Production Capacity Reserve Strategy of Emergency Medical Supplies: Incentive Model for Nonprofit Organizations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We are very grateful for your interest in our work. We greatly appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions， which helped us to greatly improve the novelty, reliability, and impact of our study.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper considers an interesting problem, especially in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, on how a NPO incentivizes an enterprise to provide the production capacity reserve of emergency medical supplies in a principal-agent model framework. The authors build a principal –agent model to capture the strategic interactions between a NPO (the principal) and an enterprise (the agent). They solve the model and conduct a number of comparative static analyses. The main conclusions are with useful managerial implications. However, the presentation of the current version of this manuscript must be improved so that it can be considered to publish. I suggest the following major revisions.
First, the motivation of this manuscript is unclear. More specifically, the authors have to justify why the role of a NPO’s incentive (rather than other organizations’, e.g., governments’) in an enterprise’s provision of the production capacity reserve of emergency medical supplies is important. My personal observation is that in the COVID-19 pandemic, governments all over the world contribute much to deal with the disease. I hope to read some strong justifications on the assumption of the key strategic interaction.
Second, as for the literature review, I suggest placing your emphasis on the literature that links the principal-agent model and the emergency setting so that you can better present your contributions, rather than reviewing all literation on the principal-agent model.
Third, the whole Section 3 needs to be rewritten. Although I can understand what you want to say in this section (i.e., to present the principle-agent model of this paper), I am confused by your organization of this section. For example, what is the meaning of “3.1 decision making”? the decision sequence? In “3.3 symbol description”, all what you wrote is to present the situation you want to analyze, rather than just the description of symbols (notations?). I suggest that you should follow a published paper on some principal-agent interactions to rewrite this section.
Fourth, it seems that section 6 is only a numerical example. I mean, it is just a numerical illustration of the conclusions of section 5. If this is true, why do we need section 6? For numerical simulation, my suggestion is that you illustrate something that has interesting managerial insights but have not be theoretically proved (or, it is difficult to prove).
Finally but most importantly, language is a big problem of this manuscript. To be frank, I can understand all what you want to say because I am a Chinese speaker. However, I am not sure if a native English-speaker can understand. I strongly suggest that the current version be revised and proofread by a native English-speaker before resubmitting to the Journal.
Author Response
We are very grateful for your interest in our work. We greatly appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions， which helped us to greatly improve the novelty, reliability, and impact of our study.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper is excellent. The articulation of the paper and presentation is wonderful.
The only thing is whether the in-text citations are according to the journal requirements.
Rest of the things are fine.
In references, most of the references are incomplete. They mentioned et al.. for many references.
Author Response
We are very grateful for your interest in our work. We greatly appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions， which helped us to greatly improve the novelty, reliability, and impact of our study.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I an satisfied with the authors' revision the manuscript and thus recommend acceptance.
