Low-Carbon Supply Chain Emission Reduction Strategy Considering the Supervision of Downstream Enterprises Based on Evolutionary Game Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewed paper gives an interesting overview of the subject and it is practically oriented, written with commendable clarity and professional respect. It has correct construction, consists of some interesting chapters. Figures and Tables included in the paper are very well done.

However, there are some remarks, that should be mentioned.

The content is not described briefly. There are a lot of mathematical records that are somehow explained, but I miss some order of how it should look like in the optimization task.

It can be clearly read from the title that the paper will propose a Low-carbon supply chain emission reduction strategy. Unfortunately, such a strategy is not emphasized, but it should.

Chapter 3 on Results Evolutionary Game Analysis of Government and Supplier Considering Supervision of Downstream Enterprises should rather be a supporting method in showing the strategy discussed in the title. However, it really comes down to showing the formulas of how certain costs can be calculated. In my opinion, this lacks a clear link to the strategy that should be highlighted.

Despite those critical remarks, in my opinion, it is a very good paper with some flaws but makes an important contribution.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The research is very important and discusses a trending topic, and here are some notes and suggestions that can improve the article:
1- The article is very long, and it contains many main headings and subheadings, which makes it difficult for the reader to follow the line of the article. I suggest reviewing the titles.
2- The introduction is too long, and it can be summarized or divided,
3- or a small part may be added as a “related studies or literature review”.
4- The second section explains the methodology. I suggest that you divide the methodology from the current part and explain it separately.
5- I suggest adding a “Discussion” section before the “Conclusion” section to discuss the most prominent results and compare them with the results of the previous studies.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is good, it needs major corrections:

Sensitivity analysis should be provided.

The results must be compared with other existing methods.

Several keywords are not defined well, authors need to provide the abbreviations of all keywords.

The procedure of the proposed method should be provided in a diagram or framework. 

Some equations provided without numbers, authors need to recheck all again. 

The structure of the paper should be added at the end of the introduction.

There are some grammatical errors in the paper.

The keywords section should be extended. 

Limitations and recommendations for further works should be added in the conclusion. 

There are several errors in the references list as well as in the text.

The sources/references of criteria or parameters should be added in the paper. 

Hypotheses should be presented in a shorter sentence. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper improved very well, thank you, the paper is ready for publication.