-->PONE-D-25-66814-->-->Influencing Factors and Configuration Pathways of Fundraising Effectiveness in Charitable Foundations: An FSQCA Analysis of 54 Cases in China-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Zou,

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 Mar 25 2026 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 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,

Abel C. H. Chen

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 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

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. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently unable to open a direct link to access each database. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide these details on a very short timeline. We therefore suggest that you provide this information now, though we will not hold up the peer review process if you are unable.

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.

[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: 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 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

**********

-->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

**********

-->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: The manuscript applies fsQCA (54 cases) to identify configurations leading to high/low fundraising effectiveness (FE) in Chinese charitable foundations. It operationalizes antecedent conditions under a TOE (Technology–Organization–Environment) framing: Political Connections (PC), Government Resource Acquisition (GRA), Professional Management Level (PML), Brand Building Level (BBL), and Media Supervision (MS). The headline finding is that MS and BBL are “core” conditions for high FE, with two sufficient configurations: (1) BBLMSPC and (2) BBLMSPML.

The topic is relevant, and a configurational approach can be appropriate. However, the current paper has several publication-critical issues: (i) outcome and condition measurement validity (several constructs are mis-specified or conflated), (ii) calibration choices contain internal inconsistencies (notably GRA), (iii) truth-table design appears to collapse variation (MS is nearly constant), (iv) interpretation overstates necessity/sufficiency and “core” claims, and (v) sampling and reproducibility do not meet PLOS ONE standards. I recommend Major Revision.

Major Comments

1. Construct validity problems: several key variables do not measure what the manuscript claims

1.1 Fundraising Effectiveness (FE) is defined as “aggregate revenue generated through project activities and providing public goods/services” (Methods 3.2.2; Table 1). This is not clearly “fundraising effectiveness” as commonly understood. It mixes: fundraising income vs program/service revenues, scale vs efficiency, and possibly government/purchased services if booked as project income.

If the construct is “fundraising effectiveness,” the outcome should be operationalized as: total donations received; public fundraising revenue; online donation amount; or a ratio-based metric (e.g., fundraising revenue per staff, per project, or as share of total revenue). At minimum, you must clarify the accounting category used in annual reports (which line item), and justify why it maps to “fundraising effectiveness.”

1.2 “Brand Building Level (BBL)” is measured as the “number of public welfare and charitable projects undertaken this year.”

This is closer to program activity volume/scale than brand building. Using project count as “brand building” risks circularity: more projects can mechanically generate more “project revenue” if FE is tied to program activities. That can create an artificial configuration where “BBL” predicts “FE” because both reflect activity scale.

Suggested fix: either re-label BBL as “program activity intensity/portfolio breadth” and adjust theory, or construct a genuine brand proxy: brand mentions, media exposure metrics, third-party ratings, social media followers/engagement, donor retention, website traffic, or reputational awards.

1.3 “Media Supervision (MS)” is operationalized as a 2–4 score based on existence of website/WeChat/Weibo and information disclosure.

This is not media supervision; it is digital presence + disclosure practice, and it is largely an organizational capability rather than external supervision. The paper’s interpretation (MS as an external constraint) conflicts with its measurement (internal adoption).

Suggested fix: rename to “digital transparency infrastructure” (or “information disclosure capacity”), and if you truly want “media supervision,” measure negative/positive media coverage, scrutiny events, or exposure to investigative reporting.

2. Calibration is internally inconsistent; GRA thresholds appear invalid and will distort results

Table 3 sets GRA calibration as Fully in = 150, Intersection = 0, Fully out = 0. This is not a proper three-anchor calibration because the cross-over and full-out are identical (0). With many zeros in GRA (Table 2 min=0), this will force a large mass of cases to extreme membership and can create spurious necessity/sufficiency patterns.

Moreover, the text states anchors are set at 25/50/75 percentiles (Garcia-Castro & Francoeur 2016), but the GRA anchors do not look like 25/50/75 percentiles given mean 2785 and max 100000. This suggests either (i) misreporting, or (ii) using a different rule only for GRA.

Required revision:

1) Report the empirical 25th/50th/75th percentiles for each raw variable and show how anchors were chosen.

2) Consider log-transforming highly skewed monetary variables before calibration.

3) Use a nonzero cross-over for GRA (e.g., median) and distinct full-out (e.g., 10th/25th percentile), or adopt theoretically justified anchors.

3. Limited diversity and quasi-constant conditions: MS has minimum 2 and very low variance

Descriptives show MS ranges from 2 to 4, mean 2.87, SD 0.73, min 2. This implies most cases already satisfy “some MS,” and no case is truly “low MS” in raw terms. Yet the necessity test claims “Strong media supervision” is necessary for high FE (consistency 0.908).

If MS is near-constant, it can appear necessary simply because it rarely varies and is present for almost everyone. This is a classic QCA pitfall: necessity can be an artifact of low variance.

Required revision:

1) Provide the distribution of raw MS scores and calibrated memberships (histogram or frequency table).

2) Test whether the necessity claim holds under alternative MS calibration anchors.

3) Consider replacing MS with a more discriminating measure (e.g., actual disclosure quality indices; frequency of updates; third-party transparency ratings).

4. Truth table construction and labeling issues suggest errors in analysis pipeline

In Table 5 (Truth Table), the columns list PC GML PMl BPL MS but earlier you define GRA and PML; “GML/PMl” appear inconsistent typos.

Additionally, Table 5 shows FE=0 for several rows even when MS=1 and PC=1 etc., but the manuscript then states it uses the “complex solution” to exclude counterfactuals. The procedure needs to be described precisely: frequency threshold (how many cases per row retained), consistency threshold for sufficiency, PRI consistency (to avoid simultaneous subset relations).

Required revision:

1) Provide the full fsQCA settings: frequency cutoff, consistency cutoff, PRI cutoff, directional expectations (intermediate solution), and how contradictions were handled.

2) Include the intermediate and parsimonious solutions (not only complex), because “core vs peripheral” is defined relative to parsimonious/intermediate comparisons. The current presentation risks misclassifying “core” conditions.

5. Interpretation problems: “necessary” vs “sufficient,” and “core” claims are overstated

You assert that MS is a necessary condition for high FE because consistency >0.9 (0.908). However, standard practice is to also examine: whether necessity holds for the negated outcome (it appears MS is also high for low FE: 0.923), which undermines practical necessity, relevance-of-necessity metrics (RoN) and empirical coverage logic, and trivial necessity due to high prevalence.

In Table 4, “Strong media supervision” has consistency 0.908 for high FE but also 0.923 for low FE. This is a red flag: a condition that is “necessary” for both outcome and non-outcome is not discriminating; it may simply be ubiquitous.

Also, the manuscript claims PML, BBL, and GRA are “sufficient but not necessary” based on their necessity-table consistency exceeding 0.8. That is not a valid inference: a necessity-table consistency >0.8 does not establish sufficiency; sufficiency must be evaluated using sufficiency analysis/truth table solutions for X→Y, not by necessity metrics.

Required revision:

1) Separate necessity analysis from sufficiency analysis properly.

2) Add XY-plots for key necessity claims.

3) Avoid “core element” language unless the core/peripheral status is methodologically supported and robust to specifications.

Reviewer #2: IMHO The manuscript requires corrections in terminological consistency, structural redundancy, and the idiomatic clarity of its academic prose. While the research design is theoretically sound, the communication of these ideas often suffers from translation-style artifacts and repetitive phrasing.

RESEARCH MERITS TO BE IMPROVED

- Narrow Variable Definition: The "Technological Dimension" in the TOE framework is operationalized almost exclusively as "media supervision". Critics may argue that "technology" should encompass broader infrastructure, such as digital payment systems or data analytics, rather than just information disclosure behavior

- The study uses 54 cases, which the authors justify as a "medium sample size" optimal for QCA. However, they acknowledge that this size leaves a significant portion of explanatory variables unobservable, which could be more explicitly addressed as a limitation in the conclusion.

- Contextual Depth on the "Matthew Effect": The paper mentions a significant "Matthew effect" (where successful organizations attract even more resources) in Chinese foundations but does not fully integrate how this systemic bias might influence the "causal asymmetry" found in the fsQCA results

- IMHO it is also necessary to suggest possible development paths in the Conclusions section.

The development paths could possibily focus on expanding the "Technology" dimension, transitioning to longitudinal data analysis, and investigating the heterogeneity of foundation types beyond the national level. For example, based on "Matthew effect" and the current sample limitation the following research opportunities could be identified:

-- conceptual expansion if the Technological Dimension through adoption of AI-driven donor matching, blockchain for fund traceability, and big data analytics and exploring how interactive experiences during the donation process—rather than just information disclosure—impact loyalty and perceived efficacy,

-- transition to temporal and dynamic analysis of timeshifts of different pathways esp. highly effective pathways,

-- comparison of causal paths for success for National-wide and local foundations,

-- investigation of difference in roles played by political connections: governmental-linked foundations vs. purely private initiatives,

-- assymetry of failure investigation e.g. to help fundation managers to avoid it.

There is so much to do in the future. :)

COMMUNICATION MERITS TO BE IMPROVED

- Terminological Inconsistency

The manuscript lacks a standardized lexicon for its core variables and organization types.

-- Acronym Conflicts: The text uses "BPL" and "BBL" interchangeably to refer to the "Brand Building Level".

-- Naming Conventions: The authors alternate between "non-profitable organizations" and "nonprofit organizations," which should be standardized to the latter for international academic standards.

-- Variable Labels: "Government Resource Acquisition" is abbreviated as both "GRA" and "GRS" in different sections of the text.

- Structural Redundancy

-- The paper repeats large blocks of information, which hinders the flow of the argument.

--- Repetitive Findings: The core results (the two paths to effectiveness) are described in nearly identical language in the Abstract, the Introduction, the Path Analysis, and the Conclusions.

--- Framework Justification: The explanation of the TOE framework is repeated across the literature review and the research design sections, rather than being introduced once and then applied.

- Stylistic and Idiomatic Clarity

-- Several phrases appear to be literal translations of Chinese academic idioms, which can be confusing for an English-speaking audience.

--- Translation Artifacts, like "in a 'different paths leading to the same goal' manner" are refequently appearing - consider the replacement with a better technical word e.g. "equifinality".

--- Awkward Phrasings, like "non collection" of of high-efficiency fundraising - maybe "absence of high fundraising effectiveness" or "low-performance configurations" would do the better job, here?

A NOTE ABOUT APPLIED LANGUAGE IN GENERAL

Areas for Potential Refinement

While the language is strong, there are occasional instances of redundant or slightly awkward phrasing typical of translated academic prose, such as "in a 'different paths leading to the same goal' manner" or describing the "non collection" of high-efficiency fundraising. Some sentences are dense and could be further simplified to improve clarity for a broader non-academic audience.

**********

-->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: 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.]

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.

Influencing Factors and Configuration Pathways of Fundraising Effectiveness in Charitable Foundations: An FSQCA Analysis of 54 Cases in China

PONE-D-25-66814R1

Dear Dr. Zou,

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,

Abel C. H. Chen

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: (No Response)

**********

-->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: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

-->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: (No Response)

**********

-->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: (No Response)

**********

-->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: (No Response)

**********

-->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: No

**********