Subsidy-Dominated Non-Farm Income Improves Herder Household Livelihoods and Promotes Income Equality in North Tibet, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper requires correction before considering for publication.

1. The methods should be mentioned in the abstract.

2. The introduction should described the research gap. Please elaborate hypothesis. What is the new things in the research? What methods were used to measure the net value? No farm income in known as alternative income. Divide the income and describe it please.
3. The analysis should be improved. First write the author of the equation. 
4. It is not clear how the strata was chosen. The regression should describe variables which have impact on income. The Information about the model should be described.

5. Please explain the abbreviations.

Small improvements are needed.

Author Response

Thank you for your review, please see the attachment.

Best regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Your article is very interesting and well done. It is well balanced in its different parts although the methodological part could be slightly enriched. In this regard, nothing is said about the representativeness and selection of the interviewed sample (it is only mentioned how it is distributed among the different villages). A descriptive analysis of the sample is missing: gender, age, etc. The conclusions could be a little more extensive, perhaps better illustrating the implications of this work, especially on political decision makers. Please find below some observations and suggestions that I hope will help you improve the article.

- Names and affiliations of Authors are missing.

- Please revise the editing of the abstract, check the spaces.

- Please put acronyms in brackets - Line 53: “Furthermore, A large…” must be “Furthermore, a large…”

- Lines 78-91: the different hypotheses could be described using a bullet list

- Line 100: km2 should be km2 - Please provide monetary values also in dollars or euros (at least provide an exchange rate)

- Tables / figures must be separated from the text by an empty line

- Percentages can be expressed with a single decimal. Ex. line 206: 80.57% can be 80.6%

- Please check the editing of figures 4, 6 and 8, at the moment it’s difficult to read them.

- Line 267: “PThe” should be “The”.

- Table 4: Please consider whether it is appropriate to put the names of the variables in full or at least insert them in full in the comment.

- Line 298: “According to [3]” must be “According to Mohammed et al. [3]”, please apply to all when necessary.

- Line 369-386: This part could be moved to the conclusions

- The entire final part of the article is missing: attributions, fundings, etc.

- Please eliminate double numbering of references.

Author Response

Thank you for your review, please see the attachment.

Best regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled "Non-farm income dominates herder household economies and reduces income inequality in North Tibet, the highest-altitude pastoral region" is important because the findings may provide insights to policymakers of what needs to be done to diversify income generating activities, in addition to farming, for sustainable income, rural livelihoods and food security. I suggest the following to improve the quality of the manuscript:

1. In the Materials and Methods section under Study area, it is important for Authors to indicate other major farming enterprise(s) on which farming communities rely on, in addition to livestock husbandry; and also the Authors must indicate other agricultural farming potentials this part of Tibet region has. Such information is important for Policymakers to make informed decisions and recommendations to improve rural income and livelihoods of the local communities. The aurhors can obtain such information by conducting some literature search on this Tibet region.

2. The subsection "Data compilation" must be changed to "Data collection".

3. It is important for Author(s) under subsection "Data collection" to include statement on Ethical Approval as part of guidelines for protocols that must be followed for human participation in survey research studies.

4. The Author contributions is lacking in this manuscript and Author(s) need to attend to this.

5. The statements on Funding; Acknowledgements; Conflicts of Interest, etc. as stipulated under Instructions for Authors are missing in this manuscript and Authors need to attend to this.

The quality of English Language is relatively fine but needs minor editing.

Author Response

Thank you for your review, please see the attachment.

Best regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors responded to my comments. In my opinion the paper can be published after checking English by native speaker.

The authors responded to my comments. In my opinion the paper can be published after checking English by native speaker.

Author Response

Thank you for your review, 

We have revised, improved, and updated the Introduction and added/deleted references, according to your suggestions and comments,

Please see the attachment.

Best regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf