Policy of Government Subsidy for Supply Chain with Poverty Alleviation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a good attempt, but the authors should have also discussed some more contemporary research dealing with similar topics. 

There is research with soft tools that may be able to validate the outcomes.

there are limited references, and the paper needs to be for broad-based audiences.

Author Response

Thank you for your recognition and constructive feedback. In this version, we have carefully considered your comments and have made corresponding revision.

Firstly, we have updated the contemporary and latest relevant papers in literature review of our manuscript. Such as Tan et al (2022). proposed a generalized blockchain-based supply chain management platform for targeted poverty alleviation; Ye and Deng (2021) explored the optimal decision-making problem of the three-level (government + enterprises + farmers) poverty alleviation supply chain under asymmetric cost information. Please see the revised trace of the manuscript for details.

Secondly, we have made a comprehensive check and revision of English spell and grammar.

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject of the paper is contemporary, interesting, and in line with the aims and scope of the Journal. The paper is very well structured and written. However, some parts of the paper (such as the literature review) should be supplemented, and some (such as the discussion) added. I suggest a major revision of the paper according to the following comments.

1.       The authors should supplement the Abstract with a short description of the method and highlight the paper's main contributions.

2.       The authors should supplement the literature review with a general overview of the game theory (its development, areas of application, most often addressed problems, limitations, etc).

3.       The paper does not have a proper discussion. The authors did not discuss how the results can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies. Discussion should clearly and concisely explain the significance of the obtained results to demonstrate the actual contribution of the article to this field of research, when compared with the existing and studied literature. In addition, part of the conclusion dealing with the limitations of the study as well as the practical implications of the study should be moved to the discussion. The authors should also highlight the theoretical implications of the study, in addition to the practical ones.

4.       English language should be revised. Some grammar, syntax, and style, errors need to be addressed.

5.       There are certain technical errors:

a)      It is uncommon to have sub-headings without text between them (e.g. between the sub-headings 3 and sub-headings 3.1). There should be at least a couple of sentences between them as the introduction to the following.

b)      References in the reference list are not formatted according to the Instructions for Authors (provided template).

c)       Acronyms/Abbreviations/Initialisms should be defined the first time they appear in the main text. For example, abbreviations “CSR”, “OM”, etc. Check the rest of the paper.

d)      Page numbers missing for the reference [21].

Author Response

We really appreciate for your constructive and insightful comments. Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The manuscript is related to the subsidies provided by the government to the poor and regular agricultural farmers for poverty alleviation. Very interesting to see the modeling of the subsidies among firms and farmers. This is also important to support the poor farmer to escalate the production of agricultural products for the economy. Interesting to read the main idea, modeling, analysis, and outcomes. I have the following minor concerns.

1. Why not add "China" in the title and Abstract? The subsidies from the government side are depending on awareness, development, economy, and the importance of agricultural products.

2. Only four keywords, one or two more must be added.

3. How did you define the level of poverty e.g., what are the factors associated, and there must be a threshold factor’s value between poor and regular farmers?

4. There are too uncertainties and irregularities that may occur in fixing subsidies among government, firms, and farmers. Is it possible to incorporate these in your research work?

5. How practically is it possible to share subsidies among poor and regular farmers?

6. Correct the grammatical errors throughout.

 

7. Overall, good representation of the results using graphs and curves. The manuscript is interesting to read and easily understandable from the context and arguments of the work. I recommend minor revision with few concerns. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have successfully addressed all issues from the previous review round thus significantly improving the quality of their paper. I suggest the acceptance of the paper in its present form.