An Empirical Study of New Rural Collective Economic Organization in Alleviating Relative Poverty among Farmers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study looks at the implementation path of a new rural collective economic organization to alleviate relative poverty by improving farmers' livelihood strategies from the standpoints of development level, operational capability, and governance ability of collective economic organizations. It presents empirical evidence for how the new rural collective economic organization might optimize governance while also connecting with farmers' livelihood plans to improve and relieve relative poverty. It has been written very well. However, I have following suggestions to improve its content.
Introduction: It is too long and I found so many unnecessary details. I would recommend to make it shorter. Need to focus your research questions. Authors can add a separate literature survey. Most of it are available in the introduction at present. The second section explains the theoretical analysis and research hypotheses. I think this section can be shortened. No need to explain all but just try to link your work with theory. Section Three “Materials and Methods” can be accepted. The results section needs to be improved. Need to provide economic interpretations rather than just reporting the results. The conclusion section can be accepted.
NA
Author Response
please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
your research addresses a very important issue in the Chinese context and globally. However, some modifications are required in order to improve the quality of the manuscript. Please, follow the comments.
Best regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. I found this paper to be a well done piece of work, and I have no major issues with it. I greatly appreciated the robustness checks performed against a logit regression, which made good sense with your data structure.
Two minor issues, but I do not require you to make any changes, I felt that the paper is slightly long, there is probably some room to tighten the initial sections a bit. Secondly, and this is merely a style issue, is that I prefer to have variables in regression tables labeled more clearly than with codes. But, as I say this is up to the authors to decide whether to tackle.
Author Response
- Summary
Thank you for your comments regarding our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable for revising and enhancing the quality of our article, as well as providing the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made relevant corrections.
- Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment 1: Two minor issues, but I do not require you to make any changes, I felt that the paper is slightly long, there is probably some room to tighten the initial sections a bit. Secondly, and this is merely a style issue, is that I prefer to have variables in regression tables labeled more clearly than with codes. But, as I say this is up to the authors to decide whether to tackle.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your observations and we really appreciate your suggestions for enhancing the quality of our article. We are grateful for your professional review work on our article. We have streamlined the content of the article, mainly introducing our core research content. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the article. We use code notation in the regression table mainly because our original variable names are too long to display in the table, so we have adopted a more concise symbolic representation.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for accepting the reviewer's suggestions and providing additional explanations. You put a lot of effort to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Best regards
