A Study on Green Agricultural Production Decision-Making by Agricultural Cooperatives under Government Subsidies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First, the theoretical background could be strengthened by some economic theories, particularly those based on governmental support and subsidies to enhance the relationship between producers and consumers.  

Second, more factors influence the tripartite model. For future research, interviews with policymakers seem to be relevant to assessing the applicability and effectiveness of the achieved results.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 This manuscript, which examines green agricultural production decisions of agricultural cooperatives under government subsidies, is informative and clearly structured. However, the language needs a lot of improvement, firstly, the expression is not concise enough, and secondly, there is a lack of back-and-forth logic between some statements. The following are the flaws of this manuscript.

1. In the Abstract section:

    (1) The entire abstract section is overly lengthy, the language is not concise enough, it is not focused, and it lacks the significance or revelation of this study.

2. In the Introduction section:

    (2) Lines 117 to 121, "The complexity of the interactions and decision-making processes of these stakeholders is frequently captured by evolutionary game approaches [14]. Subsidies provided by the government to agricultural cooperatives and consumers are thus a dynamic process that is subject to the influence of Subsidies provided by the government to agricultural cooperatives and consumers are thus a dynamic process that is subject to the influence of technological advancements, shifting markets, and regulatory changes.” In the first sentence, the evolutionary game approach is able to portray the complexity of stakeholder interactions and decision-making processes, but in the second sentence, it is pointed out that the provision of government subsidies to agricultural cooperatives and consumers is a dynamic process, and the use of the word "thus" as a connecting word is a problematic logical connection between the preceding and the following sentences. In addition, the dynamics and complexity of the evolutionary game are portrayed very rigidly in this manuscript.

      (3) What is the scientific problem that this manuscript proposes to solve? It is not clear.

      (4) What is the innovation of this paper? It is not clear.
 
3. In the Literature review section:

    (5) Why the literature review is divided into these four sections should be explained before section 2.1. In particular, the section "2.2. Sustainable Supply Chains" is very confusing. Not only does sustainable supply chains have nothing to do with the title, but it also has nothing to do with the research question to be addressed, so why is a literature review of sustainable supply chains needed? In addition, the second paragraph of section 2.2 does not center on the literature review of sustainable supply chains, which seems to be the content of another section.

    (6) The entire literature review section is very uncritical and lacks a literature review. Through the literature review, we should see the authors of this manuscript's critique of the issues that have not been addressed by previous authors, thus giving the reader a clearer understanding of the research direction and entry point of this study.

    (7) In addition, some important literature in the field of evolutionary research is missing.
e.g.,
Ghasemi, P., Goodarzian, F., Gunasekaran, A., & Abraham, A. (2021). A bi-level mathematical model for logistic management considering the evolutionary game with environmental feedbacks. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 34(4), 1077–1100.
Hosseini-Motlagh, S.-M., Choi, T.-M., Johari, M., & Nouri-Harzvili, M. (2022). A profit surplus distribution mechanism for supply chain coordination: An evolutionary game-theoretic analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 301(2), 561–575.
Li, X., & He, J. (2024). Evolutionary mechanism of green product certification behavior in cement enterprises: a perspective of herd behavior. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 33, 103508.
etc.
 
    (8) Lines 258 to 281, this large paragraph is all about the research content and purpose of this manuscript. However, the purpose of the study and the content of the study should be developed in the introduction section and not suitable to be elaborated in the literature review section.

4. In the Results section:

    (9) Each formula should be mentioned in the body of the text and it should be explained what each formula is solving for.

    (10) It is recommended that the formulas be formatted in a uniform way, e.g., formulas should be uniformly centered or left-justified.

5. In the Numerical Simulation and Analysis section:

    (11) It is suggested that lines 519 through 522, "Using the MATLAB R2021a software, a tripartite evolutionary game model of green production of agricultural cooperatives receiving government subsidies was numerically simulated in order to examine the impact of changes in various parameters on green production. production" before section 5.1.

    (12) The numerical simulation should be preceded by an explanation of the rationale for the parameter values and why the simulation was done for the scenarios.

    (13) Sentences are too long. For example, lines 564 through 572, a large paragraph has only two sentences. Please check against the rest of the text for similar problems.

    (14) The six graphs in Figures 5a-f can only see the x- and y-axes, missing the z-axis coordinates.

    (15) Sections 5.1 and 5.2 do not discuss the similarities and differences between the results of this study and those of other similar studies, and the discussion of the results of the numerical simulations needs to be improved and supported by earlier literature and expert opinion.

6. In the Discussion and Recommendations section:

    (16) The conclusions and recommendations do not correspond to each other. There are 5 points for conclusions but only 2 points for recommendations.

    In summary, this manuscript is very rough and needs further revision. I sincerely look forward to receiving the revised version.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript investigates the influence of the three-way evolutionary game model's influencing factors on agricultural cooperatives' inclination to produce green agricultural products, simulation periments were performed to simulate and analyze the strategic decisions of stakeholders in various situations. Overall, this manuscript is well organized and meaningful, and the method is appropriate. The analysis process is also very thorough. I have the following minor suggestions.

 

1. In the literature review part, the manuscript reviews relative literatures from the three aspects: “Green Production and Greenness of Agricultural Products”, “Sustainable Supply Chains”, “Government Agricultural Subsidies”, however, the relationship between them is not well summarized, such as how supply chains affect agricultural green production and how agricultural subsidies affect agricultural green production. The literature review is too broad and does not focus well on the research issues and their interrelationships

2. I think that “Evolutionary Game Theory” should not be put in the literature review part; they can be put in the methods part. The author should clearly tell us why they choose the evolutionary game model and what they want to get by using the model in the first place in the method part.

3. Did the simulation process use data? The data applied should be introduced in the text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is readable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer’s Comment

General Comments

This is an interesting work on “A study on green agricultural production decision-making of agricultural cooperatives under government subsidies: an analysis based on a tripartite evolutionary game”. In my opinion, there is a need for your research study. However, there are some things you need to correct in your article. Below are some specific comments.

Specific comments

Title: The title “A study on green agricultural production decision-making of agricultural cooperatives under government subsidies: an analysis based on a tripartite evolutionary game” is too long. I suggest you remove “an analysis based on a tripartite evolutionary game” or paraphrase your title to be within 16 words.

Abstract: Your abstract has 313 words, which is too much for an abstract. I suggest you reduce the length to about 200 words. I recommend you take a look at the guide for authors for more information.

What is green agricultural product/agriculture? I suggest you include a brief definition so that your readers can understand what you mean.

Pg 1, Lines 11-12; I suggest you paraphrase this sentence, “However, there are still some problems in the production of green agricultural products: …” to “However, there are still some problems such as (list the problems here) in the green agricultural products.”

Pg1, Lines 27-29; “…have a substantial effect on consumers' propensity to produce green.” Could you explain what you mean? Do you mean corporate branding would lead to consumers’ motivation to start growing/producing green? If yes, why?

Pg1, Line 31; change the word “bolstering” to a simpler word such as “supporting/strengthening” so that all categories of your readers can benefit from your findings.

In your abstract, you did not specifically state the benefits the government would get from your model. I suggest you include that.

Pg1, Line 32; The word “element” is quite confusing. You need to include the word “element” in a bracket just after mentioning the government, cooperative, and consumers” so that when you use it later in your abstract, it will make it easier for your readers to comprehend your findings.

Also, I do not think the word “element” is the most suitable word to use. I would suggest you use the word “body” or any other more suitable word than “element”.

Pg1, Line 32; The word “virtuous” does not fit so well as regards to what I think you mean. I suggest you change “virtuous” to “good”.

Introduction: Your introduction section is good.

Materials and Method: This section is good too. The model used is a fantastic one.

Pg21, Line 713; Change “Government” to “government”.

Pg 21, Line 715-716; “…and cause excessive damage to the environment.” What are the kinds of environmental damages? I suggest you list them.

 

Pg 21, Line 729; I suggest you include as in the sentence “… government subsidies can as well alleviate the economic pressure...”

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English Language is good.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has carefully revised the manuscript and the current version is acceptable.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

You have done well.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English quality is good.