The Tripartite Evolutionary Game of Green Agro-Product Supply in an Agricultural Industrialization Consortium
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled “The Tripartite Evolutionary Game of Green Agro-product Supply in an Agricultural Industrialization Consortium” contains interesting research which I enjoyed reading. The author attempts to examine the influence of various factors on the evolutionary game process based on new institutional economics and new economic sociology. The findings indicate that proportional quality contributions of the agents, intensification of consumers' preference for green agro-products, and the increase of social embedding cost are conducive to the system converging to the favorable evolutionary equilibrium state at a faster rate. While the existing content in the paper is well-managed, there are several revisions required to improve the quality of the manuscript.
1. The abstract needs significant revisions. Please describe justification, purpose, methods etc. in the abstract. For reference you can see previously published papers in the journal.
2. The introduction is very short and does not inform the reader about what the author is going to do in the article, why the research is required i.e., the research gap, and what are the objectives of the study. These aspects need to be described clearly.
3. While enough literature review is presented, the author has not formulated any testable hypothesis based on this theoretical discussion. Furthermore, a theoretical framework is missing.
4. While the results are interesting, they are rarely connected with the practical implications. Furthermore, this problem is complicated in the absence of a separate discussion section where the author is supposed to contextualize the findings, compare with other studies, and provide an overall picture. It is recommended to revise the results and discussion accordingly.
5. Since the research is based on simulation results, the most important part should be the “practical implications” of the research. Please add this as a subsection in the Conclusions.
6. Please also expand on the limitations of your research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Objective is missing in the introduction. In the revision also include the need of having NABE.
2. is the unique only for China?
3. as been mention in the last sentence of introduction, some previous empirical work, do cite them.
4. It is good to show the theoretical model in the form of equations.
5. It is also good to provide the connectivity in terms of figure for the Tripartite Evolutionary Game
6. As the simulation prove to work, can this model be adopted in the real scenario? In that regard, the workability and practicality would be much enhance while improving the local economy and standard of living.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper discussed the influences of some economic and social measures such as quality levels, contributions, marginal costs, consumption preferences, market risks and social embeddedness on the process and results of the evolutionary game. Several major issues with the work are listed here.
· The language of the paper needs a careful editing.
· Please highlight the unique contributions of this study, with reference to practice and contribution to the literature.
· List the sources used for the parameters in Table 4.
· Tables, figures and equations should be rearranged to fit the width of the pages.
· In all figures, add axis titles.
· I think the explanations and justifications of the simulation testing instances are not sufficient. For your description, you just use one instance.
· Conclusions need to be developed further in order to highlight the limitations of the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have made significant revisions in response to my earlier comments. Therefore, I believe the quality of the mansucript has improved a lot and the paper can be accpeted for publication now.
Reviewer 3 Report
I appreciate the authors' effort to address all of my comments. The manuscript may be acceptable.
