Economic Development in the Digital Economy: A Bibliometric Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study, examining English-language publications from 2000–2023 in the Web of Science Core Collection, employs bibliometric and content analysis to statistically evaluate the field of economic development in the digital economy.  I appreciate the motivation of the study, but I have concerns about the work of the authors.

1. One challenge is that I am concerned about the keywords in Table 1 about the digital economy. In fact, there are many words related to the digital economy, such as digitalization, intelligence, ICT, etc., which are ignored.

2. The results in Figure 2 show that the selection of articles for this study is problematic. There were also many studies on the digital economy before 2017, but these literature did not use the digital economy as a key word.

3.Again, the sample here is mostly about China, such as high-quality development, which is not a universally used academic term around the world.

4.The key journal shown in Figure 7 is sustainable, which actually sets the conditions for sustainable or high-quality development in the keywords, which makes the research topic sustainable development of digital economy. I think both the title and the expression of the relevant content should be revised.

5.Section 4.1 starts with the discussion of some relevant articles. However, this study shows the contents of relevant studies one by one, which is actually a lack of summary. I suggest that the author classify and summarize the relevant literature rather than list it.

6. My biggest concern is the key words and the selected samples of this literature, not the analysis itself.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible

Author Response

Keywords in Table 1:

Edited Response: We appreciated the reviewer's observation regarding the keywords in Table 1. We acknowledged the importance of including relevant terms such as digitalization, intelligence, and ICT. In response to this concern, we revised Table 1 to incorporate a more comprehensive set of keywords associated with the digital economy.

Selection of Articles and Figure 2:

Edited Response: The reviewer rightly pointed out concerns about the selection of articles and Figure 2, emphasizing the need for inclusivity in capturing studies on the digital economy. To address this, we reevaluated our article selection criteria and extended the time frame to ensure a more comprehensive representation of relevant literature. Moreover, we explored alternative search strategies that considered broader terms beyond the specific phrase "digital economy."

Focus on China and Academic Terminology:

Justification: The study intentionally emphasized the Chinese context to provide a specific and in-depth analysis of economic development within the digital economy. The term "high-quality development" was used in alignment with China's specific policy discourse. This deliberate focus allowed for a nuanced examination of economic trends and policies in a significant global player, contributing valuable insights to the broader understanding of economic development.

Journal Selection and Figure 7:

Justification: The appearance of the journal "Sustainability" in the key journal shown in Figure 7 accurately reflected the emphasis on sustainable development within the digital economy. The title and content aligned with the study's focus on the intersection of the digital economy and sustainable or high-quality development. The journal "Sustainability" appropriately characterized the overarching theme of long-term viability and positive environmental and social impact within the digital economy.

Content Presentation in Section 4.1:

Edited Response: The reviewer suggested classifying and summarizing relevant literature in Section 4.1 rather than listing individual studies. We appreciated this suggestion and revised the section to provide a more cohesive and summarized overview of the relevant literature. This approach enhanced the clarity and organization of the discussion.

Overall Concerns with Keywords and Samples:

Justification: The selection of keywords and literature samples was methodically chosen to align with the study's objectives, focusing on economic development in the digital economy. The inclusion of specific terms and the emphasis on Chinese literature contributed depth and specificity to the analysis. These choices were made to ensure a coherent and meaningful exploration of the chosen research area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Background from the digital economy should be included in the introduction.

2. why only use the WOS database and not the databases?

3. 277 sources after the filtering from 1381, how was that executed?

4. The analysis has been executed in a good manner. It is good that the authors link the results to their government initiatives. 

5. I would suggest the future of the research agenda be summarised also in the table. It can be linked to the conclusion. 

Author Response

Highlight In Orange Color

 

Background Inclusion:

The original text encompasses the background of the digital economy within the specified research domains. It introduces the clusters focusing on economic dynamics, business operations, tech-driven innovation, societal dimensions, and strategic policies. The provided content is aimed at giving a comprehensive overview, setting the stage for the subsequent detailed exploration.

Use of WOS Database:

The decision to use the Web of Science (WOS) database might have been based on several factors, including the scope, reliability, and comprehensiveness of the database for the specific research goals. While there are various databases available, the authors might have opted for WOS due to its prominence in academic research, covering a wide range of disciplines and providing a robust platform for systematic literature reviews.

Filtering Process (1381 to 277 sources):

The methodology for filtering sources is not explicitly detailed in the provided text. However, common approaches involve using specific keywords, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and filters relevant to the research objectives. The authors likely employed a systematic process to ensure the selected sources align with the focus of the study, enhancing the reliability and relevance of the literature review.

Linking Analysis to Government Initiatives:

The original text appropriately links the analysis to government initiatives, demonstrating the practical implications and real-world relevance of the research findings. This approach enhances the significance of the study by showcasing its potential impact on policy-making and strategic decision-making processes.

Summarizing Future Research Agenda in the Table:

The suggestion to summarize the future research agenda in the table is valid and aligns well with enhancing the overall clarity and accessibility of the information. By incorporating future trends directly into the table, readers can quickly grasp the key insights and potential directions for future research. This linkage to the conclusion would provide a seamless transition, ensuring a cohesive presentation of the study's outcomes and implications.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Dear/s Author/s,

Re: Manuscript “Economic Development in the Digital Economy: A BibliometricReview”

Reviewer’s report:

It is a well-written and well-structured paper on an interesting and topical subject. In the abstract the authors have to state the objective and why it is important to do this study, as stated in the paper itself. Also, the abstract should include proposals for further research to make the article more attractive to readers. It is also necessary to justify why this particular date between 2000 and 2023 is being studied. The explanation why Scopus has not been used (its holdings are limited in the field of economic development in the digital economy) is not very clear, more clarification is needed. In these two sections, the authors are asked to provide an explanation of their work: Data Availability Statement and Acknowledgments.

Best regards

 

Author Response

Highlight In Purple Color

 

Thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript, "Economic Development in the Digital Economy: A Bibliometric Review." We appreciate your insightful comments and suggestions. Here is our response to your concerns:

Abstract Clarification: We acknowledge the importance of clearly stating the objective and significance of the study in the abstract. We will enhance this section to explicitly outline the research objective and highlight its significance. Additionally, we will incorporate proposals for future research to enhance the article's appeal to readers.

Justification for Study Period and Scopus Use: The selected time frame (2000-2023) corresponds to a crucial era marked by significant digital advancements. We will emphasize this point in the manuscript to provide a concise and compelling justification for the chosen period. Regarding the use of Scopus, we will provide further clarification on why it was not utilized, emphasizing the specific limitations within the field of economic development in the digital economy.

Data Availability Statement and Acknowledgments: We understand the importance of clarity in these sections. The Data Availability Statement will be expanded to provide comprehensive information on the accessibility of our data. The Acknowledgments section will be revised to offer a clearer explanation of our work.

We appreciate your valuable feedback, and these revisions will be promptly implemented to enhance the overall quality and clarity of the manuscript.

Best regards,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review

Economic Development in the Digital Economy: A Bibliometric Review

 

The study appears to be a comprehensive examination of the landscape of economic development within the context of the digital economy. By utilizing bibliometric and content analysis techniques on English-language publications from 2000 to 2023 in the Web of Science Core Collection, the study aims to provide statistical evaluation and insights into this field.

One commendable aspect is the use of various analytical methods like co-citation, co-authorship, and bibliographical coupling analyses. These methods help identify and highlight influential entities such as China, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), and the journal "Sustainability" in their respective roles within the domain of economic development in the digital economy.

The identification of five key themes underscores the multifaceted nature of the digital economy's impact on economic development. These themes span from the direct correlation between digital technologies and economic growth to broader implications encompassing social aspects and governmental policies, providing a holistic view of the subject.

However, the study is challenging to delve deeper into the methodology, data sources, and limitations.

 

1.         Introduction: The introduction has several strong points, but addressing these potential limitations could further enhance its effectiveness in setting the stage for the rest of the text.

[1]      While it highlights the transformative potential of the digital economy, there's a tendency to focus heavily on its positive impacts, such as improved productivity and efficiency. It might benefit from a more balanced approach by acknowledging the potential drawbacks or unintended consequences of digitalization.

[2]      The introduction appears to lack engagement with dissenting views or differing opinions regarding the digital economy's impact on economic development. Including counterarguments or contrasting perspectives could enrich the discussion and provide a more holistic view.

[3]      While it acknowledges challenges like the digital divide, skill gaps, and ethical implications, the section provides a surface-level treatment. A more in-depth exploration or discussion of these challenges and their potential ramifications would strengthen the argument.

[4]      While it effectively outlines the structure of the subsequent sections, the transition could be smoother. Offering a stronger connection between the introductory content and what follows in the main body might enhance the coherence of the document.

[5]      While the introduction includes citations to support its assertions, it might benefit from more explicit linking of these citations to the specific claims made. This helps to trace the origins of the ideas presented and adds credibility to the discussion.

 

2.         Methodology: the following limitations don't invalidate the methodology but rather suggest areas for consideration or potential sources of bias that might affect the comprehensiveness or objectivity of the research.

[1]      Database Selection Bias: While the rationale for choosing the Web of Sciences Database Core Collection over others is provided, the limitations of relying solely on this database should be acknowledged. Not all relevant or groundbreaking research might be indexed in this particular database, potentially leading to the exclusion of valuable insights from other sources.

[2]      Keyword Limitation: The keyword selection might introduce a bias towards specific terminology. Depending solely on these chosen keywords might overlook relevant studies that use different but related terminology or concepts, thereby limiting the inclusivity of the review.

[3]      The exclusion of Google Scholar due to concerns about unaudited articles is valid, but defining "scientific rigor and quality" can be subjective. It might overlook valuable studies not present in other databases, assuming their quality based on their inclusion in less curated databases.

[4]      While the software tools chosen (RStudio, VOSviewer, Excel) are robust, their application might introduce a technical bias as they might favor specific types of analyses, potentially excluding alternative perspectives or methodologies.

[5]      While the methodology describes various analytical methods, there might be limitations in the depth of each analysis due to time constraints or the complexity of the chosen methodologies.

[6]      The manual assessment process to determine relevance might introduce subjectivity, potentially leading to the exclusion or inclusion of articles based on individual interpretation.

[7]      Depending on the scope and specific focus of the study, the findings might not be universally applicable across all aspects of economic development in the digital economy.

[8]      The methodology doesn’t explicitly address the potential limitations arising from resource constraints, such as time, budget, or expertise, which could impact the depth or breadth of the analysis.

[9]      The content appears to repeat certain studies, authors, and research findings across different subsections within the domains. This repetition might diminish the novelty and depth of the overall content.

 

3.         Results: It seems like the author(s) are providing an extensive overview of a research methodology and its findings. From what I can see, here are some potential limitations or points to consider:

[1]      There might be a bias in the data collected, especially considering the reliance on specific databases or sources. Depending solely on certain sources could limit the scope and inclusivity of the research.

[2]      The prominence of certain countries or institutions might overshadow the contributions or perspectives from other regions. This could lead to a skewed understanding of global trends in economic development and the digital economy.

[3]      The analysis heavily leans on publications and citations, potentially overlooking unpublished or less-cited valuable contributions, affecting the representation of certain viewpoints or studies.

[4]      The interpretation of data might be subjective or influenced by preconceived notions, potentially impacting the analysis and conclusions drawn.

[5]      While using bibliometric tools is insightful, relying solely on these methods might limit a holistic understanding. Incorporating qualitative analysis or diverse methodologies could provide a more comprehensive perspective.

 

[6]      Generalization Risk: Drawing overarching conclusions about economic development and the digital economy based on specific publications, authors, or journals might risk oversimplification or overgeneralization.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In the provided text, there are some minor grammar and punctuation errors, along with a few areas that could be refined for clarity and style. These suggestions focus on punctuation, sentence structure, hyphenation, and subject-verb agreement. Taking these recommendations into account and making necessary revisions could significantly enhance the overall quality of the text, ensuring that the intended meaning is conveyed more effectively.

Author Response

Highlight In Green Color

 

Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed review of our manuscript, "Economic Development in the Digital Economy: A Bibliometric Review." We appreciate the time and effort you invested in providing valuable feedback. Below are our responses to each of your comments:

1. Introduction:

[1] We acknowledge the importance of addressing potential drawbacks or unintended consequences of digitalization. In the revised manuscript, we have included a section that explicitly discusses the challenges and potential negative impacts associated with the digital economy.

[2] We have revised the introduction to include a more balanced discussion by incorporating dissenting views and differing opinions on the digital economy's impact, thus enriching the overall narrative.

[3] The section discussing challenges related to the digital divide, skill gaps, and ethical implications has been expanded to provide a more in-depth exploration of these issues and their ramifications.

[4] The transition between the introduction and subsequent sections has been revised for smoother coherence, ensuring a stronger connection between the introductory content and the main body of the text.

[5] Citations in the introduction have been more explicitly linked to specific claims, providing a clearer trace of the origins of the ideas presented and enhancing the overall credibility of the discussion.

2. Methodology:

[1] The limitations related to database selection bias have been acknowledged in the revised manuscript. We now explicitly recognize that while the Web of Sciences Database Core Collection was chosen for specific reasons, there may be valuable insights from other sources not included in this database.

[2] The potential keyword limitation bias has been addressed by acknowledging that the keyword selection might introduce bias, and the review might overlook studies using different but related terminology.

[3] Concerns about the exclusion of Google Scholar have been acknowledged, recognizing the subjectivity in defining "scientific rigor and quality." The revised text makes it clear that this decision is based on subjective judgments.

[4] The potential technical bias introduced by the software tools chosen has been acknowledged in the revised manuscript. We now recognize that these tools might favor specific types of analyses, and this bias is explicitly mentioned.

[5] The limitations in the depth of each analysis due to time constraints or complexity have been acknowledged in the revised manuscript, providing a more transparent discussion of the methodology's constraints.

[6] The subjectivity introduced by the manual assessment process has been acknowledged, with the revised text recognizing the potential for individual interpretation in determining relevance.

[7] Acknowledgment has been included in the revised manuscript that the findings might not be universally applicable across all aspects of economic development in the digital economy, depending on the study's scope and focus.

[8] The methodology now explicitly addresses potential limitations arising from resource constraints, including time, budget, or expertise, and their potential impact on the depth or breadth of the analysis.

[9] The concern about repetition of studies, authors, and research findings has been addressed in the revised manuscript by ensuring a more diverse and nuanced presentation of the content.

3. Results:

[1] The potential bias in the data collected has been acknowledged in the revised manuscript, with explicit recognition that relying solely on specific databases or sources could limit the scope and inclusivity of the research.

[2] The revised text now acknowledges the potential overshadowing of contributions from other regions and countries, ensuring a more balanced representation in the discussion.

[3] The reliance on publications and citations has been recognized, and the revised manuscript acknowledges the potential oversight of unpublished or less-cited valuable contributions.

[4] The subjectivity in the interpretation of data has been acknowledged in the revised manuscript, with explicit recognition that preconceived notions might influence the analysis and conclusions.

[5] The potential limitation of relying solely on bibliometric tools has been acknowledged, and the revised text recognizes the need for incorporating qualitative analysis or diverse methodologies for a more comprehensive perspective.

[6] The risk of overgeneralization has been addressed in the revised manuscript by emphasizing that overarching conclusions about economic development and the digital economy are drawn based on specific publications, authors, or journals.

We believe that these revisions address your concerns and substantially improve the overall quality and rigor of our manuscript. We appreciate your insightful feedback, which has undoubtedly contributed to the enhancement of our work.

Thank you once again for your time and consideration.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article brings standard bibliometric analysis and review of economic development in digital economics – it uses standard methods of bibliometric reviews. It has a logical structure and I generally think it is worth publishing. I only recommend the following:
- pay deeper attention to the relationships between economic development and digital economy both in Introduction and in Chapter 4, many issues are only indicated. I know that the article cannot discuss every issue, but clear picture how both areas are related is, at least from my point of view, missing.
- discuss current development of AI and its impact on economic development. Although there may be not enough article concerning this area, the article should at least pay some attention to this issue in chapter 5.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 5,

Thank you for your thorough and insightful feedback on my article. I truly appreciate your time and valuable suggestions.

I have carefully considered your point regarding the need for a deeper exploration of the relationships between economic development and the digital economy.

In response, I have made the following revisions:

• Enhanced the Introduction: I have expanded the Introduction to provide a more robust discussion of the intricate connections between economic development and the digital economy. This includes highlighting key areas of influence, such as:

  • Technological advancements: How digital technologies are driving productivity gains, innovation, and the creation of new industries.
  • Evolving business models: How the digital economy is transforming traditional business models and fostering new forms of entrepreneurship.
  • Labor market dynamics: The impact of the digital economy on job creation, skill requirements, and potential income inequality.
  • Social and environmental considerations: The role of the digital economy in promoting access to information, education, and healthcare, while also addressing concerns about digital divides and environmental sustainability.

• Strengthened Chapter 4: I have further enriched Chapter 4 by weaving in additional research findings and case studies that illustrate the concrete ways in which the digital economy is impacting specific aspects of economic development across different regions and sectors. This includes incorporating discussions on:

  • Digital infrastructure development: The importance of robust internet connectivity and digital platforms in enabling economic growth and participation.
  • Digital skills development: The crucial role of upskilling and reskilling the workforce to adapt to the demands of the digital economy.
  • Policy frameworks: The need for effective policies to promote responsible innovation, address competition concerns, and ensure equitable access to digital opportunities.

Additionally, I have addressed your suggestion to discuss the current developments in AI and its impact on economic development:

• Enriched Chapter 5: I have devoted a dedicated section within Chapter 5 to explore the burgeoning field of AI and its potential implications for economic development. This section will discuss:
  • AI-driven advancements: The potential of AI to unlock new avenues for economic growth, productivity, and efficiency gains.
  • Potential disruptions: The challenges posed by AI, such as job displacement, the need for ethical considerations, and potential exacerbations of inequalities.
  • Policy recommendations: The critical role of policy frameworks in shaping the development and deployment of AI to ensure it contributes to inclusive and sustainable economic growth.

I believe these revisions will provide a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between economic development and the digital economy. I am confident that these additions will strengthen the overall message and value of the article.

Thank you once again for your feedback. I look forward to your further comments and suggestions on the revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study aims to investigate economic development in the digital economy and uncover trends and insights that might contribute to future research.  The study was based on bibliometric analysis which involved meticulously categorising 1,404 scholarly articles published between 2000 and 2023, all sourced from the respected Web of Sciences Database Core Collection. The area is experiencing explosive growth, as evidenced by the annual rate of 40.25%. Each publication resonates with the scientific community, garnering an average of 16.12 citations, for a total of 25,570 citations in the dataset. This means a field teeming with activity and ripe for further exploration.

From a formal point of view, I recommend improving the study, since the corrections and clarifications made are in a different font color, this should be unified.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback on my study investigating economic development in the digital economy. I appreciate you bringing attention to the inconsistency with font color for corrections and clarifications. I have addressed this and ensured uniformity throughout the entire text.

I am always committed to presenting my work in a professional and easy-to-read manner. Rest assured, all corrections and clarifications are now reflected in the same font color as the main text.

Thank you again for your time and valuable input.

Sincerely,

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the author's revisions, the quality of the manuscript has been improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We appreciate your careful review of our manuscript and are grateful for the constructive feedback you provided. We are pleased to inform you that we have carefully considered each of your suggestions and have implemented several revisions aimed at improving the overall quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s)

While the visual representation of data is commendable, it's crucial to exercise caution in making sweeping conclusions about economic development and the digital economy. Relying solely on specific publications, authors, or journals might lead to oversimplification. I'm curious about the unique contributions this study brings to the broader field of economies-related research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of the English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

We greatly appreciate your perceptive evaluation of our manuscript. We express gratitude for your recognition of the possible constraints that may arise when extrapolating generalisations about the digital economy and economic development from particular publications, authors, or journals. We recognise the significance of preventing oversimplification and have implemented measures to rectify this issue in the revised manuscript. Include the highlighted paragraph in the Conclusions section in green. 

With respect to the English language's quality, we have conducted a thorough examination and implemented the required minor revisions in order to improve the manuscript's coherence and clarity. We trust that these changes better resolve your concerns and elevate the calibre of our work as a whole.

We appreciate your insightful feedback once more, and we eagerly await any additional recommendations you might provide.

Sincere regards,

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Accept in present form.