
==== Front
PLoS One
PLoS One
plos
PLOS ONE
1932-6203
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

10.1371/journal.pone.0308160
PONE-D-23-35566
Research Article
Social Sciences
Sociology
Communications
Social Communication
Social Media
Computer and Information Sciences
Network Analysis
Social Networks
Social Media
Social Sciences
Sociology
Social Networks
Social Media
Social Sciences
Economics
Information Economics
Asymmetric Information
Social Sciences
Economics
Financial Markets
Capital Markets
Social Sciences
Economics
Finance
Social Sciences
Economics
Labor Economics
Salaries
Computer and Information Sciences
Information Technology
Social Sciences
Economics
Financial Markets
Capital Markets
Stock Markets
Social Sciences
Economics
Finance
Public Finance
Money Supply and Banking
More online interaction, more stock liquidity:——Evidence from Chinese stock exchange online interaction platform
Online information and stock liquidity
Zhang Kun Funding acquisition Project administration 1 2 3
https://orcid.org/0009-0007-0833-7109
Hu Zhenyi Data curation Writing – original draft 1
Shen Jianfei Writing – review & editing 4
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8388-5259
Wang Yuanyuan Supervision Validation 5 *
1 School of Economics, Hebei University of Economics and Business, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China
2 The Hebei Collaborative Innovation Center for Urban-rural Integrated Development, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China
3 Center for Urban Sustainability and Innovation Development, Hebei University of Economics and Business, Shijiazhuang, China
4 Finance Department, Pt Shenhua Guohua Pembangkitan Jawa Bali, Serang, Banten Province, Indonesia
5 School of Accounting, Hebei University of Economics and Business, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China
Tariq Muhammad Usman Editor
Abu Dhabi University, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Competing Interests: NO authors have competing interests.

* E-mail: Wangyuanyuan201610@163.com
6 9 2024
2024
19 9 e030816029 10 2023
17 7 2024
© 2024 Zhang et al
2024
Zhang et al
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

This paper investigates the impact of online interaction between investors and enterprises on stock liquidity, using data from A-share listed companies in China from 2010 to 2021. Firstly, our findings reveal that more frequent interaction leads to better stock liquidity, and this result remains consistent across various robustness tests. Secondly, we observe that the expected tenure of senior executives and the ratio of institutional investor ownership exert a significant moderating effect on this relationship. Thirdly, this effect varies across enterprises at different development stages and with different ownership structures, being more pronounced in growing and privately-owned companies. Furthermore, this paper finds an inverted U-shaped relationship between reply length and stock liquidity, indicating that excessively long replies may introduce noise and negatively affect liquidity. This study provides new insights into how online interactions can improve market efficiency and offers practical implications for corporate governance and investor relations.

Funded by Science Research Project of Hebei Education Department BJS2023018 Zhang Kun Funded by Science Research Project of Hebei Education Department BJS2023018 for this research. Data AvailabilityAll data are available from the he China CSMAR database. The data is a third party data. Everyone can access these datasets from https://data.csmar.com/.The authors did not have any special access privileges that others would not have.
Data Availability

All data are available from the he China CSMAR database. The data is a third party data. Everyone can access these datasets from https://data.csmar.com/.The authors did not have any special access privileges that others would not have.
==== Body
pmc1. Introduction

For a long time, investors have relied on information intermediaries such as official company websites, analysts, and stock forums to obtain information about companies. With the rapid development of Internet technology, social media has emerged and flourished. Social media affects the capital market information environment, information dissemination speed, investor information acquisition, and communication channels [1–4]. Social media has gradually become an important medium for investors to obtain information.

In order to improve the information efficiency of the capital market and enhance the information environment for individual investors, the Shenzhen Stock Exchange and Shanghai Stock Exchange in China launched investor interaction platforms in 2010 and 2013, respectively—Interaction Easy” and "Shanghai e-Interaction". To our knowledge, similar interactive platforms do not exist in other countries. Unlike Chinese social media such as Stock Bar and Weibo, and American social media such as Twitter and Facebook, "Interaction Easy" and "Shanghai e-Interaction" are officially operated by Chinese stock exchanges. Investors can ask companies questions through the platform, and companies will answer these questions. The interactive content and process have legal effect and credibility, and are subject to official supervision. Investors can not only make inquiries to enterprises at any time but also participate in interviews organized by enterprises. Additionally, investors can browse the text information on the interactive platform at any time and optimize their own investment decisions by observing the behavior of others [5]. Unlike traditional information intermediaries, online interaction is a form of information release and interpretation dominated by individual investors and involves direct interaction between investors and enterprises. As for the impact of social media on the capital market, most of the current research mainly focuses on how online interaction (among investors) influence the capital market. Online interaction among investors is specifically manifested in investors spontaneously creating, sharing and commenting on some topics on the platform, which may affect the investment behavior of others and further affect the pricing efficiency of the capital market. There are few studies investigate impact of online interaction between enterprises and investors on the capital market. Therefore, this paper chooses "Interaction Easy" and "Shanghai e-Interaction" as the research objects, and empirically examines the impact of online interaction between enterprises and investors on the enterprise stock liquidity, which enriches the existing literature.

While "Interaction Easy" and "Shanghai e-Interaction" are undoubtedly exciting new sources of information for capital markets, it is unclear whether online platform interaction will alleviate the degree of information asymmetry between companies and investors and affect stock liquidity. On one hand, the online interactive platforms can broaden the channels for individual investors to obtain information, help investors understand information, and alleviate the degree of information asymmetry between investors and companies [6]. Enterprises use the online interaction platform to answer investors’ questions, clarify false rumors, and interact with investors, which helps improve investors’ ability to interpret information [7]. Additionally, investors can use the online interaction platform to ask questions to companies, fully utilizing the active supervision ability of individual investors, improving the transparency of corporate information, and thus enhancing the information efficiency of the capital market [8]. On the other hand, social media sometimes produces a certain amount of noise, which can confuse, distort, and even change the real information, thus affecting the behavior of investors. Scholars observed that due to investors’ personal and environmental factors, social media sometimes generates social noise, which affects the behavior of investors and further impacts the capital market [9]. "Polite words" and "answers that are not asked" without substantive information often occur. A large amount of irrelevant information increases the difficulty of information processing for individual investors and reduces their information acquisition efficiency.

The existing literature has not reached a consensus on the impact of online interaction on capital market efficiency. In addition, most studies mainly focus on the interaction between investors and lack consideration of the interaction between investors and firms. In order to fill these research gaps, this paper collected data from A-share listed companies in the Chinese market from 2010 to 2021 to explore the impact of online platform interaction (between investor and company) on stock liquidity.

The main findings of this work are as follows: 1) We find that more frequent interaction leads to better stock liquidity. To address the potential endogeneity problem in this paper, we also conduct several robustness tests. The result remains unchanged after controlling for individual firm fixed effects, lagging the explanatory variables by one period, using the DID model, and replacing the explained and explanatory variables. 2) There is a moderating effect of executives’ expected tenure and investor structure on the relationship between online interaction and stock liquidity. The expected tenure of a company’s executives directly affects the internal governance environment and organizational strategy of the company. The longer the tenure, the more responsible the executives are. At this time, the company’s internal information is more transparent, and the explanations to investors are clearer and more timely, leading to better stock liquidity. Since institutional investors have better information capabilities, the online interactive platform mainly serves individual investors. Thus, we find that online interaction has a stronger effect among stocks with a low proportion of institutional investors. 3) We explored the heterogeneous impacts of online interaction on stock liquidity. We have observed that such an effect is stronger in enterprises in the growth stage and in private enterprises. The underlying mechanism may be that enterprises in the growth stage and in private lack a stable profit model, and the principal-agent problem is more prominent. At this time, the interaction between investors and enterprises can supervise and govern the company, improve the quality of information disclosure, reduce the space and motivation for executives to hide information, and ultimately affect the enterprise’s stock liquidity. 4) We also explored the potential nonlinear relationship between online platform interaction and stock liquidity. We find that reply length has an inverted U-shaped effect on stock liquidity, which rises first and then decreases. When the reply length is too long, it produces a certain amount of "noise" and has a negative effect on stock liquidity.

This paper contributes to current literature in several ways. Firstly, while prior research has primarily focused on the impact of investors’ social media interactions on the information efficiency of capital markets [10–13], it has often overlooked the influence of direct information interactions between investors and enterprises. This study examines the impact of online interactions between investors and enterprises on corporate stock liquidity, thus enriching the current body of literature. Secondly, the paper explores the moderating effects of executives’ expected tenure and investor structure on the relationship between online interactions and stock liquidity. This analysis provides novel insights into how online interactive platforms can be utilized to enhance corporate governance and improve the management quality of listed companies [14]. Finally, previous studies have not reached a consensus on the impact of online interaction on capital market efficiency [6, 9]. This paper not only analyzes the linear correlation between online platform interaction and stock liquidity but also verifies the nonlinear (inverted U-shaped) relationship between these variables. The findings can explain the inconsistencies in previous research to some extent and offer practical implications. Overall our results help enterprises to effectively use online interactive platforms to appropriately respond to investor inquiries, improve information quality and management level, reduce information asymmetry between investors and enterprises, and ultimately improve the pricing efficiency of the capital market.

The remainder of this paper proceeds as follows. In Section 2: Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypotheses. Section 3: Sample Selection, Model Development, and Variable Definition. Section 4: Main Results and Robustness Checks. Section 5: Additional Tests. Section 6: Conclusion, summarizes the full text.

2. Theoretical analysis and research hypothesis

2.1. Information technology and stock market efficiency

With the rapid development of information technology, scholars have increasingly focused on its impact. They found that information technologies such as blockchain, artificial intelligence, and big data could promote information dissemination and reduce information asymmetry, thus enhancing the efficiency of the stock market [15, 16]. Farboodi observed that with the rise of information technology, market participants had more channels to obtain information [10]. Some scholars found that the rapid development of science and technology had given rise to a series of financial social platforms, which provided places for investors to discuss, analyze, and disseminate views [11] The advent of information technology could not only improve the timeliness of data analysis and sharing but also enhance the information transparency of financial institutions, promote better risk management, and improve the pricing efficiency of capital markets. Yu et al.believed that information technology made it possible for market participants to communicate and interact with each other [17]. Effective interaction could promote information disclosure, which in turn leads to more accurate and effective pricing.

However, some scholars believe that the emergence of information technology exacerbates the risk of information contagion, and a small information disturbance may quickly penetrate into other markets, leading to abnormal stock price fluctuations [18]. Yu et al.found that social media derived from information technology could significantly amplify market sentiment, thus affecting stock prices and investor behavior [19]. Goldstein et al. found that due to the development of information technology, market participants may have more information, but this may also reduce the efficiency of their investment decisions [20]. Dessaint et al. observed that new technologies may provide very limited useful information, which may interfere with managers’ access to correct information [21].

2.2. Social media and corporate stock liquidity

The traders with inferior information are unwilling to trade, resulting in poor stock liquidity [22]. Based on this, some scholars have begun to study the role of social media in the capital market. Social media disclosure can alleviate information asymmetry between investors and companies reduce transaction costs, affect corporate stock liquidity, reduce the risk of stock price crashes, improve the accuracy of analyst forecasts, and subsequently affect the pricing efficiency of the capital market [23–27]. Blankespoor showed that companies can widely expand their information dissemination channels through social media [3]. He found that using Twitter to release press statements to investors can reduce information asymmetry. Da et al. found that when a company’s Google search volume increased, the company’s stock price increased in the near term [28].

Social media provides a platform for online interaction, including communication, information sharing, and networking. Online interaction will generate “information,” alleviate information asymmetry between enterprises and investors, and affect enterprise stock liquidity. Firstly, compared with Chinese unofficial social media such as "stock bars" and "Dong Fang Fortune", "Interaction Easy" and "Shanghai e-Interaction" are officially operated by the Chinese stock exchange, which have legal effect and credibility. They are characterized by wide coverage, strong timeliness, high information quality, and strong interactivity [7]. The online interactive platform helps individual investors broaden their access to information. Through these platforms, enterprises answer investors’ questions, clarify false rumors, and help investors correctly interpret professional information. Thus, online interaction between enterprises and investors on the interactive platform can alleviate the degree of information asymmetry, improve investors’ information processing abilities, and have a positive effect on enterprise stock liquidity. Secondly, individual investors can use the investor interaction platform to ask questions about companies and play a role in supervision and governance. Feng et al. analyzed financial media reports and company Weibo data of Chinese listed companies from 2011 to 2016, finding that social media can effectively play a supervisory role and improve corporate information transparency [8]. Gao et al. found that social media effectively pressures executives, improves the quality of information disclosure, increases their performance sensitivity, reduces the risk of adverse selection, and thus improves enterprise stock liquidity [29].

However, sometimes social media may generate "noise". Firstly, a great deal of information generated in the interaction may weaken the quality of information [30]. The information on the platform is subjective, and "no information content" or "answers not asked" often occur. The management’s answers may also not meet investors expectations for the disclosure of specific information, failing to alleviate information asymmetry, or they may strategically hide bad news for their own self-interest. At this time, the interaction generates "noise". Secondly, Zimmerman et al. observed that social media generates "social noise" (information received through social media influenced by the external environment), which affects investor behavior and can lead to wrong decisions [9]. Additionally, for individual investors, a large amount of irrelevant information increases the difficulty of information processing. Based on this, some scholars find that interaction on online platforms generates "noise", worsening the information environment of enterprises and aggravating the information asymmetry between enterprises and investors.

Whether the interaction on online platforms can affect stock liquidity essentially explores whether the interaction generates "information" or "noise". Can the interaction alleviate information asymmetry between investors and companies, thereby improving corporate stock liquidity? Although actual results show that both effects of online interaction may coexist, with the gradual development of Chinese security markets, the improvement of investors’ abilities and awareness of rights protection, and the increase in punishment intensity, behaviors such as manipulating information disclosure on online interactive platforms are effectively controlled. To sum up, this paper conjectures that interaction can alleviate the degree of information asymmetry between enterprises and investors, affect investors’ behavior, and finally improve company liquidity. Based on the above analysis, this paper puts forward the following hypothesis:

H1: The online interaction has a positive effect on stock liquidity.

2.3. Moderating effect analysis

The above analysis doesn’t consider the heterogeneity of the effect of enterprise managers on online interaction. The executives’ expected tenure directly affects the internal governance environment and organizational strategy of the company. If the management expects a longer term at the enterprise, they will be more responsible to investors and more committed to the future of the company. At this time, they will respond more actively, quickly, and objectively on the interactive platform, improving the information transparency of the company, and finally having a positive effect on the liquidity of the company. Existing literature mainly studies from the perspective of equity incentives. For example, executive shareholding can alleviate information asymmetry, improve the quality of information disclosure [31], and stimulate corporate innovation capabilities [14]. This paper intends to analyze the moderating effect of executives’ expected tenure on the relationship between online interaction and stock liquidity. Based on the above analysis, this paper proposes the following hypothesis:2:

H2: The longer the expected tenure of executives, the significant the effect of the online interaction on stock liquidity.

In addition to the effect of executives, the shareholding ratio of institutional investors also has a moderating effect on the relationship between information interaction and stock liquidity. Compared with individual investors, institutional investors have an advantage in information acquisition, which is an important indicator for examining the external information environment of enterprises. Institutional investors not only have the ability to obtain and process information [3], but they also participate in corporate governance through large shareholdings, playing a supervisory role and alleviating the problem of information asymmetry between investors and the company [32]. The online platform primarily serves individual investors, who typically have poorer information acquisition and interpretation skills. Individual investors have a greater demand for online information interaction than institutional investors. Therefore, when the ratio of institutional ownership is low, and the holdings are mainly by individual investors, they will ask questions to enterprises through the online interactive platform. This online information interaction between enterprises and individual investors will alleviate information asymmetry and improve the liquidity of the company. At this time, the effect of online information interaction on improving stock liquidity is more obvious. Based on the above analysis and considering the differences in information capabilities between individual investors and institutional investors, this paper puts forward Hypothesis 3:

H3: The higher the ratio of institutional ownership, the smaller the effect of the online interaction on stock liquidity.

2.4. Heterogeneity analysis

Research on the impact of online interaction has not yet reached a consistent conclusion. An important reason may be the heterogeneous impacts of online interaction on stock liquidity across enterprises at different development stages and with different ownership structures. Enterprises at different development stages exhibit varying financial statuses, degrees of information asymmetry, development strategies, organizational structures, and financing abilities [33], leading to different reactions to online interaction. This paper posits that the development stage of enterprises leads to different effects of online interaction on stock liquidity.

Enterprises in the growth stage not only lack a stable profit model and have a large demand for cash, facing relatively large financing constraints [34], but also suffer from concentrated power in the hands of a few executives, making the principal-agent problem more prominent. The internal organizational structure of these enterprises is not yet perfect [35]. At this stage, interaction between investors and enterprises through online platforms plays a supervisory and governance role, improving executives’ information disclosure behavior and reducing the space and motivation for executives to hide information, ultimately improving enterprise stock liquidity. In the mature stage, enterprises have a stable and profitable business model and sufficient cash flow [34]. At this time, the development of the enterprise has a bright future, shareholders and creditors are relatively stable, and executives are more willing to voluntarily disclose company information [35]. Therefore, the effect of online interaction on the stock liquidity of enterprises is relatively limited at this stage. For companies in a stage of decline, the profit margins drop sharply, and shareholders and executives urgently need to transform and upgrade to find new development goals [35]. At this stage, external supervision is strong, and the risk of hidden information exposure is relatively high. To sum up, this paper argues that for companies in mature and declining stages, executives have less space and motivation to hide information, and the online interaction between investors and enterprises plays a relatively limited role.

Based on the above analysis, taking into account the different financial conditions, information asymmetry, principal-agent conflicts, and financing capabilities of enterprises at different stages, the effect of online information interaction on improving stock liquidity is different. This paper proposes Hypothesis 4:

H4: The impact of online interaction on stock liquidity is more significant for companies in the growth stage.

State-owned enterprises and non-state-owned enterprises have differences in social responsibility, profitability, financing ability and other aspects [36–38]. State-owned listed companies are mainly run by the government, and their development strategies are more dependent on the government. The online interaction has very limited impact on state-owned listed companies. For non-state-owned enterprises, online interaction has a great impact and can effectively change the external information environment of enterprises. Based on the above analysis, this paper puts forward Hypothesis 5:

H5: The impact of online interaction on stock liquidity is more significant for non-state-owned enterprises.

3. Sample selection model development and variable definitions

3.1. Sample selection

To test these five hypotheses, we collected data from the CSMAR database (The China Stock Market and Accounting Research database) and CNRDS database (the China Research Data Service Platform), from 2010 to 2021. The sample firms are Shanghai and Shenzhen A-share listed firms. This paper processes the data as follows: (1) Excluding financial listed companies; (2) Excluding ST and delisting during this period (3) Eliminate missing samples of main variables; (4) winsorize (1%) in the data, and finally 27,251 observations remain.

3.2. Model development

Our first research question asks, can the online interaction has a positive effect on stock liquidity.To test our central Hypothesis 1, we estimate the following model: Liqi,t=β0+β1Replyi,t+β2Controlsi,t+∑Ind+∑Year+εi,t (1)

Among them, the explained variable in the regression is stock liquidity (Liq), the core explanatory variable is online interaction (Reply), and controls a series of control variables that may affect the stock liquidity of enterprises; ε is the random error term of the model. In practice, there exist several methods to estimate the stock liquidity. Among them, the indicator ILLIQ is a simple but effective one, which is suitable for measuring the stock liquidity of the Chinese stock market and focus on the corporate financial field.

Our second research question examines the moderating effect of executives’ expected tenure on the relationship between the online interaction and stock liquidity. To test Hypothesis 2, this paper constructs the model as follows, Liqi,t=β0+β1Replyi,t+β2EGTi,t+β3Replyi,t*EGTi,t+β4Controlsi,t+∑Ind+∑Year+εi,t (2)

Among them, EGT is the executive expected tenure. Indeed, the information environment is a multifaceted and multidimensional concept that is likely associated with the senior executives. The expected tenure of senior executives not only directly affects the future development of senior executives, but also affects the internal governance environment and organizational strategy of the company. If the executive expected tenure can produce a moderating effect on the relationship between the online interaction and stock liquidity, then β3 should be significantly positive.

Our final research question examines the impact of the ratio of institutional ownership on the relation between the the online interaction and stock liquidity. To test Hypothesis 3, we use the following specification: Liqi,t=β0+β1Replyi,t+β2INSHi,t+β3Replyi,t*INSHi,t+β4Controlsi,t+∑Ind+∑Year+εi,t (3)

Among them, INSH is the share-holding ratio of institutional investor.

3.3. Variable definitions

3.3.1. Stock Liquidity (Liq)

The dependent variable, Liq, is the enterprise stock liquidity, measured by the ILLIQ. The indicator ILLIQ is suitable for measuring the stock liquidity of the Chinese stock market and focus on the corporate financial field, which can be calculated by ILLIQi,t=1Di,tΣd=1Di,tRi,t,dVOLi,t,d*108 (4)

Ri,t,d indicates the return rate of enterprise i considering cash dividend reinvestment VOLi,t,d on the dth trading day of year t, and indicates the transaction amount of enterprise i on the dth trading day of year t, the unit is RMB million, which Di,t is the transaction of enterprise i in year t number of days.

We adopt the method and take the opposite number, thus, we obtain our Liq [39]. The larger the value of Liq, the better the stock liquidity of the enterprise. It is calculated as follows: Liq=−ILLIQ. (5)

3.3.2. The online interaction (Reply)

This paper defines "Reply" as the measure of online interaction, which is the core explanatory variable of this paper, we adopt the method [7]. Companies reply to investors’ questions on interactive platforms can reflect the interaction between listed companies and investors. “Reply” is calculated by the following function: Reply = ln(1+Number of Reply), where Number of Reply is the number of the companies’ answers on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange’s "Interaction Easy" and Shanghai Stock Exchanges "Shanghai e-Interaction" platforms.

3.3.3. Executive Expected Tenure (EGT)

This paper defines "EGT" as the executive expected tenure, we adopt the method [40]. “EGT” is calculated by the following function: EGTi,t=(GTindustry,t−GTi,t)+(Ageindustry,t−Agei,t) (6)

GTi,t represents the tenure of senior executives of enterprises. Agei,t indicates the age of the executives of company. GTindustry,t represents the average tenure of senior executives of all enterprises in the industry. Ageindustry,t indicates the average age of executives of all enterprises in the industry.

3.3.4. Enterprise life cycle (Cycle)

In this paper, we adopt the method based on the positive (+) and negative (-) of the net cash flow of operation, investment and financing, divide the enterprise life cycle into three stages, which are growth stage, mature stage and decline stage [41]. The measurement methods of each variable are shown in Table A1 in the S1 Appendix. The results show that there are 12,405 enterprises in the growth stage, 9,372 enterprises in the mature stage, and 5,413 enterprises in the decline stage.

3.3.5. Control variable

In this paper, the following variables are selected to be controlled: company listing time (Age), total executive compensation (Salary), executive shareholding ratio (Share), book-to-market value ratio (Mb), enterprise size (Size), industry fixed effects (Ind) and year fixed effects (Year). The measurement methods of each variable are shown in Table 1.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308160.t001 Table 1 Definition and description of research variables.

Variable type	Variable name	Variable symbol	Variable definitions	
Explained variable	Stock liquidity	Liq	See the previous section for detailed measurement methods of indicators.	
Core explanatory variable	Online interaction	Reply	See the previous section for detailed measurement methods of indicators.	
Grouping variable	Development stage	Cycle	See the previous section for detailed measurement methods of indicators.	
Ownership structure	Soe	Dummy variable, 1 for state ownership, 0 otherwise	
Moderator	Executive Expected Tenure	EGT	See the previous section for detailed measurement methods of indicators.	
The ratio of institutional investors ownership	INSH	Number of shares held by institutional investors/ total number of shares	
Control variable	Time to market	Age	Enterprise listed years	
Total Executive Compensation	Salary	Take the natural logarithm of total executive compensation	
Executive shareholding ratio	Share	Number of shares held by executives/total number of shares	
Book-to-market ratio	MB	Total Assets/Total Market Value	
Enterprise size	Size	Logarithm the company’s total assets	
Industry	Ind	Referring to the 2012 edition of the China Securities Regulatory Commission’s industry classification, there are 18 industries in total, and dummy variables are set.	
Note: Table 1 reports the definition and description of research variables, including the dependent variable, the dependent variable, as well as control variables.

3.4. Descriptive statistics and results

Table 2 provides details of the variables’ descriptive statistics. We can see that the average Liq is 4.217, the maximum value is 6.869, and the minimum 1.099. The average value of stock liquidity is -0.189, the standard deviation is 0.86, the minimum value is -7.203, and the maximum value is -0.002. The the average value of online interaction and stock liquidity is basically consistent with previous research results. This paper calculates the variance inflation factor (VIF) of the model in the regression analysis, and the results show that the inflation factor of this study is far less than 10, which proves that there is no serious multicollinearity problem in this paper.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308160.t002 Table 2 Descriptive statistics of main research variables.

Variable	Number of samples	Average value	Standard deviation	Minimum value	Maximum value	
Liq	27,251	-0.189	0.860	-7.203	-0.002	
Reply	27,251	4.217	1.250	1.099	6.869	
Soe	27,251	0.313	0.464	0	1	
EGT	27,251	0.033	3.899	-9.483	9.377	
INSH	27,251	0.421	0.248	0.003	0.901	
Age	27,251	9.629	7.772	0	27	
Salary	27,197	15.01	0.791	13.09	17.14	
Share	27,251	0.085	0.149	0	0.622	
Mb	27,251	0.592	0.259	0	1.166	
Size	27,251	22.09	1.288	19.71	26.09	
Note: Table 2 reports the summary statistics of all variables used in the paper. In order to take into account the accuracy and intuitiveness of the data, it is reserved to 3 digits after the decimal point by default, and the data that cannot be satisfied is reserved to 1 significant figure after the decimal point, the same below.

4. Results and analysis

4.1. Effects of online interaction on stock liquidity

An OLS regression was run to test the Hypothesis 1, Table 3 reports the regression results. Columns (1) of Table 3 is the regression results, the results show that the online interaction (Reply) has a significant positive effect on stock quality. Then we control for size, age, share, salary, mb, year and industry. Columns (2) of Table 3 shows the results of the regression that the regression coefficient is 0.054, which is significantly positive at the 1% level. These results lend support to H1: The interaction between companies and investors on the Internet platform has a positive effect on stock liquidity.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308160.t003 Table 3 Regression results of online interaction and stock liquidity.

	Liq	Liq	
(1)	(2)	
Reply	0.067***
(0.004)	0.054***
(0.004)	
Age		0.015***
(0.001)	
Salary		-0.036***
(0.008)	
Share		-0.221***
(0.037)	
MB		-0.402***
(0.025)	
Size		0.139***
(0.006)	
_cons	-0.044
(0.055)	-2.381***
(0.126)	
YEAR	control	control	
Industry	control	control	
N	27 251	27 251	
r 2	0.065	0.125	
f	63.334	110.983	
Note: Table 3 reports the OLS results of the relationship between online interaction and stock liquidity, as well as including control variables.

*, ** and *** indicate significance at 10%, 5% and 1%.

4.2. Robustness checks

The above results show that online interaction significantly improves the stock liquidity of enterprises. However, this result may suffer from potential endogeneity problems. For example, the issue of reverse causality may arise, where it is not that more frequent interaction on online platforms improves stock liquidity, but rather that better stock liquidity attracts more investors, leading to more frequent interaction on online platforms. Secondly, there is the problem of omitted variables. For example, companies with more frequent positive media coverage may not only have higher stock liquidity but also attract higher investor attention, resulting in more interactions with listed companies on online platforms. Therefore, to address the potential endogeneity problems in this paper and to ensure robustness, the following methods are adopted: (1) controlling for individual fixed effects, (2) using lagged variables by one period, (3) employing a DID model, (4) replacing the explained variables, and (5) replacing the explanatory variables.

Control for firm fixed effects. Column (1) of Table 4 shows that when controlling for the firm fixed effect, the explanatory variable is significantly positive at the 1% level, indicating that the interaction of online platforms has a positive effect on stock liquidity. The results are robust.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308160.t004 Table 4 Robustness and endogeneity tests.

	Liq	Liq	Liq	Liq2	Liq	Liq	Liq	
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	
Reply	0.052***
(0.006)			0.635***
(0.026)				
L. Reply		0.005***
(0.001)						
c.Treat#c.Post			0.062**
(2.03)					
Treat			-0.050*
(-1.71)					
Post			0.019***
(2.83)					
Ask					0.049***
(0.004)			
Arate						0.069*
(0.028)		
Meanword							-0.057
(0.206)	
Age	0.121**
(0.047)	-0.001***
(0.000)	-0.003
(-1.24)	-0.170***
(0.005)	0.016***
(0.001)	0.015***
(0.001)	0.015***
(0.001)	
Salary	-0.067***
(0.015)	0.007***
(0.002)	0.012*
(1.65)	0.041
(0.046)	-0.036***
(0.008)	-0.031***
(0.008)	-0.030***
(0.008)	
Share	-0.512***
(0.076)	-0.010
(0.008)	0.025*
(1.87)	3.106***
(0.215)	-0.219***
(0.037)	-0.195***
(0.037)	-0.194***
(0.037)	
MB	-0.778***
(0.035)	-0.033***
(0.006)	-0.105***
(-4.53)	2.634***
(0.146)	-0.408***
(0.025)	-0.435***
(0.025)	-0.432***
(0.025)	
Size	0.304***
(0.014)	0.024***
(0.001)	0.061***
(4.69)	-1.506***
(0.035)	0.141***
(0.006)	0.149***
(0.006)	0.148***
(0.006)	
_cons	-5.573***
(0.371)	-0.665***
(0.029)	-1.455***
(-4.18)	39.229***
(0.733)	-2.403***
(0.126)	-2.601***
(0.130)	-2.503***
(0.151)	
Year	control	control	control	control	control	control	control	
Industry	control	control	control	control	control	control	control	
N	27197	20436	9,856	27187	27197	27197	27187	
r 2	0.114	0.060	0.016	0.296	0.125	0.12 0	0. 120	
Notes: This table presents the results of robustness checks and endogeneity tests conducted on the relationship between online interaction and stock liquidity.

Lag one-period. The model is as follows: Liqi,t=β0+β1Replyi,t−1+β2Controlsi,t−1+∑Ind+∑Year+εi,t−1 (7)

Table 4 column (2) reports that after lagging one-period, the explanatory variable is significantly positive at the 1% level, indicating that the interaction of online platforms still has a positive effect on stock liquidity. It also provides evidence for the core research hypothesis of this paper from the side.

The DID model. The Shenzhen Stock Exchange’s "Interaction Easy" was officially launched in 2010, while the Shanghai Stock Exchange’s "Shanghai e-Interaction" was officially launched in 2013, which provides a good exogenous impact environment for the adoption of the DID model. Comparing whether there is a significant difference in the stock liquidity, take 2007–2012 as the sample period, the DID model is as follows: Liqi,t=β0+β1Treati,t+β2Posti,t+β3Treati,t*Posti,t+β4Controlsi,t+∑Ind+εi,t (8)

Among them, Treat represents the sample attribute, if the company is listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange, it takes the value 1, otherwise it takes the value 0. Post indicates the time attribute, the value is 0 for years before 2010, and the value is 1 for years after 2010. The coefficients that this paper is mainly concerned with Treati,t*Posti,t. Column (3) of Table 4 shows that β3 is significantly positive at the 5% level. The results show that comparing with the company on the Shanghai Stock Exchange’s, the stock liquidity of enterprises in Shenzhen Stock Exchange has been significantly improved. This conclusion provides robust evidence for the positive effect of online interaction on stock liquidity.

Changing the way of measuring stock liquidity. In this paper, we defined “Liq2” as the measure of the stock liquidity. “Liq2” is calculated by the following function: the ratio of the stock trading volume to the total number of tradable shares in the annual effective trading days. Column (4) of Table 4 shows that the explanatory variable is significantly positive at the 1% level, which shows that the higher the investor’s attention, the more times the network platform interacts, which can effectively alleviate the information asymmetry between companies and investors, the higher the turnover rate of corporate stocks, the better the liquidity of corporate stocks.

Change the measurements of online platform interactions. In this paper, we also define "Ask", "Arate", and "Meanword" as the measure of the online interaction. "Ask" is calculated by the following function: Ask = ln(1+Number of Ask)(10), where Number of Ask is the number of the investors’ questions on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange’s "Interaction Easy" and Shanghai Stock Exchange’s "Shanghai e-Interaction" platforms. "Arate" is calculated by the following function: Arate = NumberReply/NumberAsk(11). "Meanword" is calculated by the following function: Meanword = ln(1+replyword)/Size (12), where replyword is the length of the reply. The more detailed the reply from the boss company on the online interactive platform, the clearer the explanation, and the higher the quality of the online platform interaction.

Column (5) of Table 4 shows that the explanatory variable is significantly positive at the 1% level, which shows that the higher the investor’s attention, the more the number of questions on the online interaction platform, the more frequent the interaction between companies and investors on the platform, and the better the liquidity of corporate stocks. Column (6) of Table 4 shows that it is significantly positive at the 10% level. The more positive the reply which can effectively alleviate the degree of information asymmetry between the company and investors, and the better the liquidity of the company’s stock. Column (7) of Table 4 shows that the explanatory variables are negative but not significant. This result shows that in the process of online interaction, the relationship between the length of corporate reply content and stock liquidity may not be a simple linear relationship, which needs to be further tested in the future.

4.3. Moderating effect analysis

The moderated effect of the management’s expected tenure is shown in column (2) of Table 5. The explanatory variable and the interaction term (Reply*EGT) are significantly positive at the 1% level. This indicates that when managers expect a longer tenure, they consider the long-term development of the company, interact more frequently with investors, explain problems more clearly and credibly, and actively transmit more information to the outside world. This effectively alleviates the degree of information asymmetry between enterprises and investors. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 of this paper is verified.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308160.t005 Table 5 Moderating effects of management expected tenure and institutional investors’ ownership ratio.

Variable	Liq	Liq	Liq	Liq	Liq	
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	
Reply	0.054***
(0.004)	0.053***
(11.94)	0.044***
(9.91)	0.067***
(12.71)	0.055***
(11.92)	
EGT		-0.010**
(-2.17)				
INSH			-0.327***
(-12.83)			
SOE				0.133***
(3.55)		
State holding					-0.038
(-1.06)	
Reply*EGT		0.003***
(3.04)				
INSH*Reply			-0.060***
(-3.69)			
SOE*Reply				-0.045***
(-5.32)		
State holding*Reply					-0.123
(-0.86)	
Age	0.015***
(0.001)	0.016***
(19.56)	0.015***
(18.14)	0.017***
(19.59)	0.015***
(18.94)	
Salary	-0.036***
(0.008)	-0.035***
(-4.39)	-0.028***
(-3.49)	-0.035***
(-4.43)	-0.036***
(-4.52)	
Share	-0.221***
(0.037)	-0.223***
(-6.00)	-0.457***
(-11.05)	-0.245***
(-6.54)	-0.243***
(-6.43)	
MB	-0.402 ***
(0.025)	-0.401***
(-15.92)	-0.446***
(-17.55)	-0.389***
(-15.40)	-0.391***
(-15.30)	
Size	0.139***
(0.006)	0.140***
(22.96)	0.162***
(25.52)	0.140***
(22.88)	0.141***
(22.76)	
_cons	-2.381 ***
(0.126)	-2.417***
(-18.93)	-6.763***
(-5.96)	-2.472***
(-19.45)	-2.401***
(-18.75)	
YEAR	control	control	control	control	control	
Industry	control	control	control	control	control	
N	27197	27,197	27,197	27,197	26,715	
r 2	0.125	0.008	0.019	0.127	0.127	
Notes: This table highlights the moderating effects of management expected tenure and the institutional investors’ ownership ratio on stock liquidity.

The moderated effect of the institutional investor shareholding ratio is shown in column (3) of Table 5. The results show that the interaction term (Reply*INSH) is significantly negative at the 1% level. This result indicates that when the shareholding ratio of institutions is low and individual investors are relatively high, online interaction can alleviate the information asymmetry between investors and enterprises, and improve stock market liquidity. This finding supports Hypothesis 3.

To examine the moderating effects of different institutional environments on the link between online interaction and stock market liquidity, we constructed two sets of measures to assess different institutional environments [42]. The first set is SOE, a dummy variable that equals 1 if a firm’s controlling shareholder is a government entity, and 0 otherwise. Our second set of measures, State holding, is based on the percentage of firm shares owned by the state. These measures were important to our analyses because they not only captured the effect of state influence but also reflected the complementary effect of online interaction on national administrative supervision.

The moderated effect of different institutional environments is shown in columns (4) and (5) of Table 5. The results show that the interaction term (Reply*Soe) is significantly negative at the 1% level, indicating that the effect of online interaction on stock liquidity mainly affects non-state-owned enterprises. This result suggests that government regulation and influence have a negative impact on the influence of online interaction on stock liquidity.

4.4. Heterogeneity test

To verify Hypothesis 4 in this paper, enterprises are divided into three groups according to their life cycle stages, and regression is conducted for each group. The specific regression results are shown in Table 6. Columns (1)–(3) respectively represent the enterprises at the growth stage, mature stage, and decline stage. In columns (1) and (2), the regression results show that the explanatory variables are significantly positive at the 1% level. In column (3), the explanatory variables are positive but not significant. Further, the Fisher inter-group difference test is carried out on the enterprises at the growth and mature stages. The results show that the explanatory variable for enterprises at the growth stage is significantly better than for those at the mature stage. This paper finds that the impact of online interaction on stock liquidity is more significant for companies at the growth stage. For enterprises at the growth stage, more interaction between investors and the enterprise leads to better stock liquidity. Thus, the impact of online interaction on stock liquidity varies with the life cycle of the company, mainly affecting enterprises at the growth stage. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 of this paper is verified.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308160.t006 Table 6 The regression results of online interaction, stock liquidity, enterprise life cycle and ownership structure.

	Growth stage	Mature stage	Decline stage	State-owned	Non-state-owned	
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	
Reply	0.101 ***
(0.009)	0.008 ***
(0.002)	0.005
(0.003)	0.072 ***
(0.006)	0.012**
(0.004)	
Age	0.026***
(0.002)	0.001***
(0.000)	0.001*
(0.001)	0.021***
(0.001)	0.008***
(0.001)	
Salary	-0.087***
(0.016)	0.005
0.003)	0.003
(0.005)	-0.058***
(0.011)	-0.004
(0.007)	
Share	-0.345***
(0.071)	-0.009
(0.017)	0.058*
(0.027)	-0.147***
(0.044)	-0.301
(0.174)	
Mb	-0.643***
(0.053)	-0.059 ***
(0.011)	-0.105 ***
(0.017)	-0.479 ***
(0.036)	-0.124 **
(0.021)	
Size	0.270***
(0.012)	0.026***
(0.003)	0.042***
(0.004)	0.198***
(0.009)	0.045***
(0.005)	
_cons	-4.304 ***
(0.258)	-0.669 ***
(0.057)	-0.932 ***
(0.090)	-8.994 ***
(1.640)	-1.692 ***
(0.343)	
Year	control	control	control	control	control	
Ind	control	control	control	control	control	
N	12405	9372	5413	18691	8506	
r 2	0.213	0.047	0.038	0.024	0.020	
f	95.845	13.557	6.134	13.008	5.349	
Notes: Table 6 reports the heterogeneous results of enterprise life cycle and ownership structure influence online interaction and stock liquidity.

To verify Hypothesis 5 in this paper, the samples are divided into a group of state-owned enterprises and a group of non-state-owned enterprises according to the ownership structure. The specific regression results are shown in Table 6. Columns (4)–(5) respectively represent the state-owned and non-state-owned enterprises. In columns (4) and (5), the regression results show that the explanatory variables are significantly positive at the 1% level. Further, the Fisher inter-group difference test is carried out on the enterprises. The results show that the impact on non-state-owned enterprises is significantly better than on state-owned enterprises. The regression results indicate that, compared with state-owned enterprises, non-state-owned companies that actively respond to investors questions effectively alleviate the information asymmetry between enterprises and investors and improve stock liquidity. The interaction between investors and enterprises on the online platform has a more significant effect on non-state-owned enterprises.

5. Additional tests

Previous studies found that there is a simple linear relationship between online interaction and stock liquidity. This paper not only analyzes the linear correlation between online platform interaction and stock liquidity, but also further verifies the nonlinear relationship between online platform interaction and stock liquidity. Some scholars found that during the interaction process, some companies often provide irrelevant answers or selectively disclose information. In such cases, the interaction generates a certain amount of “noise,” increasing the difficulty of information interpretation for individual investors, affecting the efficiency of their information acquisition, and reducing stock liquidity. The varying interpretation abilities of individual investors can intensify information asymmetry [7]. Currently, online interaction does not always alleviate the degree of information asymmetry between investors and enterprises. Therefore, this paper posits that there may be an inverted U-shaped relationship between online platform interaction and stock liquidity. To examine this hypothesis, we introduce the square of the interaction variables (Reply, Arate, Ask, Meanword) in our model.

As shown in column (1) of Table 7, the coefficient of the square of "Reply" is significantly negative at the 1% level. Furthermore, we use the Utest command in STATA to test for a U-shaped relationship between the two variables. However, the regression result does not pass the test, indicating that there is no nonlinear relationship between "Reply" and stock liquidity, but rather a simple linear relationship. This supports the core research hypothesis of this paper from another perspective.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308160.t007 Table 7 Regression results of online interaction and stock liquidity.

	Liq	Liq	Liq	Liq	
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	
Reply	0.115 ***
(0.021)				
Reply 2	-0.008 **
(0.003)				
Ask		0.075 ***
(0.018)			
Ask 2		-0.003
(0.002)			
Arate			-0.096
(0.158)		
Arate 2			0.125
(0.117)		
Meanword				2.707 *
(1.108)	
Meanword 2				-7.336 *
(2.889)	
Age	0.015***
(0.001)	0.016***
(0.001)	0.015***
(0.001)	0.015***
(0.001)	
Salary	-0.036***
(0.008)	-0.036***
(0.008)	-0.031***
(0.008)	-0.031***
(0.008)	
Share	-0.221***
(0.037)	-0.219***
(0.037)	-0.195***
(0.037)	-0.193***
(0.037)	
Mb	-0.406***
(0.025)	-0.411***
(0.025)	-0.435***
(0.025)	-0.433***
(0.025)	
Size	0.140***
(0.006)	0.142***
(0.006)	0.149***
(0.006)	0.146***
(0.006)	
_cons	-2.498 ***
(0.133)	-2.455 ***
(0.131)	-2.558 ***
(0.136)	-2.686 ***
(0.167)	
YEAR	control	control	control	control	
Industry	control	control	control	control	
N	27197	27197	27197	27197	
r 2	0.125	0.125	0.121	0.120	
f	108.161	107.833	103.375	103.351	
Notes: Table 7 reports the additional test on the online interaction and stock liquidity.

As shown in column (2) of Table 7, the regression coefficient of "Ask" is -0.003, indicating that there is no significant nonlinear relationship between these variables. As shown in column (3) of Table 7, the regression coefficient of "Arate" is 0.125, which is not significant.

As shown in column (4) of Table 7, the regression coefficient of "Meanword" is -7.336, which is significant at the 10% level. Further, we use the Utest command in STATA to check for a nonlinear relationship, and the regression results pass the test. These results show that during the interaction process on the online platform, there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between the length of the reply content and stock liquidity. As the number of words increases, the degree of information asymmetry initially decreases to a minimum and then gradually increases. When the length of the reply content exceeds the inflection point, certain "noise" is generated, which negatively affects stock liquidity.

The reasons for the above results are as follows: the more detailed the replies from companies to investors on the online interactive platform, the more "information" is transmitted. This online interaction can effectively alleviate asymmetry between the company and investors, improving the company’s stock liquidity. However, as the length of the reply content increases, the amount of interactive information transmitted also increases, making the interaction gradually more complex. At this point, certain "noise" is generated during the online platform interaction. This "noise" not only hinders individual investors from extracting useful information but also reflects differences in information application capabilities among individual investors. With limited attention, the degree of information asymmetry among individual investors can weaken the positive effect of online platforms on stock liquidity.

6. Conclusions

This paper examined whether online interaction between investors and enterprises can improve stock liquidity. The main finding is that a higher frequency of online interaction leads to higher stock liquidity. The results, tested by lagged one-period processing, fixed effects model, DID model, and other methods, remain robust. Secondly, executives’ expected tenure and investor structure have a moderating effect on the relationship between online interaction and stock liquidity. Thirdly, there are heterogeneous impacts of online interaction on stock liquidity across enterprises at different development stages and with different ownership structures. The effect is most pronounced for enterprises in the growth stage and non-state-owned enterprises. These results can be seen in Table A2 in S1 Appendix. Finally, this paper not only analyzes the linear relationship between online platform interaction and stock liquidity but also verifies the nonlinear relationship between the two.

6.1. Theoretical implications

The paper makes several contributions. Firstly, the existing literature mainly focuses on the impact of social interaction among investors, ignoring the impact of information interaction between investors and enterprises on the capital market. Therefore, this paper studies the impact of online interaction (between investors and enterprises) on corporate stock liquidity. This paper enriches the existing literature on how social media affects the capital market [10–13]. Secondly, this paper analyzes the moderating effect of executives’ expected tenure and investor structure on the relationship between online interaction and stock liquidity. It provides new ideas for strengthening corporate governance and improving the management quality of listed companies by using network interactive platforms in practice. This aligns with the recent findings [14], who examined the implications of executive characteristics on firm decisions but left the realm of online interactions largely uncharted. Thirdly, this paper examines the heterogeneous impacts of online interaction on stock liquidity across enterprises at different development stages and with different ownership structures. It offers new ideas for enterprises to use social media to improve stock liquidity based on their specific characteristics. This approach resonates with the work of Lv, who emphasized the importance of firm-specific characteristics in corporate finance but did not specifically address the nuances introduced by social media interactions [43]. Fourthly, this paper not only analyzes the linear correlation between online platform interaction and stock liquidity but also further verifies the nonlinear relationship between the two. This conclusion provides a complementary explanation to the two opposing views in the existing literature—whether social media provides "information" or "noise" [6, 7, 9, 44]. It also has practical implications. The conclusion of this study helps enterprises to rationally use online interactive platforms in practice, improve the quality of information and management, alleviate the degree of information asymmetry between investors and enterprises, and thus improve the pricing efficiency of the capital market.

6.2. Practical implications

First, the findings of this study guide enterprises to recognize the important role of social media in their stock liquidity. Traditional one-way information transmission methods can no longer meet the needs of investors. Enterprises should pay attention to the dynamics of investor information on social media platforms, understand the issues that investors care about, and respond to their questions in a timely and proactive manner. Strengthening interactive communication with investors can improve the external information environment of enterprises and reduce information asymmetry between investors and enterprises.

Second, the heterogeneity test of this paper finds that the interaction between network platforms and stock liquidity has a certain degree of heterogeneity. Private enterprises and those in the growth stage should focus on setting up efficient interactive platforms to provide investors with more accurate and targeted information, helping to maintain the efficiency of corporate capital market information.

Third, this paper finds that sometimes "noise" is generated in the process of interaction. Some enterprises’ replies are unnecessarily long, lack substantive information, and have poor response timeliness. Additionally, some executives use online interactive platforms to manipulate information disclosure for self-interest. It is necessary to standardize the management of interactive platforms. Regulatory authorities should actively guide enterprises to improve the quality of information disclosure and simultaneously conduct strict supervision of underperforming enterprises.

6.3. Discussion

Our findings reveal the impact of online interaction between investors and enterprises on corporate stock liquidity. The main finding of this paper is that a higher frequency of online interaction leads to better stock liquidity. This effect varies across enterprises at different development stages and with different ownership structures. Additionally, there may be a nonlinear relationship between online platform interaction and stock liquidity. We find that online interaction (measured by the number of companies’ answers to investors’ questions) has a linear positive effect on stock liquidity. However, online interaction (measured by the length of replies) has a nonlinear effect on stock liquidity. Specifically, when the reply length is too long, it produces a certain "noise" and has a negative effect on stock liquidity. The contradictory conclusions of previous studies may be caused by the different measurement methods of online interaction. This conclusion not only provides a complementary explanation to the two opposing views that the existing literature provides "information" or "noise" for social media but also has practical implications.

6.4. Limitations and future research directions

As with any study, our research is not without limitations. First of all, this paper may have endogeneity problems. It is possible that better stock liquidity attracts more investors’ attention and discussion, which leads to more frequent interaction on the online platform, rather than the more frequent interaction improving stock liquidity. Therefore, this paper adopts the DID model and substitutes the dependent variable and independent variable to alleviate these concerns. These methods and indicators help to overcome the impact of measurement errors to a certain extent.

Secondly, this study uses a relatively direct measurement index, namely, the number of times enterprises reply to investors. While these indicators provide a basic understanding, they may lack the depth and sophistication that more advanced analytical tools and methods can achieve. In the future, with the continuous development of text analysis technology and the deepening of research, we should pay attention to the depth and accuracy of analysis and mining, and explore which interactive topics and content are the most effective in conveying valuable information. This presents an interesting and substantial opportunity for further research.

Finally, the application of the research conclusions in this paper to other countries is not tested in this study. Previous studies have found strong links between major social media across countries. This raises the possibility that our findings, while originating in the Chinese context, may have broader applicability to online platforms in other countries. However, due to data availability and the length of the paper, we have not verified this within the scope of this study.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix (DOCX)

10.1371/journal.pone.0308160.r001
Decision Letter 0
An Jiafu Academic Editor
© 2024 Jiafu An
2024
Jiafu An
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version0
9 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-35566More Online Interaction, More Stock Liquidity: ——Evidence from Chinese stock exchange online interaction platformPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. hu,

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.

The paper examines the impact of information interaction between investors and firms on market efficiency from the perspective of stock liquidity, using reaction data of enterprises to investors on the interaction platform of Shenzhen and Shanghai Stock Exchanges. The study finds that the more frequent interaction between companies and investors, the better the stock liquidity. Moreover, the expected tenure of senior executives and the shareholding ratio of institutional investors have a significant moderating effect on the above effects. The impact of information interaction on stock liquidity mainly acts on growth stage enterprises and private enterprises. Additionally, the study finds an inverted U-shaped relationship between reply length and stock liquidity in the process of online information interaction.

Overall, I find the study to be interesting and has the potential to be published in PLOS One, after carefully take my following comments into considerations. Currently, the paper is not professionally structured and there are many sloppiness across the manuscript (different fonts of references and main text, tables straddling two pages, no description on tables, etc.). These types of sloppiness need to be fixed before resubmission. I suggest you following the paper titled “Initial coin offerings and entrepreneurial finance: the role of founders’ characteristics” published in the Journal of Alternative Investment and Xu, J. et al. (2023) (Inherited trust and informal finance. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting) on structure your paper.

Since you use a Chinese context, there are several recent papers on China’s institutional quality that need to be discussed. You can also design a few tests to examine the moderating effects of different institutional environment on the link between investor interaction and stock market liquidity, for example using formalism developed in An, J., Hou, W., & Zhang, Y. (2019). China’s rule of law in New Era: the rise of regulation and formalism. Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies, 17(3), 313-318, and bureaucrats checks developed in An, J., Armitage, S., Hou, W., & Liu, X. (2020). Do checks on bureaucrats improve firm value? Evidence from a natural experiment. Accounting & Finance, 60(5), 4821-4844.

The interaction you specifically looking at is facilitated by technology. I therefore suggest you motivate your paper incorporating a discussion of technology and finance. An, J., & Rau, R. (2021). Finance, technology and disruption. The European Journal of Finance, 27(4-5), 334-345, offers you some good background to start with. Similarly, An, J., Hou, W., & Lin, C. (2022). Epidemic disease and financial development. Journal of Financial Economics, 143(1), 332-358, also offers some hints on technology and finance.

Why the tables a showing up multiple times? Why do not add notes to the tables to make them self-contained. I suggest you follow the following studies to format your paper.

Guo, S., & An, J. (2022). Does terrorism make people pessimistic? Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Development Economics, 155, 102817.

An, J. (2020). Is there an employee-based gender gap in informal financial markets? International evidence. Journal of Corporate Finance, 65, 101737.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 24 2023 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jiafu An

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

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

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "National Natural Science Foundation of China Youth Project NO.71803037; Hebei Provincial Higher Education University Humanities and Social Science Research Project: Youth Top Talents Project BJS2023018."

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: "NO authors have competing interests".

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now 

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. 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.

6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

7. Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include authors zhenyi hu, Kun Zhang, Jianfei Shen, and Yuanyuan Wang. 

8. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

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

**********

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: 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: In your literature review, we suggest incorporating the following papers that are relevant to your study:

- Bao, Z., & Huang, D. (2020). Gender differences in reaction to enforcement mechanisms: A large-scale natural field experiment.

- Bao, Z., & Huang, D. (2021). Shadow banking in a crisis: Evidence from FinTech during COVID-19. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 56(7), 2320–2355.

- Chen, M., Li, N., Zheng, L., Huang, D., & Wu, B. (2022). Dynamic correlation of market connectivity, risk spillover and abnormal volatility in stock price. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 587, 126506.

- Chen, M., Wang, Y., Wu, B., & Huang, D. (2021). Dynamic analyses of contagion risk and module evolution on the SSE a-shares market based on minimum information entropy. Entropy, 23(4), 434.

Yu, D., & Huang, D. (2023a). Cross-sectional uncertainty and expected stock returns. Journal of Empirical Finance, 72, 321–340.

Yu, D., & Huang, D. (2023b). Option-Implied Idiosyncratic Skewness and Expected Returns: Mind the Long Run. Available at SSRN 4323748.

Yu, D., Huang, D., & Chen, L. (2023). Stock return predictability and cyclical movements in valuation ratios. Journal of Empirical Finance, 72, 36–53.

These papers can provide valuable insights into the impact of information disclosure and interaction on market efficiency, as well as the role of social media in the capital market. For instance, Bao and Huang (2020) investigate the gender differences in reaction to enforcement mechanisms, which could be relevant to your study in understanding how different groups of investors may react to information interaction. Chen et al. (2022) explore the dynamic correlation of market connectivity, risk spillover, and abnormal volatility in stock price, which can help you better understand the relationship between information interaction and stock liquidity. By incorporating these papers into your literature review, you can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the existing research in this area and strengthen the theoretical foundation of your study.

In addition to improving the literature review, we have the following comments for you to address in your revision:

1. Please provide a more detailed explanation of the methodology used in your study, including the specific statistical tests and models employed. This will help readers better understand your approach and assess the validity of your findings.

2. Consider discussing the potential limitations of your study, such as the generalizability of your findings to other markets or the potential biases in the data collected from the interaction platforms.

3. It would be helpful to include a more in-depth discussion of the practical implications of your findings for both investors and firms. This can help readers better understand the real-world significance of your research.

Please address these comments in your revised manuscript, and we look forward to reviewing your updated submission.

References:

Bao, Z., & Huang, D. (2020). Gender differences in reaction to enforcement mechanisms: A large-scale natural field experiment.

Bao, Z., & Huang, D. (2021). Shadow banking in a crisis: Evidence from FinTech during COVID-19. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 56(7), 2320–2355.

Chen, M., Li, N., Zheng, L., Huang, D., & Wu, B. (2022). Dynamic correlation of market connectivity, risk spillover and abnormal volatility in stock price. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 587, 126506.

Chen, M., Wang, Y., Wu, B., & Huang, D. (2021). Dynamic analyses of contagion risk and module evolution on the SSE a-shares market based on minimum information entropy. Entropy, 23(4), 434.

Yu, D., & Huang, D. (2023a). Cross-sectional uncertainty and expected stock returns. Journal of Empirical Finance, 72, 321–340.

Yu, D., & Huang, D. (2023b). Option-Implied Idiosyncratic Skewness and Expected Returns: Mind the Long Run. Available at SSRN 4323748.

Yu, D., Huang, D., & Chen, L. (2023). Stock return predictability and cyclical movements in valuation ratios. Journal of Empirical Finance, 72, 36–53.

**********

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

**********

[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.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308160.r002
Author response to Decision Letter 0
Submission Version1
28 Dec 2023

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have read comments carefully and have made revisions which we hope meets with approval. In what follows, we list each comment (in italics) and our response (in roman text). We also highlight the revised content in BLUE in the revised paper.

1.Since you use a Chinese context, there are several recent papers on China’s institutional quality that need to be discussed. You can also design a few tests to examine the moderating effects of different institutional environment on the link between investor interaction and stock market liquidity, for example using formalism developed in An, J., Hou, W., & Zhang, Y. (2019). China’s rule of law in New Era: the rise of regulation and formalism. Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies, 17(3), 313-318, and bureaucrats checks developed in An, J., Armitage, S., Hou, W., & Liu, X. (2020). Do checks on bureaucrats improve firm value? Evidence from a natural experiment. Accounting & Finance, 60(5), 4821-4844.

Response: This is a very meaningful suggestion. In order to examine the moderating effects of different institutional environment on the link between the online interaction and stock market liquidity, we referred to An, J., Armitage, S., Hou, W., & Liu, X. (2020), constructed two sets of measures on the extent to measure different institutional environment. The first set is SOE, which was a dummy variable that equals 1 if a firm’s controlling shareholder is a government entity, and 0 otherwise. Our second set of measures, State holding, was based on the percentages of firm shares owned by the state. The regression results show that the effect of online interaction on stock liquidity mainly affects non-state-owned enterprises. These results can be seen in our new Table 6.

Position in the paper: See section 4.3 “Moderating effect analysis”.

2.The interaction you specifically looking at is facilitated by technology. I therefore suggest you motivate your paper incorporating a discussion of technology and finance. An, J., & Rau, R. (2021). Finance, technology and disruption. The European Journal of Finance, 27(4-5), 334-345, offers you some good background to start with. Similarly, An, J., Hou, W., & Lin, C. (2022). Epidemic disease and financial development. Journal of Financial Economics, 143(1), 332-358, also offers some hints on technology and finance.

Response: Thank you for this valuable comment. I agree that the interaction I'm focusing on is significantly influenced by technology. I have incorporated a discussion on technology and finance in my paper, and added them to our literature review part.

'Position in the paper: See section 2.1 “Information technology and Stock market efficiency”.

3.Why the tables a showing up multiple times? Why do not add notes to the tables to make them self-contained. I suggest you follow the following studies to format your paper.

Response: Thanks for your suggestions! We have added the notes and format the tables. See from Table 1 to Table 8.

4. In your literature review, we suggest incorporating the following papers that are relevant to your study:

- Bao, Z., & Huang, D. (2020). Gender differences in reaction to enforcement mechanisms: A large-scale natural field experiment.

- Bao, Z., & Huang, D. (2021). Shadow banking in a crisis: Evidence from FinTech during COVID-19. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 56(7), 2320–2355.

- Chen, M., Li, N., Zheng, L., Huang, D., & Wu, B. (2022). Dynamic correlation of market connectivity, risk spillover and abnormal volatility in stock price. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 587, 126506.

- Chen, M., Wang, Y., Wu, B., & Huang, D. (2021). Dynamic analyses of contagion risk and module evolution on the SSE a-shares market based on minimum information entropy. Entropy, 23(4), 434.

Yu, D., & Huang, D. (2023a). Cross-sectional uncertainty and expected stock returns. Journal of Empirical Finance, 72, 321–340.

Yu, D., & Huang, D. (2023b). Option-Implied Idiosyncratic Skewness and Expected Returns: Mind the Long Run. Available at SSRN 4323748.

Yu, D., Huang, D., & Chen, L. (2023). Stock return predictability and cyclical movements in valuation ratios. Journal of Empirical Finance, 72, 36–53.

These papers can provide valuable insights into the impact of information disclosure and interaction on market efficiency, as well as the role of social media in the capital market. For instance, Bao and Huang (2020) investigate the gender differences in reaction to enforcement mechanisms, which could be relevant to your study in understanding how different groups of investors may react to information interaction. Chen et al. (2022) explored the dynamic correlation of market connectivity, risk spillover, and abnormal volatility in stock price, which can help you better understand the relationship between information interaction and stock liquidity. By incorporating these papers into your literature review, you can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the existing research in this area and strengthen the theoretical foundation of your study. Yu, D.,& Huang, D. (2023a) highlighted the need for effective information management and the importance of understanding the impact of social media on market sentiment and efficiency, explored how different levels of cross-sectional uncertainty can impact the expected returns on stocks, proposing that higher uncertainty might lead to higher expected returns as a compensation for the increased risk.

Response: Thanks for your suggestions! We have read the existing literature carefully. In terms of the relationship between the information technology and market efficiency, most existing literature shows that the information technology can improve the information disclosure, the stock market efficiency. Bao, Z., and Huang, D. (2021) explored that the rapid development of technology had given rise to fintech platforms, which provided an important venue for investors to discuss, analyze, and disseminate their views on market trends, risks, and opportunities. As a kind of social media, it could not only improve the timeliness of data analysis and sharing, but also improved the information transparency of financial institutions, promoted better risk management and improved the pricing efficiency of capital market. Chen, M., Li, N., Zheng, L., Huang, D., & Wu, B. (2022) explored how information shared across different market participants, facilitated by technological advancements and social media, contributed to market connectivity. This connectivity, while beneficial for the flow of information, also leaded to risk spillover, where the risk in one market segment could quickly affect others, contributing to abnormal stock price volatility. Chen, M., Wang, Y., Wu, B., & Huang, D. (2021) used the concept of minimum information entropy, highlighted the importance of efficient and transparent information disclosure in mitigating contagion risks particularly in the age of social media. Yu, D., & Huang, D. (2023b), found information was rapidly disseminated through various channels including social media, such market sentiments could be quickly amplified, impacting stock prices and investor behavior. Yu, D., Huang, D., & Chen, L. (2023) argued that better information disclosure and effective interaction among market participants leaded to more accurate and efficient pricing, as reflected in these valuation ratios.

Position in the paper: See section 2.1 “Information technology and Stock market efficiency”.

5.Please provide a more detailed explanation of the methodology used in your study, including the specific statistical tests and models employed. This will help readers better understand your approach and assess the validity of your findings.

Response: Thank you for this valuable comment. In response, we have enriched our manuscript with a more detailed explanation of the methodology. This includes a thorough elucidation of the variable selection, various statistical tests and analytical models we utilized. This enhanced methodological exposition aims to provide a clearer and more robust framework for understanding the scope and rigor of our analytical processes.

Position in the paper: See section 3 “Sample selection model development and variable definitions ”.

6.Consider discussing the potential limitations of your study, such as the generalizability of your findings to other markets or the potential biases in the data collected from the interaction platforms.

Response: Thank you for this valuable comment. Like any study, ours is not without limitations. Firstly, the application of this paper’s conclusions to other countries is not tested in the current study. The prior research detected an intense interconnection between the major social media cross countries. This raises the possibility that our findings, while derived from a Chinese context, may have broader applicability to online platforms in other countries. However, due to the limitation of data availability and article space, we have not verified these within the scope of our current research. Secondly, the methodological approach employed in this study utilized relatively straightforward measurement indicators. While these indicators provided a foundational understanding, they may lack the depth and sophistication achievable with more advanced analytical tools and methods. Lastly, in the future, we could develop a more comprehensive set of metrics, explored which type of interaction was most effective in conveying valuable information. This presented both a fascinating and substantial opportunity for further research.

Position in the paper: See section 9 “Limitations and future research directions”.

7.It would be helpful to include a more in-depth discussion of the practical implications of your findings for both investors and firms. This can help readers better understand the real-world significance of your research.

Response: This is a very meaningful suggestion. First, the findings of this study guide enterprises to pay attention to the important role of social media on its stock liquidity. Since, the traditional one-way information transmission method can no longer meet the needs of investors. Enterprises should pay attention to the dynamics of investor information on social media represented by interactive platforms, understand the issues that investors care about, and respond to investors' questions in a timely and proactive manner. Strengthen the interactive communication with investors, improve the external information environment of enterprises, and reduce the information asymmetry between investors and enterprises.

Second, the heterogeneity test of this paper finds that the interaction between network platforms and stock liquidity has a certain degree of heterogeneity. Private enterprises and enterprises in growth stage should pay more attention to set up an efficient interactive platform to provide investors with more accurate and targeted information, which help to maintain the efficiency of corporate capital market information.

Third, this paper finds that sometimes “noise” is generated in the process of interaction. Some enterprises’ reply is unnecessarily too long, without information, and poor response timeliness. Even more, some executives use the online interactive platform to manipulate information disclosure out of self-interest. It is necessary to standardize the management of interactive platforms. The supervision department should actively guide enterprises to improve the quality of information disclosure, and meantime conduct strict supervision on underperforming enterprises.

Position in the paper: See section 8 “Practical implications”.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some minor changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer Comments.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0308160.r003
Decision Letter 1
An Jiafu Academic Editor
© 2024 Jiafu An
2024
Jiafu An
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version1
12 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-35566R1More Online Interaction, More Stock Liquidity: ——Evidence from Chinese stock exchange online interaction platformPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. hu,

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.

Here are summarized comments on the manuscript:

Reorganize the language in newly added Section 2.1 for improved logical flow.

Enhance the presentation of tables, ensuring that the sequence of rows of controls is clear.

Provide proper citations of existing literature in Section 7 (the contribution section).

Discuss endogeneity issues in Section 9 and propose potential solutions. Additionally, address potential biases in the data collected from interaction platforms, as raised in the previous report.

Consider grouping Sections 6-10 together to enhance overall readability.

Please also be reminded that comment regarding adding additional references are optional to follow.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 26 2024 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jiafu An

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 #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 #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: Comments

1. The language of newly added Section 2.1 should be re-organized in a logic way.

2. The presentation of tables (such as table 5) should be improved. For instance, the sequence of rows of controls seems mixed.

3. Section7 (the contribution section) lacks proper citations of existing literature.

4. Please also discuss endogeneity issues in section 9 and suggest possible solutions, moreover, the potential biases in the data collected from the interaction platforms (as mentioned by last report) haven’t been discussed.

5. Sections 6-10 can be put together for better readability.

**********

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

**********

[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.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308160.r004
Author response to Decision Letter 1
Submission Version2
30 Jan 2024

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have read comments carefully and have made revisions which we hope meets with approval. In what follows, we list each comment (in italics) and our response (in roman text). We also highlight the revised content in BLUE in the revised paper.

1.The language of newly added Section 2.1 should be re-organized in a logic way.

Response: This is a very meaningful suggestion. We appreciated your feedback on Section 2.1. We have restructured it to ensure that the ideas are presented more logically and coherently. Thank you for pointing this out.

Position in the paper: See section 2.1“Information technology and Stock market efficiency”.

2.The presentation of tables （such as table 5） should be improved. For instance, the sequence of rows of controls seems mixed.

Response: Thanks for your suggestions! We have revisited the table and reorganized the sequence of the control rows to enhance clarity and coherence.

Position in the paper: See from Table1 to Table 8.

3.Section7（the contribution section） lacks proper citations of existing literature.

Response: Thank you for this valuable comment. In response, we have thoroughly reviewed this section and incorporated appropriate citations to ensure our contributions are well-supported.

Position in the paper: See section 6.1“Theoretical implications”.

4. Please also discuss endogeneity issues in section 9 and suggest possible solutions, moreover, the potential biases in the data collected from the interaction platforms （as mentioned by last report） haven’t been discussed.

Response: Thank you for this valuable comment. In this current version we have discussed the endogeneity problems and limitations of this paper, and discuss the potential bias that We may have in data collection. We propose feasible solutions to alleviate these problems based on the methods of replacing explanatory variables and explain variables in the DID model. Your feedback helps to improve the rigor and comprehensiveness of our research.

Position in the paper: See section 6.4“Limitations and future research directions”.

5.Sections 6-10 can be put together for better readability.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have restructured these sections and put them into one section. Consolidating these sections may indeed provide a more cohesive and comprehensive narrative.

Position in the paper: See section 6“Conclusions”.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some minor changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer Comments.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0308160.r005
Decision Letter 2
Tariq Muhammad Usman Academic Editor
© 2024 Muhammad Usman Tariq
2024
Muhammad Usman Tariq
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version2
26 Jun 2024

PONE-D-23-35566R2More Online Interaction, More Stock Liquidity: ——Evidence from Chinese stock exchange online interaction platformPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. hu,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Address the minor comments from reviewers.==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 10 2024 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,Muhammad Usman Tariq, Ph.DPFHEA, CFCIPD, CMBESFSEDA, SMIEEEAcademic EditorPLOS 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.

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

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #7: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #8: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #9: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #10: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #8: Yes

Reviewer #9: Yes

Reviewer #10: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: N/A

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: I Don't Know

Reviewer #8: Yes

Reviewer #9: Yes

Reviewer #10: 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

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #8: Yes

Reviewer #9: Yes

Reviewer #10: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

Reviewer #8: Yes

Reviewer #9: No

Reviewer #10: 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: Overall, this revision largely improves the quality of this paper. I suggest that autghor should check the typos/formatting problem in 6.1. Theoretical implications.

Reviewer #3: This paper examines an interesting and important topic and employs sound empirical analysis characterized by technical competence. The methodology is carefully designed and the analytical execution is both sound and insightful. Such a solid empirical foundation not only strengthens the findings of the study, but also increases its reliability and relevance to the field.

Moreover, the results have important policy implications, especially from the perspective of stock market regulation to enhance investor protection. The paper makes a noteworthy contribution to the existing literature and enriches our understanding of the online interaction between firms and investors and its consequences.

Reviewer #4: i just went through the paper, the authors has done most of the part what was suggested by the reviewers, i am OK and satisfied with the paper quality.

Reviewer #5: The paper seems like an interesting job. Thus, I consider the paper suitable for being published in the PLOS ONE. I support this research that is deemed a good contribution to the journal’s future achievements. The revision that has been made by the author is satisfactory. My decision is to accept the paper. Apparently, the current version of the manuscript has convinced me. I affirm the revised version. To me, no further revision is needed. I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the authors for their scientific efforts during the revision process. Great job. Congratulations!

Reviewer #6: Apparently the manuscript has been improved as per the given instructions of the previous reviewers. The work has been improved.

Reviewer #7: Thank you very much for your revision. I appreciate your responses to the previous comments and the substantial improvements made to the manuscript.

Reviewer #8: (No Response)

Reviewer #9: The authors adequately address the issues raised by the previous reviewer. However, these are a few issues when addressed by the authors will help the readers understand and appreciate the concept. These issues are stated below:

The abstract did not show what the problem authors want to solve, the approach they intend to delve into the problem, and how significant it is in investigating and solving the problem. The abstract gives adequate information to the reader about the research and its conclusion.

It is difficult to tell whether these are the research findings or study objectives being presented in the introduction. These make the paper complex for readers. If they represent gaps found in the literature, they should be properly cited, or if they are study objectives, they should be well stated.

The paper lacks clarity and has repetitive sentences. The paper needs a thorough reading to correct minor grammatical errors. Besides, research is about facts, but the authors say “We believe that as the managers of a company…” It sounds accurate if the authors can reframe the sentences.

The results of the hypothesis can be summarized by showing the accepted and rejected results in a table to enable readers to understand better.

Reviewer #10: No further modifications are required, all comments have been addressed. The manuscript can be published in the current form

**********

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

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes: Dorian Aliu

Reviewer #6: Yes: Dr. Muhammad Iftikhar Ali

Reviewer #7: No

Reviewer #8: Yes: Sayed Farrukh Ahmed

Reviewer #9: Yes: Akpamah Peter

Reviewer #10: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

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.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308160.r006
Author response to Decision Letter 2
Submission Version3
8 Jul 2024

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have read comments carefully and have made revisions which we hope meets with approval. In what follows, we list each comment (in italics) and our response (in roman text). We also highlight the revised content in BLUE in the revised paper.

1.Overall, this revision largely improves the quality of this paper. I suggest that autghor should check the typos/formatting problem in 6.1. Theoretical implications.

Response: Thank you for recognizing the improvements in our paper. We have carefully reviewed and corrected the typos and formatting issues in section 6.1 Theoretical Implications. We appreciate your valuable feedback!

Position in the paper: See section 6.1 “Theoretical implications”.

2.The authors adequately address the issues raised by the previous reviewer. However, these are a few issues when addressed by the authors will help the readers understand and appreciate the concept. These issues are stated below:The abstract did not show what the problem authors want to solve, the approach they intend to delve into the problem, and how significant it is in investigating and solving the problem. The abstract gives adequate information to the reader about the research and its conclusion.It is difficult to tell whether these are the research findings or study objectives being presented in the introduction. These make the paper complex for readers. If they represent gaps found in the literature, they should be properly cited, or if they are study objectives, they should be well stated.The paper lacks clarity and has repetitive sentences. The paper needs a thorough reading to correct minor grammatical errors. Besides, research is about facts, but the authors say “We believe that as the managers of a company…” It sounds accurate if the authors can reframe the sentences.The results of the hypothesis can be summarized by showing the accepted and rejected results in a table to enable readers to understand better.

Response: Thanks for your valuable suggestions. Firstly, we revised the abstract to clearly state the problem we try to investigate and our research findings. Secondly, in the introduction, we rewrote research gaps, findings and contributions to enable readers to understand better. Finally, in order to make it easier for readers to read and understand this paper, we presented the main hypotheses and results of this paper in Appendix A2.

Position in the paper: See abstract, section 1 “Introduction” and Appendix A2.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some minor changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer Comments.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0308160.r007
Decision Letter 3
Tariq Muhammad Usman Academic Editor
© 2024 Muhammad Usman Tariq
2024
Muhammad Usman Tariq
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version3
18 Jul 2024

More Online Interaction, More Stock Liquidity: ——Evidence from Chinese stock exchange online interaction platform

PONE-D-23-35566R3

Dear Dr. hu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Muhammad Usman Tariq, Ph.D

PFHEA, CFCIPD, CMBE

SFSEDA, SMIEEE

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

10.1371/journal.pone.0308160.r008
Acceptance letter
Tariq Muhammad Usman Academic Editor
© 2024 Muhammad Usman Tariq
2024
Muhammad Usman Tariq
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
26 Jul 2024

PONE-D-23-35566R3

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hu,

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

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Muhammad Usman Tariq

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE
==== Refs
References

1 Miller G.S. and Skinner D.J. , The evolving disclosure landscape: How changes in technology, the media, and capital markets are affecting disclosure. Journal of Accounting Research, 2015. 53 (2 ): p. 221–239.
2 Lee L.F. , Hutton A.P. and Shu S. , The role of social media in the capital market: Evidence from consumer product recalls. Journal of Accounting Research, 2015. 53 (2 ): p. 367–404.
3 Blankespoor E. , et al ., Fair value accounting for financial instruments: Does it improve the association between bank leverage and credit risk? The Accounting Review, 2013. 88 (4 ): p. 1143–1177.
4 Fox J. and McEwan B. , Distinguishing technologies for social interaction: The perceived social affordances of communication channels scale. Communication Monographs, 2017. 84 (3 ): p. 298–318.
5 Hales J. , Are investors really willing to agree to disagree? An experimental investigation of how disagreement and attention to disagreement affect trading behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2009. 108 (2 ): p. 230–241.
6 Bartov E. , Marra A. and Momenté F. , Corporate social responsibility and the market reaction to negative events: Evidence from inadvertent and fraudulent restatement announcements. The Accounting Review, 2021. 96 (2 ): p. 81–106.
7 Xu Q. , et al ., Social media, interaction information and stock market efficiency: evidence from the Shenzhen stock exchange easy interaction platform in China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 2022. 29 (6 ): p. 1469–1496.
8 Feng X. and Johansson A.C. , Top executives on social media and information in the capital market: Evidence from China. Journal of Corporate Finance, 2019. 58: p. 824–857.
9 Zimmerman T. , Social noise: the influence of observers on social media information behavior. Journal of Documentation, 2022. 78 (6 ): p. 1228–1248.
10 Farboodi M. , et al ., Where has all the data gone? The Review of Financial Studies, 2022. 35 (7 ): p. 3101–3138.
11 Bao Z. and Huang D. , Shadow banking in a crisis: Evidence from FinTech during COVID-19. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 2021. 56 (7 ): p. 2320–2355.
12 Chen M. , et al ., Dynamic analyses of contagion risk and module evolution on the SSE a-shares market based on minimum information entropy. Entropy, 2021. 23 (4 ): p. 434. doi: 10.3390/e23040434 33917234
13 Liu B. and McConnell J.J. , The role of the media in corporate governance: Do the media influence managers’ capital allocation decisions? Journal of Financial Economics, 2013. 110 (1 ): p. 1–17.
14 Zhang Q. , Jiang C. and Zhang X. , Exploration or exploitation? A study on equity incentive design, dynamic decision making, and economic consequences. Plos one, 2023. 18 (1 ): p. e0277965. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277965 36689409
15 An J. , Hou W. and Lin C. , Epidemic disease and financial development. Journal of Financial Economics, 2022. 143 (1 ): p. 332–358.
16 An J. and Rau R. , Finance, technology and disruption. The European Journal of Finance, 2021. 27 (4–5 ): p. 334–345.
17 Yu D. and Huang D. , Cross-sectional uncertainty and expected stock returns. Journal of Empirical Finance, 2023. 72 : p. 321–340.
18 Chen M. , et al ., Dynamic correlation of market connectivity, risk spillover and abnormal volatility in stock price. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 2022. 587: p. 126506.
19 Yu D. , Huang D. and Chen L. , Stock return predictability and cyclical movements in valuation ratios. Journal of Empirical Finance, 2023. 72: p. 36–53.
20 Goldstein I. and Yang L. , Good disclosure, bad disclosure. Journal of Financial Economics, 2019. 131 (1 ): p. 118–138.
21 Dessaint O. , et al ., Noisy stock prices and corporate investment. The Review of Financial Studies, 2019. 32 (7 ): p. 2625–2672.
22 Aouadi A. , Arouri M. and Roubaud D. , Information demand and stock market liquidity: International evidence. Economic Modelling, 2018. 70: p. 194–202.
23 Nagar V. , Schoenfeld J. and Wellman L. , The effect of economic policy uncertainty on investor information asymmetry and management disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 2019. 67 (1 ): p. 36–57.
24 Zhang Q. , Cai C.X. and Keasey K. , Market reaction to earnings news: A unified test of information risk and transaction costs. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 2013. 56 (2–3 ): p. 251–266.
25 Han S. , et al ., Information and liquidity of over-the-counter securities: Evidence from public registration of Rule 144A bonds. Journal of Financial Markets, 2022. 59 : p. 100655.
26 Zhang Z. , et al ., Corporate environmental information disclosure and stock price crash risk: Evidence from Chinese listed heavily polluting companies. Energy Economics, 2022. 112 : p. 106116.
27 Wang X. , Li Y. and Xiao M. , Do risk disclosures in annual reports improve analyst forecast accuracy? China Journal of Accounting Studies, 2017. 5 (4 ): p. 527–546.
28 Da Z. , Engelberg J. and Gao P. , In search of attention. The journal of finance, 2011. 66 (5 ): p. 1461–1499.
29 Gao X. , et al ., Media coverage and investment efficiency. Journal of Empirical Finance, 2021. 63: p. 270–293.
30 Torres R. , Gerhart N. and Negahban A. , Epistemology in the era of fake news: An exploration of information verification behaviors among social networking site users. ACM SIGMIS Database: The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 2018. 49 (3 ): p. 78–97.
31 Shi X. , Liu Z. and Wang Y. , Will executive equity incentives affect investor relations management: Empirical evidence from Chinese listed companies. Frontiers in Psychology, 2022. 13: p. 968677. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.968677 36600724
32 García Sánchez I.M. , et al ., Assurance of corporate social responsibility reports: Examining the role of internal and external corporate governance mechanisms. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 2022. 29 (1 ): p. 89–106.
33 Habib A. and Hasan M.M. , Corporate life cycle research in accounting, finance and corporate governance: A survey, and directions for future research. International Review of Financial Analysis, 2019. 61 : p. 188–201.
34 Berger A.N. and Udell G.F. , The economics of small business finance: The roles of private equity and debt markets in the financial growth cycle. Journal of banking & finance, 1998. 22 (6–8 ): p. 613–673.
35 Yang L. , et al ., Resource slack, environmental management maturity and enterprise environmental protection investment: An enterprise life cycle adjustment perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021. 309 : p. 127339.
36 Zou L. and Ma J. , Do state-owned participation shareholders improve the environmental governance level of private enterprises? Evidence from Chinese listed firms. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2023. 11: p. 1053200.
37 Phi N.T.M. , et al ., Performance differential between private and state-owned enterprises: An analysis of profitability and solvency. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 2021. 57 (14 ): p. 3913–3928.
38 Cheng L. and Lei Z. , Does the expansion of Chinese state-owned enterprises affect the innovative behavior of private enterprises? Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 2015. 22 (1 ): p. 24–54.
39 Bessembinder Hendrik , and Zhang Feng . "Firm characteristics and long-run stock returns after corporate events." Journal of Financial Economics 109 .1 (2013 ): 83–102.
40 Antia M. , Pantzalis C. and Park J.C. , CEO decision horizon and firm performance: An empirical investigation. Journal of corporate finance, 2010. 16 (3 ): p. 288–301.
41 Dickinson V. , Cash flow patterns as a proxy for firm life cycle. The accounting review, 2011. 86 (6 ): p. 1969–1994.
42 An J. , et al ., Do checks on bureaucrats improve firm value? Evidence from a natural experiment. Accounting & Finance, 2020. 60 (5 ): p. 4821–4844.
43 Lv Ying and Zhang Fengqi , The Impact of executive compensation stickiness on the quality of information disclosure of listed companies: Based on the perspective of corporate life cycle. Friends of Accounting, 2022(24 ): pp. 33–40.Chinese
44 Yang X. , et al ., Online social networks, media supervision and investment efficiency: An empirical examination of Chinese listed firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2020. 154 : p. 119969.
