Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is rather interesting and shows relevant elements of innovation in the filed. Anyway, some suggestions for review are recommended. 

The abstract shall better explain the theoretical background and the methodology of the research. 

The literature shall report wider references

The research design shall be better explicated, it is model building but there should be a better explanation of the objects. 

There is no discussion

Conclusion shall be better supported and discussed in the light of the extant literature. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank You very much for the possibility to become familiar with an interesting article. It is very well-written and has an analytical and research character. However, because the best is the enemy of the good, I suggest some improvements in that text.

1. The article describes only the case of the Chinese market. The Authors should indicate this fact in the title of the article.
2. The summary must be corrected. Its conclusions are great value, but they also need to inform the reader more widely on what basis they were formulated. More information is needed about the tests carried out and the methods used. Finally, the summary should also include information to whom the manuscript is addressed and how it can benefit. There is also no information about the purpose of the article.
3. In the article itself, there is very little information about the source of the study, the method of the study, methods of analysis. Why were such methods chosen? When were the tests carried out? How can you estimate the reliability of the results obtained by the authors?
4. The Literature Review section must be corrected. Currently, it is very poor and relies almost exclusively on the work of Chinese scientists. Has no one else ever done this type of research in the world?
5. There is no Discussion section in the article. Authors do not refer their research findings to similar works of other authors described in the literature.
6. In my opinion, the Authors show no enough relation to sustainable development in their text. It is related to the Sustainability profile only to a small extent.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The work has been revised properly and now it has a high academic profile. Nonetheless, I would like a decisive intervention on a conclusive step, with a resume of the result, implications, limitations and avenues for future studies, which is actually totally missing in this version of the manuscript. 

Author Response

Response Letter

Paper title: Supply chain strategy analysis of low carbon subsidy policies based on carbon trading

Authors: Yinjie Zhang, Chunxiang Guo, Liangcheng Wang,

 

Dear Editor-in-chief, Associate Editor and Anonymous Reviewers

Thanks again for commenting and considering accepting our manuscript. We have considered the suggestion carefully and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The description of the substantial revision and the corresponding points to the review reports can be seen in the following responses. In the revised manuscript, the renewed contents will be revealed as blue notes. Additionally, we have also deleted some unnecessary content.

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their great efforts in reading our manuscript and proposing the constructive comments and suggestions. There are our responses to the comments and suggestions:

Point 1: The work has been revised properly and now it has a high academic profile. Nonetheless, I would like a decisive intervention on a conclusive step, with a resume of the result, implications, limitations and avenues for future studies, which is actually totally missing in this version of the manuscript.

 

Response 1: Thank you very much for your professional advice. Based on your suggestions, we have carefully considered and discussed. We adjust the discussion part from the following aspects.

(1) We divided the discussion section into three sections. The conclusion description, the managerial implications, and the shortcomings of this research and the prospect of future research are made respectively.

(2) On this basis, we have deleted some unnecessary sentences and refined the description. We pay special attention to the managerial implications section, adding management inspiration to supply chain companies and governments.