Measurement and spatiotemporal analysis of high-quality development of China's industry.

BACKGROUND: China's economy has been transitioning from a phase of rapid growth to high-quality development. The high-quality development of industry is the foundation of a sustainable and healthy growth of national economy, and is of great significance to improve people's living standards, and to meet people's needs for a better life.
METHODS: We develop an evaluation index system of high-quality development of industry from the perspectives of industrial benefit, innovation ability, coordination ability, green ability, opening ability and sharing ability. Based on a panel data of 30 provinces in China during 1999-2018, we evaluate the level of high-quality development of industry using the entropy-weight method and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method. Meanwhile we select six specific years and adopt the Natural Breaks method to classify the provinces according to their levels. At last, Moran's I index is used to analyze the spatial correlation among the provinces.
RESULTS: Opening ability and innovation ability are found to have greater impacts on industrial high-quality development than other indices, and their influence has been increasing in recent years. There are large spatial and temporal differences among different provinces. Municipalities and coastal provinces are found to be at constantly high levels. The levels in the central region dropped first and then increased, however it was the opposite in the western region. In the northeast region, the levels fluctuated greatly. Overall, the high-quality development of industry among China's provinces shows positive spatial correlation. Most provinces in China are in High-High and Low-Low clustering States. The High-High clustering type is mainly distributed in the eastern region and the Low-Low clustering type is mainly distributed in the western and central regions.
CONCLUSION: (1) Innovation ability and open ability are the most important factors. (2) Green ability has not sufficiently contributed to China's industrial development. (3) Regional and time evolution differences are significant. (4) There is a significant and stable spatial clustering effect in the high-quality development of industry among China's provinces.

Introduction

In 2017, the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China proposed the concept of high-quality development for the first time, indicating that China’s economy has been transitioning from a phase of rapid growth to high-quality development. “High-quality development is the development which can well meet people’s growing needs for a better life. It is the development that embodies a new concept that innovation becomes the first driving force, coordination becomes the endogenous characteristic, green becomes the universal form, opening becomes the inevitable course, and sharing becomes the fundamental purpose.” General secretary of the CPC Central Committee Xi Jinping said. From this, we can see that high-quality development means strong innovation ability, green environmental protection, harmonious social and economic relationship, and sharing of development achievements by the people, on top of the traditional concept of high input-output efficiency. General Secretary Xi Jinping also stressed that the requirements of high-quality development should be reflected in the economic, social, cultural, ecological and all other fields. The high-quality development of industry is the foundation of a sustainable and healthy growth of national economy, and is of great significance to improve people’s living standards, and to meet people’s needs for a better life.

The high-quality development of overall economy has been widely studied in the academia. Because of its wide range of contents, it can’t be evaluated comprehensively using a single indicator or total factor productivity (TFP). Therefore, most studies establish indicator systems and use comprehensive evaluation methods. The concepts of innovative, coordinated, green, open and shared development (Five Concepts of Development hereafter) proposed by General Secretary Xi direct the construction of index systems at present, as in Li et al [1], Feng and Guo [2] and Liu and Guo [3]. Chen et al. [4] extend green development to sustainable development. Sun et al [5] think that the high-quality economic development can be measured from four aspects: economic vitality, innovation efficiency, green development and people’s life. Wei and Li [6] construct an index system including economic structure optimization, innovation driven development, efficient resource allocation, perfect market mechanism, stable economic growth, regional coordination and sharing, excellent product and service, perfect infrastructure, construction of ecological civilization construction and economic achievements benefiting the mass of people.

Equal weight method [7-10] and entropy weight method [1, 4, 5, 11] are the most widely used methods of measurement. The equal weight method is used in the calculation of human development index and economic vulnerability index by the United Nations. This method is simple and transparent and can reflect the balanced influence of many factors on the high-quality economic development [10]. As an objective analysis method, Entropy weight method has broader applicability for analyzing and comparing the high-quality economic development in multiple time periods compared with other methods [11].

The high-quality development of industry is the pillar of the economy and has an important impact on the high-quality development of the whole national economy. Therefore, people pay more and more attention to the research of industrial high-quality development. There are mainly two measurement methods in the research of high-quality development of industry: one is to use Total Factor Productivity (TFP) or Green Total Factor Productivity (GTFP) as the measurement standard. The other is comprehensive evaluation.

The literature using total factor productivity as measurement standard include: Yang et al. improved the method of Fare et al. [12] by using the Global- Malmquist-Luenberger model and the fixed effect model [13]; Ju et al. [14] using the super efficiency DEA and Malmquist index model to produce the ETFP (Ecological Total Factor Productivity) as the industrial development level of major cities and urban clustering in the Yellow River Basin; and Zhao and Gu [15] integrating total factor productivity, GVC economic status index and export technology complexity, and comparing China with the United States. Since this method covers limited dimensions and is unable to measure the high-quality development of industry comprehensively, other studies construct index systems taking account of: the Five Concepts of Development [16-18]; economic performance, technological innovation, green development, quality, brand, integration of industrialization and informatization and high-end development as in Jiang et al [19]; efficiency, structure optimization, innovation drive and mode transformation as in Li and Wang [20]; input and output, environment, innovation, market factor and government factor as in Han and Ren [21]; talent accumulation as in Fu and Chu [22]; and energy security as in Hou et al. [23]. The entropy weight method is most widely used to evaluate the levels of indices [13, 18, 24, 25], along with analysis with coefficient of variation [19, 26], factor analysis [21], principal component analysis [27], projection pursuit model [20], etc.

In addition, some studies focus on the green dimension in the high-quality development of industry, such as Wang et al. [28] use the Entropy-weight TOPSIS model and the Theil index revealing the differences of industrial green development among three major urban clustering in China; Chen et al [29] develop an analytic hierarchy process to evaluate the levels of industrial green development of 30 provinces in China; Li et al. [30] use the panel data of 30 provinces in China from 2006 to 2015, analyzing the current situation, weaknesses and spatial-temporal differences of industrial green development in an improved evaluation framework.

According to the above review, we conclude four limitations in the measurement of high-quality development of industry. First, the Five Concepts of Development are the most consistent with China’s high-quality development, which provide a reference for the construction of our comprehensive index system. The second is that the entropy weight and its improved methods are most widely used in the evaluation of levels of indices. Third, current research is lack of analysis from time and space dimensions, which cannot grasp the dynamic trend and spatial characteristics of high-quality development of industry in China. Fourth, current research is mainly based on a specific region or the whole country, and pays no attention to interprovincial analysis.

The Entropy weight TOPSIS method is characterized with simple calculation and a reasonable result and it combines the advantages of entropy weight and TOPSIS method, which makes the measurement results of high-quality economic development level more objective and reasonable [6]. Therefore, entropy weight TOPSIS method has been widely used in the field of high-quality development evaluation, Wei and Li [6], Du et al. [18], Ou et al. [31], Wang et al. [28] use it in the field of high-quality development evaluation. In addition, it is widely used in, sustainable development evaluation [32], efficiency evaluation [33, 34], contribution evaluation [35], people’s life quality evaluation [36], competitiveness evaluation [37] and decision research [38].

This study focuses on and extends the Five Concepts for Development and introduces an industrial performance indicators system to build an evaluation index system for the high-quality development of industry in China. We measure the high-quality development of industry in 30 provinces in China from 1999 to 2018 by the entropy weight and TOPSIS method and use the spatial correlation analysis to reveal their spatial distribution and temporal evolution, and then we put forward countermeasures and suggestions. This paper originates in constructing a comprehensive index system and evaluating the high-quality development of industry from provincial and time dimensions, and reveal the interprovincial correlation among the provinces. We developed important references to promoting the high-quality development of industry in China.

The article is organized as follows. Section 1 reviews the current research on the measurement of high-quality development. Section 2 constructs the evaluation index system for high-quality development of industry. Section 3 introduces the calculation of entropy weight TOPSIS method and spatial correlation analysis. Empirical results are reported in Section 4, including the introduction of data sources and methods, the evaluation results of industrial high-quality development level, the sensitivity analysis of the measurement method and the results of spatial correlation analysis. Section 5 summarizes the conclusion, and puts forward policy suggestions.

Construction of the evaluation index system

Evaluation index system of high-quality development level of industry in China

The construction of our index system follows the principles of feasibility, independence, comparability and comprehensiveness in accordance with the Five Concepts of Development. On the basis of existing literature, we consult experts in the field through questionnaires and combine the Five Concepts of Development with traditional concept of industrial benefit. Our final index system covers the following six dimensions:

Industrial benefit

The essential objective of an enterprise is to make profits. Therefore, industrial benefit is the essential factor in measuring the high-quality development of industry. This dimension includes three secondary indices: profitability, operating ability and solvency.

Innovation ability

Continuous innovation of industrial technology is fundamental in upgrading the mode of development, improving economic efficiency, and realizing the transformation from "Made in China" to "Created in China". It is a top priority for the sustainable development of industry. Technological innovation is measured by input related indices including the effective input of R&D funds, talents and projects, as well as those related to output such as the effective output of patents of invention and new products.

Coordination ability

The coordination ability of industry development refers to the ability to balance development at macro and micro levels. At the macro level it refers to the coordination of industrial structure, measured by the proportion of high-tech industry and the coupling coordinative degree of high-tech and non-high-tech industry structure. At the micro level it refers to quality and production coordination. Quality coordination is measured as the ability to improve the quality of products and minimize cost loss due to quality problems, while production coordination is measured as the ability to improve production efficiency by improving total labor productivity.

Green ability

Green ability refers to the symbiotic ability of industrial development and environment. It is measured from two aspects: green production and green emission. Green production is the ability to reduce energy consumption, wastewater and other residues in the production process. Green emission is the efficiency of industrial waste management.

Opening ability

Industrial opening refers to the introduction of foreign technology, capital and other resources and the strengthening of the output of industrial products. The introduction of foreign technology is measured by the proportion of foreign technology expenditure. The introduction of foreign capital resources is measured by the foreign capital opening index. And the output of industrial achievements is measured by the foreign trade opening index.

Sharing ability

Sharing ability refers to the ability to undertake a certain degree of social responsibility while obtaining economic benefits, so as to help solve the problems of social fairness and justice. There are wide-ranging ways to measure the sharing ability of enterprises. Due to data limit, this study evaluates social sharing, that is the tax liability born by the enterprises, and employee sharing, that is the ability to promote employment.

The index system is shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Evaluation index system of high-quality development level of industry in China.

Primary Indices	Secondary Indices	NO.	Tertiary Indices	Unit	Index Attribute
Industrial benefit	Profitability	1	cost-profit ratio = profit/cost and expense	%	+
	Solvency	2	asset-liability ratio = total liabilities/total assets	%	-
	Operating ability	3	current assets turnover = main business revenue/current assets	time(s)/year	+
Innovation ability	Innovation inputs	4	Proportion of R&D personnel = number of R&D staff/total of employees	%	+
		5	Proportion of R&D expenses = R&D expenses/main business revenue	%	+
		6	Proportion of enterprises with R&D department = number of enterprises with R&D department/total of enterprise	%	+
	Innovation achievements	7	Number of valid invention patents per capita = number of valid invention patents/number of R&D staff	patent(s)/person	+
		8	Proportion of new product revenue = new product revenue/main business revenue	%	+
Coordination ability	Production coordination	9	Total labor productivity = industrial added value/number of employees	CNY/person	+
	Coordination of industrial structure	10	Proportion of high-tech industry = main business revenue of high-tech industry/industrial main business income	%	+
		11	Synergy index of high-tech manufacturing industry = coupling coordinative degree of main business revenue between high-tech manufacturing industry and non-high-tech manufacturing industry	/	+
	Quality coordination	12	Quality loss rate = sum of internal loss and external loss cost of product quality/gross value of industrial output	%	-
		13	Product high-grade rate = number of superior products of manufacturing enterprises/number of end products of manufacturing enterprises	%	+
Green ability	Green production	14	Energy consumption per unit of industrial added value = total industrial energy consumption/industrial added value	ton(s) of standard coal/Million CNY	-
		15	Wastewater discharge per unit of industrial added value = industrial wastewater discharge/industrial added value	Ton(s)/Million CNY	-
		16	Waste discharge per unit of industrial added value = production of general industrial solid waste/ industrial added value	Ton(s)/Million CNY	-
	Green emission	17	Utilization rate of solid waste treatment = comprehensive utilization of general industrial solid waste/production of general industrial solid waste	%	+
Opening ability	Trade openness	18	Trade openness = export delivery value/gross value of industrial output	%	+
	Openness of foreign capital	19	Openness of foreign capital = foreign paid-in capital of scale industrial enterprises/gross value of industrial output	%	+
	R&D openness	20	Proportion of expenditure on technology introduction = expenses on technology introduction/ total research cost	%	+
Sharing ability	Social sharing	21	Asset tax rate = total amount of enterprise tax/total assets	%	+
	Employee sharing	22	Employment ratio = employment in scale industrial enterprises/total employment	%	+

Pretreatment of indices

The concept of coupling coordinative degree is introduced as NO.11 in Table 1. It is calculated as follows [39]:

Suppose there are m provinces in the sample. x and y are the main business revenues of high-tech manufacturing enterprises above designated scale and non-high-tech manufacturing enterprises above designated scale in province i respectively, where I = 1, 2, …m.

①Data standardization

Scale high-tech manufacturing industrial enterprises:

Scale non-high-tech manufacturing industrial enterprises:

②Calculation of coupling degree C:

Let f and g denote the main business revenues of scale high-tech and non-high-tech manufacturing enterprises in province i respectively. The coupling degree between the two is as follows:

③Calculation of coupling coordinative degree D:

, where T = 0.5 f + 0.5 g.

Comprehensive evaluation method

Comprehensive evaluation methods include subjective weighting and objective weighting methods. The objective weighting methods determine the weights based on actual data and have the advantages of objectivity and transparency. They are applicable to our study since it is based on a large number of empirical data. As one of the most widely used objective weighting methods, entropy weight method determines the weight of all data information, which is more complete than the commonly used Principal Component Analysis [40]. Moreover, the entropy weight method does not require too much data, avoiding the shortcomings of the commonly used factor analysis which requires large quantities of sample data [41]. In addition, we introduce the TOPSIS to rank the high-quality development of industry of each province. Some researches show that the Entropy-weight TOPSIS method has better stability and robustness than the other methods. According to the analysis conducted by Zhang [42], when using the mean value of standard deviation as a measure of stability when the number of evaluation objects, indices or both change, Entropy-weight method is the best evaluation method for stability in the research area and TOPSIS method has good performance in the ranking method. Zhang [43] use Kendall harmony coefficient to analyze the robustness of different comprehensive evaluation methods when the dimensionless method and sample size changed. The results testify the high robustness of Entropy-weight method.

Entropy-weight method

The calculation steps using the entropy-weight method are as follows:

Step 1. Establish the observation matrix.

Set up m as the number of provinces and, establish an evaluation matrix including n indices. Let x denote the j-th index value of province i (i = 1, 2, …m; j = 1, 2, …n).

Step 2. Standardize the indices.

In order to eliminate dimensions and realize comparability, the original data should be standardized. The method adopted is called “Range Standardization”. Meanwhile we need to distinguish “Positive indicator” and “Negative indicator”.

Positive indicator:

Negative indicator:

Step 3. Calculate the proportion of sample value in province i under the j-th indicator:

Step 4. According to the definition of information entropy, calculate the entropy of the j-th index:

Where k > 0, k = 1/ln m, and denote if f = 0, f ln f = 0.

Step 5. Calculate the information entropy redundancy: d = 1 − e, j = 1, 2, …, m.

Step 6. Calculate the weight of each index:

TOPSIS method

TOPSIS is a ranking method based on the proximity between a limited number of evaluation objects and idealized targets [44]. It evaluates the relative advantages and disadvantages among the existing objects. It is characterized by clear calculation process and operability. Ideal and negative ideal solutions are two important concepts in the method. Ideal solution refers to the most satisfactory solution for each attribute value, while negative ideal solution refers to the least satisfactory solution for each attribute value. The calculation is carried out as follows:

Step 1. Use the vector normalization method to calculate the normalized decision matrix. Suppose that the decision matrix of a multi-attribute decision making problem is X = (x), with m evaluation objects and n evaluation indices. The normalized decision matrix is Y = (y), where

Step 2. Construct the weighted normal matrix Z = (z). According to the weight vector of each attribute given by policy makers, w = [w1, w2, …, w], then

Step 3. Determine the best alternative and the worst alternative :

The best alternative is:

The worst alternative is:

Step 4. Calculate the distances from the target alternative to the best and worst conditions.

The distance from the target alternative to the best conditions is

The distance from the target alternative to the worst conditions is

Step 5. Calculate the relative nearness degree (ND hereafter) between each scheme and the best alternative: .

Step 6. Rank the alternatives according to C. The larger value of C, the nearer the optimal level of distance of province i.

Spatial correlation analysis

We introduce Moran’s I index to study the spatial correlation of industrial high-quality development. Moran’s I index can be divided into global Moran’s I index and local Moran’s I index.

The global Moran’s I index reflects whether there is a spatial autocorrelation in the high-quality industrial development level of all provincial administrative regions, it is calculated as follows: Where N denotes the number of space elements, y and y represent the observed value of variable y in space units i and j, denotes the mean value of the variable y. ω represents the elements in the spatial weight matrix. In this study, we use the spatial weight matrix based on Rook proximity; S0 is the sum of all elements of the space weight matrix . Moran’s I is in the range of [– 1, 1]. The positive value means positive spatial autocorrelation, negative value means negative spatial autocorrelation, and 0 means random distribution in space. The larger the absolute value is, the greater the spatial correlation is.

Local Moran’s I index reflects whether there is a spatial autocorrelation between a certain province and other province. The local Moran’s I index is calculated as follows: where , Other variables are defined as the same as in the above.

The local Moran’s I index can be indicated by Moran’s scatter plot. The Moran’s scatter plot divides the observed values into four categories: the first, second, third and fourth quadrant corresponding to High-High, Low-High, Low-Low and High-Low respectively.

Empirical study on the industrial high-quality development in China

Data sources and processing

The data in this study cover 30 provinces in China during 1999–2018 (excluding the data of Tibet Autonomous Region, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan). We source data from China Statistical Yearbook, China Industrial Statistical Yearbook, China Science and Technology Statistical Yearbook, China Energy Statistical Yearbook and Statistics Bureau data of China’s provinces and cities. Since the latest China Science and Technology Statistics Yearbook and China Industrial Statistics Yearbook were published in 2019 at the time of this study, the latest data that could be collected were from 2018. In addition, due to the change of statistical caliber in the statistical yearbooks, statistical errors are inevitable. Interpolation method or linear trend method is used in data processing, and near historical values are used to replace the result of linear trend method when it is significantly different from the actual situation.

Firstly, we use the entropy-weight method to measure the weights of 22 tertiary indices from 1999 to 2018. Then the average weight of each index is further calculated, as shown in Fig 1. According to the principles of the entropy-weight method, larger index weights reveal more information and are more effective.

Fig 1

The average weights of tertiary indices in China’s industrial high quality development index system.

It can be seen that the indices such as number of valid invention patents per capita (C7), proportion of high-tech industries (C10), trade openness (C18), openness of foreign capital (C19), proportion of expenditure on technology introduction (C20) and employment ratio (C22) are weighted relatively heavy as they are all above 0.06. Among the indices of industrial benefit, cost-profit ratio (C1) is weighted significantly higher than that of the others. Among the indices of innovation ability, the weight of number of valid invention patents per capita (C7) is higher, while the weights of the other indices are similar to each other. For the coordination ability, the proportion of high-tech industry (C10) and high-tech manufacturing industry synergy index (C11) have the greatest weights. For green ability, the utilization rate of solid waste treatment (C17) weights the highest. For opening ability, the weights of trade openness (C18) and openness of foreign capital (C19) are relatively high. And for sharing capacity, the weight of employment ratio (C22) is relatively high.

The weights of primary indices are obtained by summing up the weights of their tertiary indices. The results are shown in Fig 2.

Fig 2

Weights of primary indices in China’s industrial high quality development index system.

As can be seen from Fig 2, the weights of industrial benefit, coordination ability and sharing ability gradually increase and then decrease. Their final weights are less than their initial weights. The weights of opening ability decrease and then increase. Its final weight is significantly greater than its initial weight. The weights of innovation ability decrease firstly but then gradually stabilize and finally become consistent with the initial value. The change of weights of green ability over time is insignificant. When they are compared cross-sectionally, in the early and middle periods of time (1999–2012), the weights of innovation ability and opening ability are the greatest, followed by coordination ability. In the final period of time (2013–2018) the weights of opening ability are the greatest, followed by innovation ability and coordination ability.

In order to explore the dimensions that play a greater role in the current evaluation of high-quality develop3ment of industry, we calculate the weight of each primary index in 2018 respectively. The weight of primary index in 2018 is shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Average weights of primary indices of industrial high-quality development.

Indices	Industrial benefit	Innovation ability	Coordination ability	Green ability	Opening ability	Sharing ability
Weight	0.0506	0.2563	0.1514	0.0948	0.3681	0.0787

It can be seen from Table 2 that the ranking of the average weights of six primary indices is as follows: opening ability ≻ innovation ability ≻ coordination ability ≻ green ability ≻ sharing ability ≻ industrial benefit. Therefore, opening ability plays the most important role in the evaluation system of China’s industrial high-quality development, followed by innovation ability and coordination ability.

Analysis on the high-quality development level of China’s industry

Based on the weights determined by the entropy-weight method, we use TOPSIS to calculate their relative nearness degrees and rank the high-quality development levels of 30 provinces during 1999–2018. Because there are too many years involved, we select six crucial years to analyze in detail, based on the characteristics of data and the time nodes for the five-year plans of national economic and social development. The selected years are 1999, 2001, 2006, 2011, 2016 and 2018. The years of 1999 and 2018 are the starting and end years of data respectively. The years of 2001, 2006, 2011 and 2016 are the starting years of the tenth, eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth five-year plans respectively. Their relative nearness degrees and rankings are shown in Table 3. Comprehensive results covering each year from 1999 to 2018 are attached in S1 Table.

Table 3

Relative nearness degrees and rankings of 30 provinces in 1999, 2001, 2006, 2011, 2014 and 2018.

	1999		2001		2006		2011		2016		2018
Province	ND	Rank	ND	Rank	ND	Rank	ND	Rank	ND	Rank	ND	Rank
Beijing	0.4799	3	0.4095	7	0.3634	6	0.5719	4	0.4704	2	0.2843	3
Tianjin	0.3815	7	0.4955	5	0.3804	4	0.5359	5	0.2929	8	0.2174	8
Hebei	0.1864	22	0.1919	24	0.1436	24	0.1812	24	0.1236	24	0.0993	22
Shanxi	0.1170	27	0.1757	25	0.1514	22	0.1679	27	0.1749	17	0.1160	18
Inner Mongolia	0.1776	23	0.2700	13	0.1415	26	0.1659	28	0.1824	14	0.1981	9
Liaoning	0.2811	15	0.2783	12	0.2010	14	0.2653	11	0.2351	10	0.1854	10
Jilin	0.1997	21	0.2013	23	0.1559	21	0.1939	22	0.1935	11	0.0912	25
Heilongjiang	0.2871	14	0.3590	8	0.2777	10	0.2206	18	0.1229	25	0.0948	24
Shanghai	0.4121	6	0.5374	2	0.4198	3	0.7780	1	0.7630	1	0.8018	1
Jiangsu	0.3205	10	0.4264	6	0.3734	5	0.5972	3	0.3707	6	0.2586	5
Zhejiang	0.4233	4	0.5152	3	0.3303	8	0.4666	7	0.3108	7	0.2759	4
Anhui	0.3151	11	0.2302	16	0.1476	23	0.2296	15	0.1891	12	0.1634	12
Fujian	0.5414	1	0.5001	4	0.3474	7	0.4432	8	0.2373	9	0.1777	11
Jiangxi	0.2512	17	0.1643	28	0.1739	16	0.2345	14	0.1666	18	0.1563	13
Shandong	0.3303	9	0.3164	9	0.2393	12	0.2816	10	0.1841	13	0.1344	15
Henan	0.2675	16	0.1524	30	0.1331	27	0.1805	26	0.1408	21	0.1120	19
Hubei	0.3107	12	0.2187	20	0.1701	18	0.2502	12	0.1780	15	0.1289	16
Hunan	0.2920	13	0.2281	18	0.1628	20	0.2255	16	0.1753	16	0.1435	14
Guangdong	0.5072	2	0.5665	1	0.4232	2	0.6105	2	0.4242	4	0.3593	2
Guangxi	0.2175	20	0.2094	22	0.1329	28	0.1809	25	0.1273	23	0.0903	26
Hainan	0.3385	8	0.2927	11	0.5813	1	0.5094	6	0.3913	5	0.2359	6
Chongqing	0.4233	5	0.2295	17	0.1659	19	0.3129	9	0.4487	3	0.2338	7
Sichuan	0.1714	24	0.2121	21	0.1715	17	0.2501	13	0.1489	20	0.1162	17
Guizhou	0.1157	28	0.1646	27	0.1429	25	0.1891	23	0.1136	26	0.0889	27
Yunnan	0.2478	18	0.3026	10	0.2449	11	0.2167	19	0.1326	22	0.1114	20
Shaanxi	0.1687	25	0.2376	15	0.1777	15	0.2097	20	0.1548	19	0.1007	21
Gansu	0.0865	30	0.1525	29	0.1010	30	0.2255	17	0.0864	30	0.0678	30
Qinghai	0.1147	29	0.2224	19	0.2341	13	0.1474	30	0.0942	29	0.0814	29
Ningxia	0.1566	26	0.1688	26	0.1223	29	0.1959	21	0.1031	27	0.0850	28
Xinjiang	0.2192	19	0.2660	14	0.2795	9	0.1524	29	0.1024	28	0.0958	23

First of all, based on the data of nearness degrees in Table 3 and using the natural breakpoint method, the levels of high-quality development of industry are divided into five categories, namely high, medium high, medium, medium low and low. The natural breakpoint method is one of data clustering methods, which realizes the best grouping of different categories by minimizing the average deviation within categories and maximizing the average deviation between categories. Results of the distribution of provinces in each high-quality development level category and their relative nearness degree ranges are shown in Table 4.

Table 4

Distribution of provinces in each high-quality development level category.

Year	High level	Medium high level	Medium level	Medium low level	Low level
1999	(0.3815–0.5414]:Fujian, Guangdong, Beijing, Zhejiang, Chongqing, Shanghai (6)	(0.2920–0.3815]:Tianjin, Hainan, Shandong, Jiangsu, Anhui, Hubei (6)	(0.2192–0.2920]:Hunan, Heilongjiang, Liaoning, Henan, Jiangxi, Yunnan (6)	(0.1170–0.2192]:Xinjiang, Guangxi, Jilin, Hebei, Inner Mongolia, Sichuan, Shaanxi, Ningxia (8)	[0.0865–0.1170]:Shanxi, Guizhou, Qinghai, Gansu (4)
2001	(0.4264–0.5666]:Guangdong, Shanghai, Zhejiang, Fujian, Tianjin (5)	(0.3164–0.4264]: Jiangsu, Beijing, Heilongjiang (3)	(0.2376–0.3164]: Shandong, Yunnan, Hainan, Liaoning, Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang (6)	(0.1919–0.2376]:Shaanxi, Anhui, Chongqing, Hunan, Qinghai, Hubei, Sichuan, Guangxi, Jilin (9)	[0.1524–0.1919]:Hebei, Shanxi, Ningxia, Guizhou, Jiangxi, Gansu, Henan (7)
2006	(0.4232–0.5813]:Hainan (1)	(0.2795–0.4232]:Guangdong, Shanghai, Tianjin, Jiangsu, Beijing, Fujian, Zhejiang (7)	(0.2010–0.2795]: Xinjiang, Heilongjiang, Yunnan, Shandong, Qinghai (5)	(0.1514–0.2010]: Liaoning, Shaanxi, Jiangxi, Sichuan, Hubei, Chongqing, Hunan, Jilin (8)	[0.1010–0.1514]:Shanxi, Anhui, Hebei, Guizhou, Inner Mongolia, Henan, Guangxi, Ningxia, Gansu (9)
2011	(0.5719–0.7780]:Shanghai, Guangdong, Jiangsu (3)	(0.3129–0.5719]:Beijing, Tianjin, Hainan, Zhejiang, Fujian (5)	(0.2345–0.3129]: Chongqing, Shandong, Liaoning, Hubei, Sichuan (5)	(0.1959–0.2345]: Jiangxi, Anhui, Hunan, Gansu, Heilongjiang, Yunnan, Shaanxi (7)	[0.1474–0.1959]:Ningxia, Jilin, Guizhou, Hebei, Guangxi, Henan, Shanxi, Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Qinghai (10)
2016	(0.4704–0.7630]:Shanghai (1)	(0.2929–0.4704]:Beijing, Chongqing, Guangdong, Hainan, Jiangsu, Zhejiang (6)	(0.1666–0.2929]:Tianjin, Fujian, Liaoning, Jilin, Anhui, Shandong, Inner Mongolia, Hubei, Hunan, Shanxi (10)	(0.1136–0.1666]:Jiangxi, Shaanxi, Sichuan, Henan, Yunnan, Guangxi, Hebei, Heilongjiang (8)	[0.0864–0.1136]:Guizhou, Ningxia, Xinjiang, Qinghai, Gansu (5)
2018	(0.3593–0.8018]:Shanghai (1)	(0.2174–0.3593]:Guangdong, Beijing, Zhejiang, Jiangsu, Hainan, Chongqing (6)	(0.1435–0.2174]:Tianjin, Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, Fujian, Anhui, Jiangxi (6)	(0.1007–0.1435]:Hunan, Shandong, Hubei, Sichuan, Shanxi, Henan, Yunnan (7)	[0.0678–0.1007]:Shaanxi, Hebei, Xinjiang, Heilongjiang, Jilin, Guangxi, Guizhou, Ningxia, Qinghai, Gansu (10)

Five provincial regions have been at the high and medium high levels, namely Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Guangdong. Tianjin, Fujian and Hainan have been at the high, medium high and medium levels. The provinces that have been at the medium high, medium and medium low levels include Shandong and Hubei. Shanxi, Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, Jilin, Jiangxi, Henan, Hunan, Sichuan, Yunnan, Qinghai and Xinjiang were always at the levels of medium, medium low and low. The regions that have been at the medium low and low levels include Hebei, Guangxi, Guizhou, Shaanxi, Gansu and Ningxia. In addition, Heilongjiang, Anhui and Chongqing have experienced relatively large fluctuations that involved four levels.

We analyze the level of high-quality development of the industry among the 30 provinces. Shandong, Jiangsu, Shanghai, Zhejiang, Fujian and Guangdong belong to the southeast coastal area, Shanxi, Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Hubei and Hunan belong to the central area, and Guangxi, Chongqing, Sichuan, Guizhou Yunnan, Shaanxi, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia and Xinjiang belong to the western area, Beijing, Tianjin, Hebei, Shanxi and Inner Mongolia belong to the north area, and Liaoning, Jilin and Heilongjiang belong to the northeast area. It can be found that:

Firstly, the distributions are not balanced. The provinces with higher levels of development are mainly municipalities directly under the central government, or the ones in the southeast coastal areas. The overall pattern is "high in the East, medium in the Middle and Northeast, and low in the Northwest".

Secondly, there are great differences in the evolution of high-quality industrial development levels among different regions in China. The development levels in the southeast coastal areas were constantly high, while those in the other areas experienced more tortuous evolution processes.

The high-quality development levels in the central region decreased from 1999 to 2001, and then increased especially in the periods of the eleventh and twelfth five-year plans (2006–2015). This improvement is closely related to the supporting strategies proposed by the central government in 2006 and continuously promoted by the State Council.

Except Chongqing, the levels in provinces in the western region have been rising and then declining. The rising period is from 1999 to 2005, in which 2001–2005 is the tenth five-year plan. The declining period is during the eleventh and twelfth five-year plans (2006–2015). The main reason for this change is that the western region development strategy was formally put forward in 1999, which helped it develop rapidly, but it did not catch up with more developed areas in the later period. However Chongqing is an exemption. We found that the levels in Chongqing have been high despite of some fluctuations. This could be explained by that it is a municipality directly under the central government and so entitled to more policy benefits.

The levels in North China varied significantly across regions. In Beijing and Tianjin they were constantly high, while in Hebei and Shanxi they were at medium and medium low levels most of the time. However, in Inner Mongolia it increased first during 1999–2001, then decreased during the tenth five-year plan period (2001–2005), followed by increasing during the twelfth five-year plan period (2011–2015) and continued to increase during 2016–2018.

The levels in Northeast China provinces have been fluctuating for 20 years, with rising in 1999–2001, declining in the tenth and eleventh five-year plan periods (2001–2010), rising in the twelfth five-year plan period (2011–2015) and declining in 2016–2018. This can be explained by the quantitative volatility [45] and short-term stimulus effect [46] of national policies.

Sensitivity analysis

In this section, we refer to the research of Dehdasht et al. [47] and test the sensitivity of our measurements of industrial high-quality development levels based on index weights..

Assume there are k primary indices, n tertiary indices, and the weight of the rth primary index changes from to .

Therefore the weights of tertiary indices contained in the primary indices change from to according to the equal proportion method as shown in formula below:

The weights of tertiary indices contained in the other primary indices change from to as shown in formula below:

We test the data in 2018 only, due to the large number of years involved. The degrees of weight changes are set as 0.1, 0.15 and 0.2 for each primary index. We carried out 18 tests in which the weight of each tertiary index is calculated according to formulae above, so as to obtain the rankings of industrial high-quality development levels after changing their weights. Due to limited space, only the results of Industrial benefit (A1) and Innovation ability (A2) are presented in Table 5.

Table 5

Test results of sensitivity analysis for industrial benefit (A1) and innovation ability (A2).

Expt. No.	Description	New Weight						Ranking
		A1′	A2′	A3′	A4′	A5′	A6′
1	A1′=A_1+0.1	0.1506	0.2293	0.1355	0.0849	0.3293	0.0705	Shanghai>Guangdong>Beijing>Zhejiang>Jiangsu>Hainan>Chongqing>Tianjin>Inner Mongolia>Liaoning>Jiangxi>Fujian>Anhui>Hainan>Hubei>Shandong>Sichuan>Shaanxi>Henan>Shanxi>Yunnan>Guizhou>Xinjiang>Hebei>Guangxi>Heilongjiang>Jilin>Ningxia>Qinghai>Gansu
2	A1′=A_1+0.15	0.2006	0.2158	0.1275	0.0799	0.3100	0.0663	Shanghai>Guangdong>Beijing>Zhejiang>Jiangsu>Hainan>Chongqing>Tianjin>Inner Mongolia>Jiangxi>Liaoning>Fujian>Anhui>Hainan>Hubei>Shaanxi>Shandong>Sichuan>Henan>Yunnan>Shanxi>Guizhou>Xinjiang>Hebei>Guangxi>Jilin>Heilongjiang>Ningxia>Gansu>Qinghai
3	A1′=A_1+0.2	0.2506	0.2023	0.1195	0.0749	0.2906	0.0622	Shanghai>Guangdong>Beijing>Zhejiang>Jiangsu>Hainan>Chongqing>Jiangxi>Inner Mongolia>Tianjin>Fujian>Liaoning>Anhui>Shaanxi>Hainan>Hubei>Sichuan>Henan>Shandong>Guizhou>Yunnan>Shanxi>Xinjiang>Hebei>Guangxi>Jilin>Heilongjiang>Ningxia>Gansu>Qinghai
4	A2′=A_2+0.1	0.0438	0.3563	0.1311	0.0821	0.3186	0.0682	Shanghai>Guangdong>Jiangsu>Zhejiang>Beijing>Chongqing>Hainan>Tianjin>Anhui>Jiangxi>Liaoning>Inner Mongolia>Fujian>Hainan>Hubei>Shandong>Sichuan>Yunnan>Shanxi>Henan>Xinjiang>Shaanxi>Ningxia>Hebei>Guizhou>Heilongjiang>Jilin>Guangxi>Qinghai>Gansu
5	A2′=A_2+0.15	0.0404	0.4063	0.1209	0.0757	0.2939	0.0629	Shanghai>Guangdong>Jiangsu>Zhejiang>Beijing>Chongqing>Hainan>Anhui>Tianjin>Jiangxi>Liaoning>Inner Mongolia>Fujian>Hainan>Hubei>Shandong>Yunnan>Sichuan>Shanxi>Henan>Xinjiang>Ningxia>Shaanxi>Hebei>Guizhou>Jilin>Heilongjiang>Guangxi>Gansu>Qinghai
6	A2′=A_2+0.2	0.0370	0.4563	0.1107	0.0693	0.2691	0.0576	Shanghai>Guangdong>Jiangsu>Zhejiang>Beijing>Chongqing>Anhui>Tianjin>Hainan>Jiangxi>Liaoning>Hainan>Fujian>Inner Mongolia>Hubei>Shandong>Yunnan>Sichuan>Ningxia>Henan>Shanxi>Xinjiang>Shaanxi>Hebei>Guizhou>Jilin>Heilongjiang>Guangxi>Gansu>Qinghai

The results show that Shanghai has stably led the way in the high-quality industrial development, ranking first in all 18 tests. The rankings of most provinces change little with weights, indicating they are insensitive to the changes of weights. Therefore we conclude that the measurement methods used in this study can robustly evaluate the levels of high-quality development of industry.

Interprovincial spatial correlation analysis of high-quality development of industry in China

Global spatial correlation analysis

We use Geoda software to calculate the global Moran’s I index of high-quality industrial development level of China’s provinces from 1999 to 2018. The results are shown in Table 6. From the calculation results, the global Moran’s I index is positive in the past 20 years. In most years, the spatial autocorrelation passes the test at the 1% confidence level. In 2008, the correlation is significant at the 5% confidence level, and in 2015, the correlation is notable at the 10% confidence level.

Table 6

Moran’s I of high-quality development of industry from 1999–2018.

Year	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008
Global Moran’s index	0.4419	0.3713	0.3506	0.3331	0.3822	0.3696	0.4653	0.4581	0.2995	0.2056
p-value	0.0020	0.0020	0.0030	0.0030	0.0020	0.0040	0.0010	0.0010	0.0030	0.0260
Year	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018
Global Moran’s index	0.4972	0.1950	0.5150	0.5152	0.3615	0.3487	0.1601	0.3050	0.3647	0.2510
p-value	0.0020	0.0020	0.0020	0.0020	0.0030	0.0030	0.0600	0.0090	0.0030	0.0060

It can be seen that the interprovincial high-quality development of industry presents obvious positive spatial correlation, that is, interprovincial high-quality development level tends to cluster, which indicates that neighboring provinces tend to have the same level of high-quality development of industry.

Local spatial correlation analysis

In order to explore the spatial correlation of high-quality development of industry between 30 provinces, the local Moran’s I of each provinces calculated. Because of the large number of provinces involved, six key years, namely 1999, 2001, 2006, 2011, 2016 and 2018, are selected for comparative analysis. Moran scatter diagram is drawn by Geoda software, as shown in Figs 3–8.

Fig 3

Moran scatter chart of industrial high quality development level in 1999.

Fig 8

Moran scatter chart of industrial high quality development level in 2018.

Based on Moran scatter diagram, the clustering degree of high-quality development of industry in 30 provinces can be divided into four categories. The results are shown in Table 7, in which the contents in brackets indicate the number of provinces included: ① High-High in the first quadrant, that is, the high-quality development level of the province’s industry and its neighbors’; ② The second quadrant is Low-High, that is, the level of high-quality industrial development in the province is low, and the level of neighboring provinces is high; ③ The third quadrant is Low-low, that is, the high-quality industrial development level of the province and its neighboring provinces is low; ④ The fourth quadrant is High-Low, that is, the high-quality development of industry in the province is high but its neighboring provinces’ is low. Among them, the High-High and Low-Low types indicate that the level of high-quality development of industry presents a strong positive correlation and spatial cluster, while the Low-High and High-Low types indicate a strong negative correlation and spatial differentiation. Generally, most provinces in China belong to High-High and Low-Low types, which indicates that their spatial clustering is significant.

Table 7

Clustering types of high-quality industrial development in various provinces in 1999, 2001, 2006, 2011, 2016 and 2018.

Year	Type	Province (The number of provinces is in the bracket)
1999	High-High	Anhui, Beijing, Fujian, Guangdong, Hainan, Hubei, Hunan, Jiangsu, Shanghai, Tianjin, Zhejiang (11)
	Low-High	Guangxi, Hebei, Jiangxi (3)
	Low-Low	Gansu, Guizhou, Henan, Jilin, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, Qinghai, Shaanxi, Shanxi, Sichuan, Xinjiang, Yunnan (12)
	High-Low	Chongqing, Heilongjiang, Liaoning, Shandong (4)
2001	High-High	Beijing, Fujian, Hainan, Jiangsu, Shanghai, Tianjin, Zhejiang (7)
	Low-High	Anhui, Guangxi, Hebei, Jiangxi, Jilin (5)
	Low-Low	Chongqing, Gansu, Guizhou, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Liaoning, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, Qinghai, Shaanxi, Shanxi, Sichuan, Xinjiang (14)
	High-Low	Guangdong, Heilongjiang, Shandong, Yunnan (4)
2006	High-High	Beijing, Fujian, Guangdong, Hainan, Jiangsu, Shanghai, Tianjin, Zhejiang (8)
	Low-High	Anhui, Guangxi, Jiangsu (3)
	Low-Low	Chongqing, Gansu, Guizhou, Hebei, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Jilin, Liaoning, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, Qinghai, Shaanxi, Shanxi, Sichuan (15)
	High-Low	Heilongjiang, Shandong, Xinjiang, Yunnan (4)
2011	High-High	Beijing, Fujian, Guangdong, Hainan, Jiangsu, Shanghai, Tianjin, Zhejiang (8)
	Low-High	Anhui, Guangxi, Hebei, Jiangxi (4)
	Low-Low	Gansu, Guizhou, Heilongjiang, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Jilin, Liaoning, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, Qinghai, Shaanxi, Shandong, Shanxi, Sichuan, Xinjiang, Yunnan (17)
	High-Low	Chongqing (1)
2016	High-High	Fujian, Hainan, Jiangsu, Shanghai, Tianjin, Zhejiang (6)
	Low-High	Hebei, Hunan, Jiangxi
	Low-Low	Anhui, Gansu, Guangxi, Guizhou, Heilongjiang, Henan, Hubei, Jilin, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, Qinghai, Shaanxi, Shandong, Shanxi, Sichuan, Xinjiang, Yunnan (3)
	High-Low	Beijing, Chongqing, Guangdong, Liaoning (17)
2018年	High-High	Fujian, Hainan, Jiangsu, Shanghai, Tianjin, Zhejiang (6)
	Low-High	Anhui, Guangxi, Hebei, Hunan, Jiangxi (5)
	Low-Low	Gansu, Guizhou, Heilongjiang, Henan, Hubei, Jilin, Ningxia, Qinghai, Shaanxi, Shandong, Shanxi, Sichuan, Xinjiang, Yunnan (14)
	High-Low	Beijing, Chongqing, Guangdong, Liaoning, Inner Mongolia (5)

From the spatial distribution characteristics of spatial clustering types, the High-High type mainly includes the eastern region, with typical serial distribution characteristics, forming three major regions, namely Beijing-Tianjin, Jiangsu-Zhejiang-Shanghai and Fujian-Guangdong-Hainan. Taking their geographical advantages, these regions strengthen the ability of opening up to the outside world, and form a "pioneer" area of high-quality development of industry by introducing abundant resources. The High-High concentration provinces changed little, but the overall scope has reduced. In 2001, the region excludes Anhui, Hubei and Hunan provinces, and in 2011, the region excludes Beijing and Guangdong Province.

The provinces with Low-Low clustering are mainly distributed in the central and western regions, and also have obvious continuous distribution characteristics. The regions represented by Shaanxi-Gansu-Ningxia-Qinghai-Xinjiang and Sichuan-Guizhou and Shanxi-Henan-Hubei are formed. The Northeast of China is included, but its not stable. Because of closed geographic condition, their development is restricted in all dimensions.

The provinces with Low-High and High-Low differences are distributed in a decentralized way. The provinces with Low-High type consist of Anhui, Guangxi, Jiangxi and Hebei. These provinces are all located around the provinces with high levels of high-quality development of industry. Therefore, they can improve their development level by using the spatial spillover effect from neighbor provinces in the future. The provinces in High-Low differences involve Beijing, Shandong, Guangdong, Chongqing and Yunnan. These regions should elaborate the driving effect and improve the high-quality development of industry in surrounding areas through industrial and resource transformation and improve the overall coordination ability.

According to the theory of Space-time Transition proposed by Rey et al. (2006), the transition of industrial cluster types in China can be divided into four categories. Type I is that the spatial clustering type of the provinces is unchanged, and the type of neighboring provinces has been transformed. This category is shown in the Moran scatter map as the vertical quadrant change, that is, the first and fourth, the second and the third quadrants change; Type II is the change of the spatial clustering type of its own but the type of neighboring provinces remains unchanged. This type is shown in Moran scatter map as the quadrant change in the horizontal, i.e. the first and second, the third and fourth quadrants change. In type III, the spatial clustering of itself and that of the neighboring provinces all have a transition, which is shown in the Moran scatter map as the oblique upward quadrant change, namely, the quadrant changes between the first and third, the second and fourth. Type IV means that the spatial clustering of itself and that of the neighboring provinces all remain unchanged and its position in Moran scatter map does not change. Based on this, the transition of high-quality development of industry in China can be divided into four types, as shown in Table 8.

Table 8

Types of spatial transition of high-quality industrial development level and provinces covered.

Type	Representative provinces
Type I: Self invariance, adjacent transition	Beijing, Inner Mongolia, Hebei, Guangdong, Guangxi, Liaoning, Anhui (2011–2016, 2016–2018), Hunan (2011–2016)
Type II: Self transition, adjacent invariance	Shandong, Heilongjiang, Chongqing, Yunnan, Liaoning, Anhui (1999–2001)
Type III: Self transition, adjacent transition	Hubei, Hunan (1999–2001)
Type IV: Self invariance, adjacent invariance	Tianjin, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, Hainan, Shanxi, Jiangxi, Henan, Sichuan, Guizhou, Shaanxi, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia, Xinjiang

According to the above results, more than half of China’s provinces can be classified as type IV, that is, the clustering of high-quality development of industry has not undergone a transition, indicating that its spatial distribution is stable. The provinces without spatiotemporal transition locate in the eastern, central and western regions. The main spatiotemporal clustering types are High- High and Low-Low clustering types, and especially the Low-Low clustering type in the western region accounts for a large proportion. This phenomenon shows that the western region has formed a "depression" of sustained high-quality development of industry. The development of the western region in China and other regional coordination measures have not played an effective role in stimulating the development of the region. How to enhance the development energy is the key issue of these provinces.

In type I, the development level of Beijing and Guangdong is relatively high and the level of neighboring provinces fluctuates, indicating that their radiation and driving effects on their neighbors fluctuate; Hebei, Inner Mongolia, Guangxi, Liaoning, Anhui and Hunan have low development level and the level of surrounding provinces fluctuates, which indicates that the driving role of surrounding provinces to these provinces is not obvious and stable, and the regional coordinated promotion has not yet formed.

In type II, the fluctuation of Anhui Province and its surrounding areas indicate that its utilization of spillover resources needs to be improved. The industrial development in Shandong, Heilongjiang, Chongqing, Yunnan and Liaoning fluctuates while their surrounding areas are at low levels. This phenomenon shows that these provinces are still the important driving points for nearby areas and can be used in the strategy of "promote firstly and drive secondly".

Conclusions and suggestions

Conclusions

This paper constructs an evaluation index system of industrial high-quality development level in China from six perspectives: industrial benefit, innovation ability, coordination ability, green ability, opening ability and sharing ability. We use entropy-weight and TOPSIS to evaluate the levels of 30 provinces in China from 1999 to 2018, and lay special stress on analyzing the evaluation results in 1999, 2001, 2006, 2011, 2014 and 2018. Furthermore the robustness of this combination method is confirmed by sensitivity tests based on index weights. The main conclusions are as follows:

Innovation ability and open ability are the most important factors.

Results show that, the ranking of the average weights of six primary indices in 2018 is as follows: opening ability ≻ innovation ability ≻ coordination ability ≻ green ability ≻ sharing ability ≻ industrial benefit. Moreover, the weights of innovation ability and opening ability have been increasing in recent years. Among the tertiary indices, number of effective invention patents per capita, proportion of high-tech industries, trade openness, openness of foreign capital, proportion of expenditure on technology introduction and employment ratio have greater weights than the others. The results indicate that innovation ability and opening ability are important indices of high-quality development, and their influence is increasing.

Green ability has not sufficiently contributed to China’s industrial development.

The overall change of the weights of green ability from 1999 to 2018 is insignificant. It is also ranked low in 2018. As we continue to intensify the efforts on environmental protection, energy conservation and emission reduction, their contribution to industrial high-quality development is still not enough when compared with innovation, opening, industrial benefit and other indices.

Regional and time evolution differences are significant.

There are significant spatial differences in the levels of high-quality industrial development across China’s provinces. While high in municipalities and coastal provinces, there is a pattern of "high in the East, medium in the middle and northeast, and low in the northwest". Their time evolutions are different as well. The levels in the southeast coastal area were continuously high, while the differences among the provinces in North China were large. In the central region the levels are found reducing first and then rising, while in the western region they increased first and then decreased, and in the northeast region they fluctuated greatly.

There is a significant and stable spatial clustering effect in the high-quality development of industry among China’s provinces.

Overall the high-quality development of industry among China’s provinces shows positive spatial correlation. Most provinces in China are in High-High and Low-Low clustering States, which indicates that there is a significant spatial dependence effect. The High-High clustering type is mainly distributed in the eastern region and the Low-Low clustering type is mainly distributed in the western and central regions. The Low-High and High-Low differences types present divergent distribution. And the type of spatial clustering doesn’t change in more than half of the provinces.

Suggestions

Based on the above conclusions, we put forward the following four suggestions for the high-quality development of industry in China:

Promote opening ability and innovation ability.

The improvement of industrial opening ability needs the joint efforts of enterprises and the government. Enterprises should reinforce the absorption of foreign capital and technology and enhance their scale and strength by absorbing capital and technology efficiently. Moreover, they should increase the export of industrial products, expand their market, and make full use of foreign market resources. The government should delegate power, and streamline and improve their services to optimize business environment and attract foreign investment. Meanwhile they need to accelerate the construction of the Belt and Road Initiative, adhere to the principle of mutual benefit and Win-win strategy, and promote the cooperation with international capacities to improve the utilization of domestic capacity.

To promote innovation ability, enterprises should increase the investment of funds and personnel for scientific research, establish more R&D institutions, pay more attention to patented technology and improve their ability to control key technologies, so as to transform technological achievements into new product benefits. Meanwhile the government should further encourage innovation incentives, strengthen the protection of intellectual property rights and increase research investment to provide plenty of support for scientific and technological innovations.

Upgrade the requirement of green ability in industrial development significantly.

Enterprises should build a low-carbon green production system with less resource consumption and less environmental pollution, reduce energy and water consumption through the introduction of advanced technology, and centralize the treatment of three wastes, so as to improve recycling efficiency to the greatest extent. Meanwhile the government should improve environmental protection law and regulation system, raise the threshold for energy conservation and environmental protection, and impose stricter punishment for the enterprises that violate the laws and regulations.

Promote balanced development of China’s industries across regions.

At present, there is an obvious regional imbalance in the levels of industrial high-quality development in China. In order to alleviate this problem, we should thoroughly implement the strategy of regional coordinated development, accelerate the adjustment and transformation of industrial bases in northeast China, focus on improving the innovation ability in the eastern region, implement the modernization strategy and promote the industrial cooperation between east and west regions, so as to realize an orderly industrial transfer.

Make full use of the spatial spillover effect to help the provinces with low-level industrial high-quality development.

Strengthen the radiation effect of provinces with levels of industrial high-quality development and enhance the spatial spillover and diffusion effect through exchanges and win-win cooperation. First of all, focus on the provinces with high levels of development within the region to promote the whole region, such as Chongqing and Yunnan in Southwest China. Secondly, radiate the driving force Beijing and Tianjin, as the main driving points to Hebei and Inner Mongolia, and From Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang and other key provinces to the central region and southwest region.

Relative nearness degree and rank of 30 provinces from 1999 to 2018.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

11 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-12827

Dynamic Evaluation of High-quality Development of Industry in China Based on Entropy-Weight and TOPSIS

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Du,

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 Jul 26 2021 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 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 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: http://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,

Dragan Pamucar

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

and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.  Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Elstree Group Holdings Limited.

2.1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2.2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. We note that Figures 3-8 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

4.1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 3-8 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

4.2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[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: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: No

**********

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: No

**********

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: Presented methodology has a great potential in decision making process and I am giving support to the authors for investigation this topic. The strengths of this paper are: Relevant topic; Flow of the paper; and Explanation of the model. However, the author(s) need to consider the following points as limitation or further scope for refining the paper:

- Rewrite Abstract - Abstract should cover five main elements, introduction, problem statement, methodology, contributions and results.

- Introduction should be clearly stated research questions and targets first. Why is the topic important (or why do you study on it)? What are your contributions? Why is to propose extended TOPSIS methodology. You should provide more information in this regard and in more coherent way.

- Need to highlight the novelty of study in the introduction and motivation.

- Literature review (LR) should be presented in a better way.

- You should provide flowchart and organize the section according the stages presented on flowchart.

- What about validation and comparisons with existing approaches. What are advantages of this approach? What are its limitations?

Reviewer #2: The article has many fundamental problems. The following are some of my comments in order to improve the technicality and readability of the paper:

1-The manuscript neither presents the initial data collected nor shows the process of data analysis.

2-The manuscript does not check the reliability and validity of the achieved results (for example, comparison against existing alternative methods).

3-The combination of the two methods entropy and TOPSIS is not sufficiently exposed; the use of these methods to the application domain must be better explicated.

4- The analysis of the results is really poor. The conclusions are trivial and it is difficult to understand what the add-value of this approach is.

5-The discussion part is only an explanation of the result and not a discussion (without a real analysis of them).

6-The submission is badly written and the authors need to get an independent native speaker to proof-read the entire manuscript.

Overall, the paper has some potential; however, the current form does not offer any novelty and robustness.

**********

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: Yes: Dr. Gholamreza Dehdasht

[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.

14 Jul 2021

A Reply for Comments and Suggestions of the Manuscript ID (PONE-D-21-12827)

Dear Editors and reviewers,

We first thank the reviewers and editors sincerely for giving very helpful suggestions and comments to improve our manuscript. Our revisions have been made according to the questions and suggestions from two reviewers. The detailed revisions are as follows:

Questions and suggestions from Reviewer 1:

Presented methodology has a great potential in decision making process and I am giving support to the authors for investigation this topic. The strengths of this paper are: Relevant topic; Flow of the paper; and Explanation of the model. However, the author(s) need to consider the following points as limitation or further scope for refining the paper:

[QS1] Rewrite Abstract - Abstract should cover five main elements, introduction, problem statement, methodology, contributions and results.

[A1] We have rewritten the abstract as the reviewer suggested. The specific amendments are as follows.

China’s economy has been transitioning from a phase of rapid growth to high-quality development. The high-quality development of industry is the foundation of a sustainable and healthy growth of national economy, and is of great significance to improve people’s living standards, and to meet people's needs for a better life. We develop an evaluation index system of high-quality development of industry from the perspectives of industrial benefit, innovation ability, coordination ability, green ability, opening ability and sharing ability. Based on a panel data of 30 provinces in China during 1999-2018, we evaluate the level of high-quality development of industry using the entropy-weight method and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method. Meanwhile we select six specific years and adopt the Natural Breaks method to classify the provinces according to their levels. At last, Moran's I index is used to analyze the spatial correlation among the provinces. Our results show that opening ability and innovation ability are found to have greater impacts on industrial high-quality development than other indices, and their influence has been increasing in recent years. There are large spatial and temporal differences among different provinces. Municipalities and coastal provinces are found to be at constantly high levels. The levels in the central region dropped first and then increased, however it was the opposite in the western region. In the northeast region, the levels fluctuated greatly. Overall the high-quality development of industry among China's provinces shows positive spatial correlation. Most provinces in China are in High-High and Low-Low clustering States. The High-High clustering type is mainly distributed in the eastern region and the Low-Low clustering type is mainly distributed in the western and central regions. Our conclusions are: (1) Innovation ability and open ability are the most important factors. (2) Green ability has not sufficiently contributed to China's industrial development. (3) Regional and time evolution differences are significant. (4) There is a significant and stable spatial clustering effect in the high-quality development of industry among China's provinces. .

[QS2] Introduction should be clearly stated research questions and targets first. Why is the topic important (or why do you study on it)? What are your contributions? Why is to propose extended TOPSIS methodology. You should provide more information in this regard and in more coherent way.

[A2] We condensed the introduction in more coherent way and added some relative materials to improve the clarity of our research questions and contributions.

The importance of this topic: In 2017, the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China proposed the concept of high-quality development for the first time, indicating that China’s economy has been transitioning from a phase of rapid growth to high-quality development. “High-quality development is the development which can well meet people's growing needs for a better life. It is the development that embodies a new concept that innovation becomes the first driving force, coordination becomes the endogenous characteristic, green becomes the universal form, opening becomes the inevitable course, and sharing becomes the fundamental purpose.” General secretary of the CPC Central Committee Xi Jinping said. From this, we can see that high-quality development means strong innovation ability, green environmental protection, harmonious social and economic relationship, and sharing of development achievements by the people, on top of the traditional concept of high input-output efficiency. General Secretary Xi Jinping also stressed that the requirements of high-quality development should be reflected in the economic, social, cultural, ecological and all other fields. The high-quality development of industry is the foundation of a sustainable and healthy growth of national economy, and is of great significance to improve people’s living standards, and to meet people's needs for a better life.

The contribution of this study: This paper originates in constructing a comprehensive index system and evaluating the high-quality development of industry from provincial and time dimensions, and reveal the interprovincial correlation among the provinces. We developed important references to promoting the high-quality development of industry in China.

Why do we propose Entropy weight TOPSIS? Comprehensive evaluation methods include subjective weighting and objective weighting methods. The objective weighting methods determine the weights based on actual data and have the advantages of objectivity and transparency. They are applicable to our study since it is based on a large number of empirical data,. As one of the most widely used objective weighting methods, entropy weight method determines the weight of all data information, which is more complete than the commonly used Principal Component Analysis [1]. Moreover the entropy weight method does not require too much data, avoiding the shortcomings of the commonly used factor analysis which requires large quantities of sample data. In addition, we introduce the TOPSIS to rank the high-quality development of industry of each province. Some researches show that the Entropy-weight TOPSIS method has better stability and robustness than the other methods. According to the analysis conducted by Zhang [61], when using the mean value of standard deviation as a measure of stability when the number of evaluation objects, indices or both change, Entropy-weight method is the best evaluation method for stability in the research area and TOPSIS method has good performance in the ranking method. Zhang Lijun [62] use Kendall harmony coefficient to analyze the robustness of different comprehensive evaluation methods when the dimensionless method and sample size changed. The results testify the high robustness of Entropy-weight method.

[QS3] Need to highlight the novelty of study in the introduction and motivation.

[A3] We highlight the novelty of the study by modifying the introduction. It mainly includes: enriching and polishing the limitations, main contents and contributions of the research on the measurement of high-quality development of industry introduced in the introduction.

There are some limitations in the measurement of high-quality development of industry. First, the Five Concepts of Development are the most consistent with China’s high-quality development, which provide a reference for the construction of our comprehensive index system. The second is that the entropy weight and its improved methods are most widely used in the evaluation of levels of indices. Third, current research is lack of analysis from time and space dimensions, which cannot grasp the dynamic trend and spatial characteristics of high-quality development of industry in China. Fourth, current research is mainly based on a specific region or the whole country, and pays no attention to interprovincial analysis

Our study mainly bases on the Five Concepts for Development and builds evaluation index system for high-quality development of industry by introducing industrial performance indicators system. We measure the high-quality development of industry 30 provinces from 1999 to 2018 by the entropy weight and TOPSIS method and we use the spatial correlation analysis to study its spatial characteristics, so as to reveal the spatial distribution and temporal evolution regularity, and then we put forward targeted countermeasures and suggestions. This paper makes up for the lack of current research to evaluate the high-quality development of industry from the provincial and time dimensions, and has important reference value for promoting the high-quality development of industry in China.

[QS4] Literature review (LR) should be presented in a better way.

[A4] This paper mainly includes the literature review of the overall research on high-quality development, which focuses on the literature review of high-quality development of economy and logically sorts the research status of high-quality development of industry, enriching and refining its limitations. We added the survey of the research status of Entropy weight TOPSIS used in this study.

[QS5] You should provide flowchart and organize the section according the stages presented on flowchart.

[A5] We introduce the organization of the article in the last paragraph of the introduction. The article is organized as follows. Section 1 reviews the current research on the measurement of high-quality development. Section 2 constructs the evaluation index system for high-quality development of industry. Section 3 introduces the implementation steps of entropy weight TOPSIS method and the calculation method of spatial correlation analysis. Empirical results are reported in Section 4, including the introduction of data sources and methods, the evaluation results of industrial high-quality development level and the results of spatial correlation analysis. Section 5 summarizes the conclusion, and puts forward targeted policy suggestions.

[QS6] What about validation and comparisons with existing approaches. What are advantages of this approach? What are its limitations?

[A6] In introduction, we introduced the characteristics of Entropy weight TOPSIS and its research status in high-quality development evaluation and other fields. In Section 3, we focused on the applicability of this method to the problems and the comparison between Entropy weight TOPSIS and other measurement methods in measuring objects, stability and robustness.

We consider using other comprehensive evaluation methods to evaluate the high-quality development of industry in China, and compare others with the Entropy weight TOPSIS method used in this paper, objective analysis methods such as principal component analysis, factor analysis, or subjective analysis methods such as analytic hierarchy process. The best evaluation method can be selected by comparing the robustness of different methods like the best scheme consistency rate, scheme ranking matching rate, mean square error, mean absolute difference, Spearman coefficient, Kendall coefficient and Kendall harmony coefficient.

However, the focus of the article will be papered over if include the results of comparison. Adding more comprehensive evaluation method comparison will lead to the focus of the paper from the analysis of high-quality development status to the discussion of comprehensive evaluation method. In addition, the comparison of various methods will lead to a long paper.

Therefore, we decided to refer to the current academic research results of comprehensive evaluation methods to help the comparative analysis of evaluation methods.

First of all, we analyze the research status of the measurement of high-quality economic development and high-quality industrial development, and draw a conclusion that although the measurement methods have not been unified, the entropy weight method and its improved methods are the most widely used objective evaluation methods. Secondly, we compare the subjective weighting method with the objective weighting method to explain the reason why we choose the objective evaluation method. Secondly, we compare with other commonly used objective evaluation methods to explain the advantages and applicability of entropy weight TOPSIS method. Finally, we analyze the robustness and stability of the comprehensive evaluation method based on the existing research results.

Comprehensive evaluation methods include subjective weighting and objective weighting methods. The objective weighting methods determine the weights based on actual data and have the advantages of objectivity and transparency. They are applicable to our study since it is based on a large number of empirical data. As one of the most widely used objective weighting methods, entropy weight method determines the weight of all data information, which is more complete than the commonly used Principal Component Analysis [1]. Moreover, the entropy weight method does not require too much data, avoiding the shortcomings of the commonly used factor analysis which requires large quantities of sample data [2]. In addition, we introduce the TOPSIS to rank the high-quality development of industry of each province. Some researches show that the Entropy-weight TOPSIS method has better stability and robustness than the other methods. According to the analysis conducted by Zhang [61], when using the mean value of standard deviation as a measure of stability when the number of evaluation objects, indices or both change, Entropy-weight method is the best evaluation method for stability in the research area and TOPSIS method has good performance in the ranking method. Zhang Lijun [62] use Kendall harmony coefficient to analyze the robustness of different comprehensive evaluation methods when the dimensionless method and sample size changed. The results testify the high robustness of Entropy-weight method.

Referring to the characteristics of the research problem and combined with the applicability and stability of each method, we use Entropy weight method to weight the indicators, and combine it with TOPSIS method to rank the high-quality development of industry in each province. In addition, based on the comprehensive evaluation of high-quality industrial development level, this paper also studies its spatial correlation, so as to obtain the spatial characteristics of high-quality development of industry in China.

Questions and Suggestions from Reviewer 2

The article has many fundamental problems. The following are some of my comments in order to improve the technicality and readability of the paper:

[QS1] The manuscript neither presents the initial data collected nor shows the process of data analysis.

[A1] We will upload the original data and calculation process data of the paper.

Due to the limitation of space and the huge amount of data, it is difficult to show the data analysis process in detail in the paper. In our paper, we made a detailed explanation of the specific calculation steps of Entropy weight TOPSIS, and showed the calculation results of our Entropy weight method and the progress and ranking of high-quality development of industry in six key years calculated by TOPSIS. Meanwhile, detailed results of relative nearness degrees and rankings of 30 provinces from 1999 to 2018 are presented in supplementary material.

[QS2] The manuscript does not check the reliability and validity of the achieved results (for example, comparison against existing alternative methods).

[A2] In introduction, we introduced the characteristics of Entropy weight TOPSIS and its research status in high-quality development evaluation and other fields. In Section 3, we focused on the applicability of this method to the problems and the comparison between Entropy weight TOPSIS and other measurement methods in measuring objects, stability and robustness.

We consider using other comprehensive evaluation methods to evaluate the high-quality development of industry in China, and compare others with the Entropy weight TOPSIS method used in this paper, objective analysis methods such as principal component analysis, factor analysis, or subjective analysis methods such as analytic hierarchy process. The best evaluation method can be selected by comparing the robustness of different methods like the best scheme consistency rate, scheme ranking matching rate, mean square error, mean absolute difference, Spearman coefficient, Kendall coefficient and Kendall harmony coefficient.

However, the focus of the article will be papered over if using this method of comparison. Adding more comprehensive evaluation method comparison will lead the focus of the paper from the analysis of high-quality development status to the discussion of comprehensive evaluation methods. In addition, the comparison of various methods will lead to a lengthy paper.

Therefore, we decided to refer to the current academic research results of comprehensive evaluation methods to help the comparative analysis of evaluation methods.

First of all, we analyze the research status of the measurement of high-quality economic development and high-quality industrial development, and draw a conclusion that although the measurement methods have not been unified, the entropy weight method and its improved methods are the most widely used objective evaluation methods. Secondly, we compare the subjective weighting method with the objective weighting method to explain the reason why we choose the objective evaluation method. Secondly, we compare with other commonly used objective evaluation methods to explain the advantages and applicability of entropy weight TOPSIS method. Finally, we analyze the robustness and stability of the comprehensive evaluation method based on the existing research results.

In terms of comprehensive evaluation, the current commonly used methods are subjective weighting method and objective weighting method. The objective weighting method is based on the actual data to determine the weight, which has the advantage of objectivity and transparency. Based on a large number of empirical data, the objective weighting method has broader applicability.

Entropy weight method, as the most widely used high-quality development evaluation method, has broader applicability for this research problem. Firstly, Entropy weight method is used to determine the weight of all data information. Compared with the commonly used principal component analysis method, the information is more complete, and it is more suitable for the evaluation high-quality development of industry in multiple years. Secondly, the Entropy weight method does not require too much data avoiding the shortcomings of the commonly used factor analysis method. In addition, this paper also introduces the TOPSIS to rank the high-quality development of industry among provinces. This method is simple in calculation and reasonable in results and improves the accuracy of high-quality development of industry evaluation.

In addition, the research shows that the Entropy weight TOPSIS method has better stability and robustness than other methods. According to the analysis of the stability comparison of comprehensive evaluation methods by Zhang [3], the mean value of the standard deviation of the evaluation when the number of evaluation objects changes, the number of indexes changes or both changes is used as the measurement index of the stability. The results show that the Entropy weight method is the best evaluation method for the stability in the research scope, and the TOPSIS also has a good performance in the rank method. Zhang uses Kendall harmony coefficient to analyze the robustness of different comprehensive evaluation methods when the sample size changes and the dimensionless method. The results show that the Entropy weight has high robustness.

Referring to the characteristics of the research problem and combined with the applicability and stability of each method, we use Entropy weight method to weight the indicators, and combine it with TOPSIS method to rank the high-quality development of industry in each province. In addition, based on the comprehensive evaluation of high-quality industrial development level, this paper also studies its spatial correlation, so as to obtain the spatial characteristics of high-quality development of industry in China.

[QS3] The combination of the two methods Entropy and TOPSIS is not sufficiently exposed; the use of these methods to the application domain must be better explicated.

[A3] In introduction, we introduced the characteristics of Entropy weight TOPSIS and its research status in high-quality development evaluation and other fields. In Section 3, we focused on the applicability of this method to the problems and the comparison between Entropy weight TOPSIS and other measurement methods in measuring objects, stability and robustness.

Specifically, the objective weighting method is more applicable and transparent for a large number of empirical data. Entropy weight method, as the most widely used high-quality development evaluation method, has broader applicability for this research problem. Firstly, Entropy weight method is used to determine the weight of all data information. Compared with the commonly used principal component analysis method, the information is more complete, and it is more suitable for the evaluation high-quality development of industry in multiple years. Secondly, the Entropy weight method does not require too much data avoiding the shortcomings of the commonly used factor analysis method. In addition, this paper also introduces the TOPSIS to rank the high-quality development of industry among provinces. This method is simple in calculation and reasonable in results and improves the accuracy of high-quality development of industry evaluation.

We introduced the TOPSIS to rank the high-quality development of industry among provinces. This method is simple in calculation and reasonable in results and can improve the accuracy of high-quality development of industry evaluation. The core idea of entropy weight TOPSIS is that on the basis of standardizing each measurement index, entropy weight method is used to give each measurement index weight value, and then TOPSIS method is used to quantify and sort the high-quality industrial development level of each province, so as to realize the combination of the advantages of Entropy weight and TOPSIS method.

Because of the advantages illustrated above, this method has been widely used in academia. For example, Wei and Li, Du et al., Ou et al., Wang et al. used it in the field of high-quality development evaluation. In addition, it is also widely used in sustainable development evaluation, efficiency, contribution, people's quality of life, competitiveness evaluation, decision-making research and other aspects.

[QS4] The analysis of the results is really poor. The conclusions are trivial and it is difficult to understand what the add-value of this approach is.

[A4] Because there are many provinces and years involved, we optimized the method through a series of measures. In the study, we first analyze the indices in our evaluation system, as to find which indices play greater roles in the evaluation of industrial high-quality development. Secondly, six key years are selected for in-depth study. We used the Natural Breaks to divide their development level into five levels. We divide provinces according to regions for analysis. It mainly includes the analysis of the regional distribution pattern of high-quality industry development and the evolution of the high-quality development of each region. Through the selection of key years and the division by regions, we formed the logic of analysis and presented our discussion. To enrich our contribution we added the spatial correlation analysis in this manuscript.

[QS5] The discussion part is only an explanation of the result and not a discussion (without a real analysis of them).

[A5] This paper involves many provinces and years. The index system constructed in this study includes six dimensions of "economic benefit, innovation, coordination, green, opening and sharing". In order to make a deeper analysis of the high-quality development level of industry, we added the spatial correlation analysis in this revision, and enhanced the research depth by increasing the analysis dimensions.

[QS6] The submission is badly written and the authors need to get an independent native speaker to proof-read the entire manuscript.

[A6] We carefully polished and proofread the manuscript.

We promise that all authors agree to the final version, and the authors' names and affiliations are correct, and that funding sources are correctly acknowledged.

Thank you again for your suggestions. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions.

Best regards,

Yuexiang Yang, Lei Ren, Zhihui Du, Guanqun Tong

23 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-12827R1

Measurement and Spatiotemporal Analysis of High-quality Development of China's Industry

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Du,

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 07 2021 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 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 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: http://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,

Dragan Pamucar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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. 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: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (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: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (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: Yes

Reviewer #2: (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: Yes

Reviewer #2: (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: The authors have addressed the point of my concern. I am happy with their corrections. Hence, I would like to recommend this manuscript to be published.

Reviewer #2: 1. Despite the authors' explanations, the reviewer is not yet convinced that the the reliability and validity of the proposed hybrid method has been well investigated. Please check the similar articles that have been published in PlosOne

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228746

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177578

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604

2. The conclusion is just listing experimental results. You should provide a clear scientific justification for your work in this section.

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes: Gholamreza Dehdasht

[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.

22 Sep 2021

A Reply for Comments and Suggestions of the Manuscript ID (PONE-D-21-12827)

Dear Editors and reviewers,

We thank the reviewers and editors again for giving very helpful suggestions and comments to improve our manuscript. Our revisions have been made according to the questions and suggestions from two reviewers. The detailed revisions are as follows:

Questions and suggestions from Reviewer 1:

The authors have addressed the point of my concern. I am happy with their corrections. Hence, I would like to recommend this manuscript to be published.

[R] Thanks for your help and approval.

Questions and Suggestions from Reviewer 2

[QS1] Despite the authors' explanations, the reviewer is not yet convinced that the reliability and validity of the proposed hybrid method has been well investigated. Please check the similar articles that have been published in Plos One

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228746

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177578

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201604

[A1] We are grateful for the references provided by reviewer. We mainly learned from the research of Dehdasht et al. and tested the robustness of the combination method proposed in this paper through the sensitivity analysis based on index weight. Because there are too many indicators involved in this study, we first changed the weight of the primary indices, then we reflect the results into the weight change of the tertiary indices with equal proportion, and finally we calculated the weight of the tertiary indicators contained in other primary indicators. For the six primary indices, we set up three degree change of weigh and conducted 18 experiments. The experimental results show the robustness of the method used in this study which can evaluate the high-quality development of industry reliably.

[QS2] The conclusion is just listing experimental results. You should provide a clear scientific justification for your work in this section.

[A2] We conducted sensitivity analysis to justify the robustness and then rationality of results.

We promise that all authors agree to the final version, and the authors' names and affiliations are correct, and that funding sources are correctly acknowledged.

Thank you again for your suggestions. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions.

Best regards,

Yuexiang Yang, Lei Ren, Zhihui Du, Guanqun Tong

Submitted filename: 1. Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

28 Oct 2021

Measurement and Spatiotemporal Analysis of High-quality Development of China's Industry

PONE-D-21-12827R2

Dear Dr. Du,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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,

Dragan Pamucar

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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 #2: Yes

**********

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 #2: Yes

**********

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 #2: (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 #2: No

10 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-12827R2

Measurement and Spatiotemporal Analysis of High-quality Development of China's Industry

Dear Dr. Du:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Dragan Pamucar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE