The “Supply-Side Reform Policy” and the Share of Labor Income in Enterprises

Comments 1: Abstract: the abstract usually should include the study aim, methodology, findings, and recommendations. The abstract needs to specify the details about the methodology and key terms. for example, authors can include the "six major industries" and identify the exact nature of the robustness tests.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore,

I have made the following modifications。I rewrote the abstract in lines 7 to 23 of the article.

Comments 2: Introduction: The introduction is long and repetitive. Reducing it and eliminating redundancy would improve readability and focus. Also, the introduction covers a wide range of issues without clearly linking them to the study objectives. A more focused would better set the stage for the study and highlight its significance.

Response 2: Agree. For the sake of conciseness in the introduction, the second to last and third paragraphs have been deleted. And added some content in the last paragraph of the introduction, which is displayed in red font.

Comments 3：Results: The statistical data in the tables do not directly address the testing hypotheses as per the statement of each hypothesis. The results section should clearly include specific statistics related directly to each hypothesis. For some hypothesis I can notice that the statistical data is not directly aligned with the statement of the hypothesis. Additionally, the authors should support their findings by referencing similar results from previous studies.

Response 3: Based on the feedback from the reviewers, I have rewritten the relevant hypotheses. In the mechanism testing, I have changed the original regulatory mechanism to an intermediary mechanism, and added corresponding numbers in each paragraph of the article where empirical results need to be explained. I have also provided some explanations for the corresponding numbers. For details, please refer to the highlighted sections of the revised article.

Comments 1: Abstract: The authors do not clearly specify the main objective of the research, the methodology used and the results obtained. I suggest the authors to clarify what is mentioned in the context.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore,

I have made the following modifications。I rewrote the abstract in lines 7 to 23 of the article.

Comments 2: Introduction. As a personal remark, the introduction is far too long and inconclusive. I suggest the authors to summarize this section and at the end of it to specify clearly what is the gap covered in the specialized literature and what are the contributions of the authors in this regard.

Response 2: Agree. For the sake of conciseness in the introduction, the second to last and third paragraphs have been deleted. And added some content in the last paragraph of the introduction, which is displayed in red font.

Comments 3:Literature review and research Hypothesis. This section is an amalgamation of very clearly unstructured specialty information. Although the specialized literature is adequately covered, I suggest to the authors a structuring of it with an emphasis on the research undertaken by them, in order to identify the parts or aspects researched by the authors by readers and specialists.

Response 3：I have structured the literature review in the article and added some explanatory text. All modifications have been marked in red.

Comments 4:Research design. Briefly presented. I suggest the authors to arrange the tables a little and specify the source of the data and the software used for their analysis.

Response 4：I have added a textual explanation of the software used in this study in the "Research Design" section of the article. I also edited the table of the article again.All changes have been marked in red.

Comments 5:Results. I suggest the authors to reduce some of the figures as they are oversized and the tables arranged according to the technical editing requirements of the journal.

Response 5：I have reduced some numbers in the table. I edited the table of the article again.All changes have been marked in red.

Comments 6:Mechanism testing. Shouldn't this section be included elsewhere and not separately? This section is not framed correctly according to the structure of a specialized scientific article. I suggest the authors to find an integration formula in the other sections.

Response 6：Based on the feedback from the reviewers, I have rewritten the relevant hypotheses. In the mechanism testing, I have changed the original regulatory mechanism to an intermediary mechanism, and added corresponding numbers in each paragraph of the article where empirical results need to be explained. I have also provided some explanations for the corresponding numbers. For details, please refer to the highlighted sections of the revised article.I have already included the mechanism verification chapter in the fourth part of the article.

Comments 7:Conclusions and recommendations. The conclusions are not so clear and some paragraphs can be found in the abstract of the article. In addition, the limits of the research appear in the conclusions part. I suggest the authors to correctly structure the conclusions and recommendations and respect the correct order of their presentation: conclusions with their own contributions explained, implications of the results on the field, research limits and future research directions.

Response 7：I rewrote the conclusion. Removed some duplicate parts. All changes have been marked in red.