Dear Dr. Du,

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.

On the basis of reviewers' comments and my own reading, I have decided to give you the possibility to submit a revised version of the manuscript. Please go carefully through the suggestions coming from reviewers and submit an improved version of the manuscript. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 19 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• 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,

Massimo Finocchiaro Castro, PhD

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 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.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This research was funded by The Major Project of the National Social Science Foundation of China, "Research on Accelerating the Formation of Production Relations More Compatible with New Quality Productive Forces" (24ZDA021), and the Research on Biodiversity Security Monitoring and Early Warning in China under the Background of High-level Opening Up to the Outside World (22&ZD088).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting with or without limitations.

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. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

7. 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. 

[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: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: General Evaluation

1. Originality and Significance

• Strengths: The paper addresses a timely and relevant issue in the context of global governance, with a focus on digital governance's impact on political stability, mediated by anti-corruption efforts. It is significant because it provides empirical evidence using panel data from 112 countries between 2014 and 2023, which is a comprehensive dataset for this kind of analysis. The combination of digital governance, anti-corruption, and political stability is a well-rounded approach to understanding governance mechanisms on a global scale.

• Suggestions: While the study is innovative, it would benefit from a clearer distinction in how the digital governance strategies might differ in their impact across regions. The paper could explore more specific mechanisms or case studies that showcase regional variations or unique challenges to digital governance, beyond just the economic levels.

2. Methodology

• Strengths: The use of econometric models, such as the individual fixed effects model and the stepwise regression method for testing the mediation effects, is well-suited to address the research questions. The robustness checks and heterogeneity analysis (by income group) add strength to the empirical approach.

• Suggestions:

o The methodology section could provide a bit more detail regarding the assumptions of the models. For instance, while the paper mentions that logarithmic transformations were applied to some variables to address heteroscedasticity, further clarification on how this was addressed specifically in the models and why this method was chosen would be beneficial.

o The Sobel and Bootstrap tests for robustness are appropriate; however, it might be helpful to include a discussion of potential limitations or biases inherent in the data, such as the quality of governance data or discrepancies in the political stability index used.

3. Clarity and Structure

• Strengths: The paper is well-organized and the flow of information is logical. Sections like the introduction, literature review, and methodology clearly explain the theoretical foundation, research design, and data. The paper adheres to the general structure expected for academic papers in political science and economics.

• Suggestions: There are some minor language issues that need to be addressed for clarity. For example, terms like "political stability" could be explained further in the introduction for non-specialist readers, as well as more concrete examples of "digital governance" and "anti-corruption efforts" from real-world cases.

4. Data and Results

• Strengths: The results section is well-detailed, with multiple regressions and robustness tests supporting the hypotheses. The analysis of heterogeneity across different income levels is an important contribution, highlighting the differential impacts of digital governance across countries at different stages of economic development.

• Suggestions:

o The results could benefit from additional discussion on the limitations of the political stability index used. Although WGI is a widely accepted source, the potential biases in these data should be acknowledged.

o The study could also consider including additional variables, such as regional effects or a deeper analysis of corruption types, to give a more nuanced understanding of how digital governance interacts with political stability.

5. Conclusions and Policy Implications

• Strengths: The conclusions are relevant, offering clear policy recommendations based on the findings. These include establishing multilateral cooperation mechanisms for digital governance, combatting transnational corruption, and creating a global policy evaluation system, all of which are practical and actionable.

• Suggestions: The policy recommendations could be expanded to include more detailed actionable steps for specific countries or regions. For instance, low-income countries might need more tailored recommendations on digital governance capacity-building, considering their limited technological infrastructure.

Overall Assessment

• Strengths: The study is a valuable contribution to understanding the role of digital governance in enhancing political stability through anti-corruption efforts. The use of cross-national panel data makes the findings robust and globally applicable. The policy recommendations are practical and timely.

• Suggestions for Improvement:

o Expand on how digital governance might operate differently across various regions, particularly for countries at different income levels.

o Provide more detailed discussion on data limitations, particularly regarding the political stability index.

o The methodology could benefit from more transparency regarding model assumptions and choices.

The manuscript is generally well-written but could benefit from minor revisions for clarity, grammar, and sentence structure. It would be helpful to simplify some of the more complex sentences and correct any typographical errors to ensure the manuscript is fully intelligible.

The manuscript is generally well-written but could benefit from minor revisions for clarity, grammar, and sentence structure. It would be helpful to simplify some of the more complex sentences and correct any typographical errors to ensure the manuscript is fully intelligible.

Recommendation: Accept with revisions

The paper makes an important contribution to the literature and provides significant empirical insights. Major revisions, particularly in the clarity of methodology and the robustness of the data sources, would further strengthen the paper.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well-written and excellently articulated. The data is gathered in a good manner and then displayed as per standards. I think the work of the author is fully genuine and contributed to the field of knowledge. Only one suggestion; the author should clearly refer to methodology and findings in the abstract section.

**********

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:  Khurshaid

**********

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. 

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review.pdf

<p>Digital governance, anti-corruption and political stability: an empirical study using cross-national panel data

PONE-D-25-35315R1

Dear Dr. Du,

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,

Massimo Finocchiaro Castro, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Reviewer Letter Manuscript Title: Digital governance, anti-corruption and political stability: an empirical study using cross-national panel data

Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised version of this manuscript. I have carefully examined the authors’ response letter and the revised manuscript. Below, I provide an expanded, analytic evaluation assessing whether the authors have sufficiently addressed the concerns raised in the prior review round.

1. Originality, Significance, and Theoretical Framing

The revised manuscript demonstrates meaningful progress in addressing concerns regarding regional differentiation and the contextual mechanisms through which digital governance influences political stability. The addition of a two-dimensional stratification approach—based on UN regional groupings and digital governance levels—introduces a more nuanced analytical frame. The authors also provide a clearer theoretical justification for why digital governance may yield heterogeneous political outcomes depending on institutional maturity, bureaucratic capacity, and regional norms. These revisions significantly enhance the conceptual robustness of the study.

2. Methodology, Model Assumptions, and Analytical Transparency

The authors have strengthened the methodological rigor by clarifying model assumptions, addressing heteroscedasticity, and explaining the use of logarithmic transformations. The explicit justification for cluster-robust standard errors and the improved transparency in the description of the mediation analysis (including the Sobel and Bootstrap procedures) address previous concerns effectively. The analytical sequence is now well-articulated, offering a replicable and logically coherent empirical strategy.

3. Clarity of Key Concepts and Use of Illustrative Examples

The revised manuscript incorporates precise definitions of political stability, digital governance, and anti-corruption grounded in authoritative literature. The incorporation of concrete country examples—such as Uruguay, Singapore, and Russia—provides real-world grounding that enhances clarity and broadens the manuscript’s accessibility to readers not specialized in governance studies. This improves the pedagogical quality of the manuscript and strengthens its fit for a multidisciplinary journal such as PLOS ONE.

4. Data Quality, Measurement Limitations, and Scope of Variables

A major improvement in the revised version is the explicit acknowledgment of measurement limitations associated with the WGI political stability index and other governance indicators. The authors discuss potential biases, elite-driven valuation effects, and conceptual risks inherent in governance metrics. Their justification for not expanding the model to include corruption typologies or region-specific fixed effects is well-reasoned, based on the macro-comparative objective of the study. This addition demonstrates an appropriate degree of methodological humility and transparency.

5. Interpretation of Results and Depth of Policy Implications

The revised manuscript now offers a more detailed, stratified interpretation of empirical results across different income groups and digital governance environments. The policy section is substantially strengthened, providing differentiated recommendations tailored to the institutional and technological maturity of various country categories. These refinements improve the paper’s practical relevance and align the policy analysis more closely with the empirical findings.

6. Language Quality, Structure, and Overall Presentation

The authors have made noticeable improvements in language clarity, structural coherence, and conceptual flow. While minor editorial refinements may still be beneficial at the copyediting stage, the manuscript now reads clearly and professionally.

Overall Recommendation

The authors have fully addressed the major concerns raised in the previous review. The manuscript is now methodologically robust, conceptually clearer, and substantively more informative. I recommend acceptance with only minor editorial polishing.

**********

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

**********

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer_Letter_2.docx