The Mechanism for Matching the Supply Content and Policy Instruments of Resistive Public Policy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Generally, this manuscript is somehow difficult for me to follow. I will suggest that the authors should conduct more relevant literature review and adopt a simple and clear style of presentation in widely read published papers. There are too many concepts and not clearly depicted.
In particular, the Title is not clear and direct enough. It is too long. And avoid one sentence paragraphs.
Author Response
请参阅附件。
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments to authors:
Thanks to the authors for undertaking this research to better understand policy tools. The study and results are interesting. I made comments below relating to each sections as noted.
Section 1:
At the end of the introduction (p.2, lines 56-59), the authors list off several questions. Are these the research questions? Throughout Section 2, several other questions are raised. I was unclear which were the research questions. I urge the authors to directly state the research questions in the introduction, and then relate the theoretical concepts in Section 2 to the questions and hypotheses.
In the introduction of nudge tools (e.g., p.2 lines 43-49), please provide some concrete examples of nudging tools and behavioral responses.
Section 2:
The policy supply content section needs further context. I was not clear, upon first reading the section, why the rural grassroots employment policies were the focus or what they are. In general, this section needs to be further set up related to the research inquiry and theory, such that the reader understands how the specific policy mechanisms relate to the study.
At the end of Section 2.3, which introduces Chengzhe's five dimensional conceptual framework, the authors state that, "This study comprehensively considers the policy identity, the degree of change of the policy to the behavior of the target group, that is, the subjective will of College Students' rural grass-roots employment and the perceived support of the policy as the dependent variables, so as to reflect the effect of policy behavior." How does this relate to the major questions raised at the end of section 1?
Figure 1's Y axis is not clear. How do environmental facility level, salary and welfare level, and personal development level move up toward policy content dimension, and how are they different along the X axis? This needs to be adjusted for clarity and further described or removed.
Section 3:
In Hypothesis 1, what does "obvious differences" in policy effects mean? This should be clarified.
Hypotheses 2 and 3 also note differences being "obviously better," which needs clarification.
The literature justification for the hypotheses should be expressly stated. They should follow from Section 2. Section 4 notes that literature research was employed to comb the factors affecting employment from the perspective of behavioral public policy, which helped develop the questionnaire, but the connection to the basis for the hypotheses is not clear.
Section 4:
Please describe further the questionnaire process. How did students find it? From how many total responses were the 150 valid ones, and what qualified as valid and not valid? Please also describe why wjx was used and who it reaches. I.e., how representative is the sample and how widely applicable are the associated results?
The independent variable is raised in Section 4.3. It would be helpful, in understanding the study methodology, if the authors clearly articulated the dependent and independent variables associated with each research question and hypothesis.
Sections 6 and 7:
The paper would be strengthened by relating the findings further to the theoretical frameworks discussed in Sections 1 and 2.
Author Response
请参阅附件。
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Very kind, the abstract is a good summary of the work. I have carried out a check and the scientific literature mentioned is relevant to the work done. I also find very well structured the section : "Basic concepts and theoretical analysis", the research method is well explained and the tables are clear and understandable. The conclusions explain the work done well and allow the reader to reuse the tools to conduct analysis and contribute to future research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In my own candid opinion, the paper is wrongly categorized as an "Essay" and is still very confusing. The research design label is highly unspecific. Is it an essay or a survey, or an experimental study?
In particular, the general structure of the Introduction section, the whole research design (the Research Hypotheses and the Research Design), and the concepts are still not very clear despite the revision conducted by the authors of the manuscript.
The use of language too is not clear. For an example, lines 37 - 41.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
I want to appreciate authors’ efforts and determination to revise this manuscript to acceptable standard. However, I still find it difficult to grasp the COHESIVENESS and COHERENCE of the title, numerous concepts, methods, analysis, and conclusion of the research paper.
Can the authors present their ideas, facts, analysis, etc., from the point of view of the title? That is, is it possible to make a presentation from the viewpoint of “The mechanism for matching supply content and policy instruments of resistant public policy” What is this mechanism? How does it connect with other concepts used in the manuscript? Can you give a context description of these concepts? What historical connection or correlation exist between these concepts for the purpose of these research?
In other words, can that “mechanism” flow from the background and problem, purpose, objective, analysis, findings, and conclusions of the study? Can the mechanism provide a framework for viewing what contribution the research endeavor is disseminating?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
