Geographical Patterns and Influencing Mechanisms of Digital Rural Development Level at the County Scale in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper raises current problems that are important from a scientific point of view. The authors present the results of original research and used large amounts of data. The results were properly interpreted, and the conclusions were justified and supported by solid scientific evidence. The manuscript fits well with Land's goals and provides new and interesting data to share with the scientific community. However, I have a few comments to improve the manuscript.
The first issue concerns the review of the literature. The authors focused predominantly on domestic (Chinese) studies, with little reference to international studies. When directing their work to the international community, authors should demonstrate knowledge of the given issue also in research from other countries or regions of the world. The issue of digital development and its impact on rural development has been strongly explored in many regions of the world in recent years. However, this is difficult to see in the reviewed article.
The second issue is the rather low quality of the "discussion" chapter. This part should not only be a synthesis of the results. What is missing here is a classic discussion understood as a polemic, verification or confrontation of the results obtained in the light of research and studies by other authors. It is not known what new content the article brings, and which relationships have been confirmed with previous research (including research from other regions of the world). Are the patterns in any way consistent with the results of other authors? Have the previous regularities been confirmed? Or maybe the authors point to new relationships, relationships, reasons? It's hard to tell from the current version of the text.
I propose to improve the literature review (international papers) and discussion. In summary, the study is solid, however it needs some improvement.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions, we have carefully revised the article with reference to your suggestions. Please see the attached document for details.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Please, see the attached document
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions, we have carefully revised the article with reference to your suggestions. Please see the attached document for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Scientific work is at a satisfactory level for publication. Several methods have been used, and the results are clearly presented.
Author Response
Thank you very much for recognizing this study, it is very encouraging. Meanwhile, the other two reviewers made some comments which we have revised and improved to further enhance the quality of the article, and you can view the latest version of the manuscript for perusal. Thank you again for your approval!
