Open peer review. Vol 20 (Special Issue) China and the Digital Turn

Governance by platforms: Configuration of the relationship between Party-government and society in China

Guolin Shen; Jintao Zhang

 

Reviewer A:

Please, comment on the most relevant aspects (positive points and areas to improve) of the reviewed article.

The paper explores the crucial topic of platformization in contemporary society and its impact on governance in China. By analyzing four distinct case studies, the author(s) shed light on the ways in which the Communist Party of China (CPC) leverages platforms to govern the country within its unique political system. This study makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of platform politics in the digital age. However, there are a few areas that require improvement: 1) The abstract should include a brief description of the research methods used in the study. 2) The introduction should explicitly state the research problem that the paper aims to address. 3) The paper lacks a dedicated section describing the research methods used to analyze the case studies. 4) The distinction between the results and discussion sections could be more clearly defined. 5) Some of the references need to be reformatted according to the citation style guidelines.

Would you suggest any changes or make any recommendations to improve the quality of the article?

To enhance the paper's quality, I would suggest the author(s) make the following revisions: 1) In the abstract, provide a clear and concise explanation of the research methods used and the four selected case studies. 2) In the introduction, clearly state the research problem, allowing readers to understand the paper's aims. 3) To improve the paper, I would suggest that the author(s) supplement the research methods section by providing a more detailed explanation of why the four cases were selected. This could include a discussion of the criteria used to choose the cases, such as their significance in the context of platform politics in China, their representativeness of different types of platforms, or their relevance to the research problem being addressed in the paper. 4) In the results section, it would be beneficial if the author(s) could enhance the analysis of the "Community Link" platform in Shanghai Baoshan. It is recommended to include a more objective analysis of the case, possibly by providing more data and statistics. Additionally, the inclusion of screenshots of the platform's interface would be helpful to readers in comprehending the four key features of the platform. This will also aid in providing a visual representation of the platform's functionality, making it easier for readers to understand and follow the discussion. 5) To improve the paper's organization, the author(s) should separate the results and discussion sections. This would make the paper's logic clearer and help readers navigate the content more easily. The results section should focus on presenting the findings of the case studies, while the discussion section should provide an analysis and interpretation of the results in light of the research problem and relevant literature. In addition, if the author(s) could compare the results of the four platforms, it may increase the coherence and depth of the analysis in the article. 6) Ensure all references comply with the journal's standards by thoroughly checking their formatting. 

 

Reviewer B:

Please, comment on the most relevant aspects (positive points and areas to improve) of the reviewed article.

The text does not follow a comprehensive structure of introducción, theoretical background, methodology-objectives, and case studies. Instead, it passes quickly throughout the first two parts, to directly go to the case studies, without setting a general theoretical and methodological background into which they make sense. First, the concepts, criteria and objectives that are common to the case studies (the "why" it makes sense to compare them) have to be explained, to then go for them. The Theoretical framework should include things such as holistic government, plus responsiveness” – would be helpful to expand this part and add more references to its analysis in relation to social media. Also, a deeper comparison between China and Western democracies should be included, as other concepts such as online communities, etc. The methodology and objectives are completely lacking. The aim of the case study should be explained. Then, the case studies should be better and further explained. The authors give a lot of things for granted, failing in explaining the workings of the platforms they present as comprehensively as possible. They have to bear in mind that the article is intended to a non-Chinese audience that would not know the context in which they are talking about. So things have to be utterly clearly explained. Including image captures of the websites and in detail information. In this sense, it would be recommendable to reduce the case studies to three or even two, choosing the more significant. Otherwise, it seems they try to cover too much without really explaining anything. Then, the conclusion is ok, but with a better exploration of fewer case studies, it could go deeper and be more insightful. Also, in general, the redaction of the text is not as good as it should be.

Would you suggest any changes or make any recommendations to improve the quality of the article?

The text requires major changes and I think it should be rewritten and resubmitted. The core of it is valuable and interesting, but it needs better phrasing and redaction, and a clearer exposition of the case studies.

 

 

 

The text included important modifications before publication