Dear Dr. Ai,

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 Oct 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 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,

RAMYA KUNDAYI RAVI

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. 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.

3. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

4. We are unable to open your Supporting Information file [data1.dta, data2.dta, do.do]. Please kindly revise as necessary and re-upload.

5. 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.

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. 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: The manuscript is strong, addressing a highly relevant topic with a robust methodology and thorough analyses; the three-level digital divide concept is particularly valuable. However, few areas need revision for clarity.

In the introduction, the manuscript defines its sample as "rural residents" but heavily emphasizes "farmers”. If "rural residents" is the broader focus, the introduction needs to acknowledge the diversity within this group and include literature review about the remaining group of the population.

Within the methods section, an explicit statement detailing the ethical approval for the original CFPS data collection and how participant consent was obtained must be included, even for secondary data use.

Also in the methods, since new composite variables (e.g., mental health, digital use, digital utility) were created using PCA, psychometric evidence for these in the sample must be provided.

Regarding variable detailing in the methods, when explaining variables in the text, it is not necessary to list every single item if the full details are already provided in a table. A concise explanation with a few key examples is sufficient in the paragraph.

Finally, the paper lacks a dedicated "Discussion" section. A standalone discussion is essential for synthesizing findings, comparing them with existing literature, and exploring theoretical and policy implications in depth.

Reviewer #2: Strengths

Clear title and abstract reflecting the scope of the research.

Well-structured introduction with a detailed background and clear hypotheses.

Use of a large, nationally representative dataset, enhancing the generalizability of findings.

Robust statistical analysis including fixed effects, robustness checks, IV estimation, and heterogeneity analyses.

Areas for Improvement

Methodological transparency

Provide more detail on the PCA used to derive the mental health, digital use, and digital utility indices, including loadings, explained variance, and reliability tests.

Clarify handling of missing data and whether sample weights were applied.

Instrumental variable justification

The chosen IV (mean digital divide of the same-age villagers) requires a stronger theoretical and empirical justification, including more detailed diagnostics for strength and validity.

Ethics statement

The ethics section currently states “N/A,” which is not acceptable. Explicitly describe the IRB approvals from CFPS, informed consent procedures, and compliance with data-use agreements.

Results clarity

Include 95% confidence intervals and standardized coefficients to allow better interpretation of effect sizes.

Summarize key findings more concisely in the text to complement complex tables.

Tables and figures

Clean up formatting issues, especially in Table 1 where items are duplicated. Ensure Figure 1 is clear and labeled.

Language and style

Edit for grammar and clarity. For example, “55st statistical report” should be “55th statistical report.”

Discussion and conclusions

Expand on practical implications of the findings and discuss reverse causality more critically.

Offer more actionable policy recommendations tailored to different demographic groups.

**********

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: Tirtjaraj Acharya

**********

[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.

The Impact of the Three-Level Digital Divide on the Mental Health of Rural Residents: A Study from China

PONE-D-25-20224R1

Dear Dr.

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,

RAMYA KUNDAYI RAVI

Academic Editor

PLOS One