Regulatory Effect on Information Sharing of Industrial Internet Platforms Based on Three Differentiated Game Scenarios
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
My comments are available in the PDF file entitled "report#1_sustainability".
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- First of all, I strongly recommend the "Professional English Proof Reading Service" by the native American. For example (example only), from the title (and elsewhere) "differential" should be changed with "differentiated", because the latter has some subjective strategy in it. More over, the first sentence of the abstract takes "seven" lines! Terrible! All sentences should be clear, precise, and appropriate, and thus the paper needs to be supported by commercial editing service such as MDPI.
- Title should transfer clear meaning and contribution of the paper, and thus it should be changed with more "unique" focus on the issues and/or findings of the empirical results.
- Abstract should show the "unique" contribution of the paper. It should include some "numeric (because it is unique)" findings from the empirical results with its unique and precise implications and suggestions. There are three findings, but only with common sense type of too abstract interpretation. Make all these with more field-oriented meaning of the results (why? how?)
- Key words are "terrible". "Industrial Internet platforms; information sharing regulation; government Participation" -> Some of words begin with large characters, and others with small characters. The readers are not stupid. They want to see the "best efforts" of the authors. I have to ask, "Did the authors make the best efforts?"
- There are too much logical missing links. Just after introduction chapter, "2. Problem description and assumptions" is not appropriate at least in its terminology. (As far as I know, there is no this kind of title as Chapter 2.) Change title and the contents based on other previous papers.
- All the hypotheses and following equations are "too much subjective". It should be based on the common factors of other papers, and thus needs to be supported by literature and citations. (Same as in Chapter "3. Model building and solving".)
- In social science, the most important issue of the research paper is on the interpretation of the empirical results. What are the "problems" and how to fix these?" Explain all these in conclusion more precisely, clearly in appropriate ways (from the field-oriented information).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I am happy that the authors made additional efforts to justify their choices and clarify some relevant issues regarding the assumptions they have considered in the manuscript. They showed great research effort and technical competence. Therefore, I do recommend this paper for publication after some minor revisions in the following sections:
Abstract
The current version of the abstract is too long (more than 300 words). I recommend keeping it down to around 150-200 words, trying to balance clarity and objectivity. This would make the abstract more concise and more attractive to the target audience.
3.1 Problem description and model assumptions
There is a typo (two dots "..") at the end of line 222 (page 5)
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- The revised version reflects well the comments of the reviewers. I do accept the paper as it is.
-But for the better quality, I suggest title change from "Study of Regulation of Information Sharing on Industrial Internet Platforms Considering Three Decision Scenarios - Based 3 on Differentiated Game Model" to "Regulation Effect on the Information Sharing of the Internet Platforms based on three Differentiated Game Scenarios"
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
