentence "however, the move by local governments to increase the proportion of direct taxes has directly squeezed corporate profit margins, weakening their ability to invest in research and development, equipment upgrades, and technical innovation." in the fifth line of this paragraph indicates that local governments should increase the proportion of direct taxes, which is contrary to the previous view. 2.Grammar needs further polishing. 3.It is also suggested that the calculation of control variables should also include references to relevant literature. 4.In the "Benchmark regression results", for the linear part, if the level of local government tax competition increases by 1 unit, how many more units will industrial transformation and upgrading increase? 5.It is recommended to use English references instead of Chinese references. 6.It is suggested that the explanations for "lnno", "Low lnno" and "High lnno" in Figure 3 be placed in the footnotes. Reviewer #2: 1. The text in the article could be further refined. 2. The language could be further refined. 3. It is recommended that all references be in English. 4. References can also be included in the description of controlled variables. 5. The literature review could be more concise. 6. There are several repetitive expressions in the writing of the article. It is suggested that the author further simplify the language. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335886.r001
Revision 1
11 Sep 2025 Author Response Reviewers1: Comments This article systematically explains the nonlinear impact and transmission mechanism of industrial transformation and upgrading from the perspective of local tax competition, and tests the regulatory effect of technological innovation between the two, which has very important research value and significance for promoting high-quality economic development. However, it is undeniable that the thesis still has room for improvement, and there are some flaws and deficiencies that need to be further supplemented and improved: (1) The second paragraph of Section 3.2 describes the negative impact on industrial transformation and upgrading when the intensity of local government tax competition exceeds a reasonable threshold. Local governments should further reduce the proportion of direct taxes when the intensity of tax competition exceeds a reasonable threshold. However, the sentence "however, the move by local governments to increase the proportion of direct taxes has directly squeezed corporate profit margins, weakening their ability to invest in research and development, equipment upgrades, and technical innovation." in the fifth line of this paragraph indicates that local governments should increase the proportion of direct taxes, which is contrary to the previous view. R: We are most grateful for the reviewer's valuable comments. We fully acknowledge the importance of theoretical consistency for the rigour of the paper. To this end, we have refined the section on the mechanisms of direct taxation and tax competition, significantly enhancing the theoretical coherence of the relevant discussion. (p.6-p.8) (2) Grammar needs further polishing. R: We are most grateful for the reviewer's valuable comments. We fully acknowledge that the manuscript requires refinement in its linguistic expression. To this end, we have engaged a native English-speaking professional peer to conduct a systematic linguistic polish of the entire text. We have systematically reviewed each paragraph to identify and eliminate redundant content, thereby ensuring compliance with the linguistic standards of academic journals. (3) It is also suggested that the calculation of control variables should also include references to relevant literature. R: We are most grateful for the reviewer's valuable comments. We fully appreciate that in academic research, providing references for the description and computational methods of control variables enhances the rigour and reproducibility of the study, while also demonstrating the scholarly rationale for methodological choices. Accordingly, we have supplemented each control variable mentioned in the text with the relevant references. (p.13-p.14) (4) In the "Benchmark regression results", for the linear part, if the level of local government tax competition increases by 1 unit, how many more units will industrial transformation and upgrading increase?. R: We are most grateful for the reviewer's valuable comments. We fully concur that the clarity of regression result interpretations is crucial for enhancing the readability of research. To this end, we have supplemented the regression coefficients for the core explanatory variables with specific quantitative interpretations, particularly regarding the magnitude and meaning of the coefficients. (p.15) (5) It is recommended to use English references instead of Chinese references. R: We are most grateful for the reviewer's valuable suggestions. We fully concur that prioritizing English-language references in international academic publications constitutes a crucial principle for enhancing research traceability and ensuring accessibility for an international readership. This recommendation is accorded the utmost importance. The primary reason for retaining this non-English reference in our study lies in the unique comprehensiveness of its proposed methodology for measuring industrial transformation and upgrading. This approach serves as an indispensable cornerstone supporting our research's computational logic, rendering it irreplaceable. To adequately balance the necessity of the citation with the readability requirements of an international journal, we have provided a detailed explanation of the specific measurement methodology for industrial transformation and upgrading from the non-English source within the original text. This ensures international readers can accurately grasp its core concepts and role within this study. (p.12) (6)It is suggested that the explanations for "lnno", "Low lnno" and "High lnno" in Figure 3 be placed in the footnotes. R: We are most grateful for the reviewer's valuable comments. We fully appreciate the importance of clear explanations for chart elements in enhancing data readability, and acknowledge that certain figures in the original manuscript (such as Figure 3) lacked sufficient detail in their explanations regarding variable definitions, which may have hindered readers' accurate understanding of the results. Accordingly, we have added detailed explanations for all variables featured in Figure 3 within the caption text, ensuring their conceptual clarity. (p.23) Reviewers2: (1) The text in the article could be further refined. R: We are most grateful for the reviewer's valuable comments. We fully acknowledge that the manuscript requires refinement in its Verbal expression. To this end, we have engaged a native English-speaking professional peer to conduct a systematic linguistic polish of the entire text. We have systematically reviewed each paragraph to identify and eliminate redundant content, thereby ensuring compliance with the linguistic standards of academic journals. (2) The language could be further refined. R: We are most grateful for the reviewer's valuable suggestions. We have streamlined and refocused the language throughout the text to more clearly underpin the research value of this study. (p.4-p.6) (3) It is recommended that all references be in English. R: We are most grateful for the reviewer's valuable suggestions. The primary reason for retaining this non-English reference in our study lies in the unique comprehensiveness of its proposed methodology for measuring industrial transformation and upgrading. This approach serves as an indispensable cornerstone supporting our research's computational logic, rendering it irreplaceable. To adequately balance the necessity of the citation with the readability requirements of an international journal, we have provided a detailed explanation of the specific measurement methodology for industrial transformation and upgrading from the non-English source within the original text. (p.12) (4) References can also be included in the description of controlled variables. R: We are most grateful for the reviewer's valuable comments. We fully appreciate that in academic research, providing references for the description and computational methods of control variables enhances the rigour and reproducibility of the study, while also demonstrating the scholarly rationale for methodological choices. Accordingly, we have supplemented each control variable mentioned in the text with the relevant references. (p.13-p.14) (5) The literature review should be more concise and focused. R: We are most grateful for the reviewer's valuable suggestions. We fully appreciate the importance of conciseness and focus in the literature review for enhancing the logical coherence of the paper. Accordingly, we have streamlined and refocused this section to more clearly underpin the research value of this study. (p.4-p.6) 6) There are several repetitive expressions in the writing of the article. It is suggested that the author further simplify the language. R: We are most grateful for the reviewer's valuable comments. We have reviewed the entire text, removed redundant expressions, and further simplified the language. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335886.r002
20 Oct 2025 Decision Letter - Mingjun Hu, Editor Does local government tax competition promote industrial transformation and upgrading? PONE-D-25-34958R1 Dear Dr. Zheng, 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, Mingjun Hu Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments : Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: The authors responded well to the revision suggestions and the revised manuscript has been improved. I agree to publish the 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335886.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Mingjun Hu, Editor PONE-D-25-34958R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Zheng, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Mingjun Hu Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335886.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .