Coordination Analysis of the Recycling and Remanufacturing Closed-Loop Supply Chain Considering Consumers’ Low Carbon Preference and Government Subsidy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The three decision models in this paper (decentralized decision, centralized decision and coordinated decision) all obtain the optimal solution by making the first derivative equal to zero. Is this proof and derivation method appropriate? In fact, the method of optimal first derivative is conditional on the second derivative.

2. In the process of solving the model, the article takes consumer low-carbon preference and government subsidies as exogenous variables, and in the result analysis (Section 4.3), why?

3. This paper constructs the coordination model of cost and benefit sharing contract, but only deduces the solution of the optimal benefit distribution coefficient, and lacks the demonstration of the optimal cost sharing coefficient. 

4. The  process of generating data/parameter values in numerical examples should be explained.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In today's world of global warming, I admit that this is a great topic. However, I also have a few questions.
(1) An abbreviated table is necessary. The sudden appearance of some abbreviations makes me wonder about their specific concepts, such as CER in the abstract, MR and MT in P1L69, etc. Routinely, abbreviations should follow the full spelling when they first appear.
(2) The literature review is very informative, but I am still wondering if there may be any missing literature. Especially in the results section, the discussion with previous studies is missing. In short, the innovative value about the study needs to be enhanced.
(3) The language of the whole paper needs to be embellished. What is the meaning of "double carbon" or "two-carbon"? This seems to be the Chinese term, which is not in line with the international custom.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you very much for the opportunity. Kindly note the following issues which need to address before considering the manuscript for publication.

 1.       Abstract: 1st 3 lines must be snappy and convey the primary idea. It's too restricted to tackle the central problem.

2.       Introduction section: The beginning must state the theoretical problem and worldwide concern.

3.       In literature review section: citations are seeming look older, and citation should be up to date.

4.       In figure1. Government CER subsidy’s effect on Manufacturers was included only, why? Government CER subsidies could influence retailers and consumers.

 

5.       Missing managerial and theoretical implications

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf