The Ineffectiveness of “Volume Guarantee” Mode in Live-Streaming: A Nash Bargaining Analysis with Social Network Effects and Traffic Costs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank to the authors for the well-structured theoretical contribution to the literature on live-streaming e-commerce and supply chain coordination. The authors present a rigorous game-theoretic model grounded in Nash bargaining fairness to investigate critical dynamics between platforms, manufacturers, and live-streamers. Their key finding - that volume guarantee commission models do not alter equilibrium outcomes under fair bargaining  - offers both a novel theoretical insight and practical value for digital commerce platforms.

Moreover, the paper successfully incorporates important and timely aspects such as social network effects, fan base metrics, and traffic acquisition costs, thus enhancing its relevance for both academics and practitioners.

I believe the manuscript would benefit from minor revisions before being considered for publication. Specifically:

• The manuscript exhibits language and grammar inconsistencies throughout, which, while not obstructing comprehension, detract from the professional presentation expected of a top-tier journal. A round of professional language editing is strongly advised.
• The discussion on model limitations, such as the assumption of perfect information and agent rationality, could be expanded or acknowledged more explicitly in the main sections.
• While the paper is purely theoretical, a short reflection on potential empirical validation (e.g., industry cases, simulations) would enrich its practical grounding.
• The managerial insights, although present, can be made more concrete, ideally with brief illustrative examples.
• A final clean-up of reference formatting is needed, especially for online or working paper citations.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript exhibits language and grammar inconsistencies throughout, which, while not obstructing comprehension, detract from the professional presentation expected of a top-tier journal. A round of professional language editing is strongly advised.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you so much for this opportunity. My decision is "REJECT" based on these key reasons:

1. No proper arguments were stated in the introduction section using recent publications, especially published between 2024 to 2025, related to the domain of study.
2.  The paper has not followed the JTAER format.
3. The paragraphs under the introduction have citations mainly from a few studies with redundant in-text citations. 
4. At many places, even after 4-5 lines, no in-text citations were done.
5.  The title is too lengthy, and the study fails to deliver novelty in this study.
6.  The literature review seems to have been added forcibly, as it is not adding any value.
7.  Why have researchers used a very old model, i.e., the Nash bargaining model? No comparison with existing models, no valid argument why this is a suitable model?
8. Researchers wrote results under the very strange introduction section.
   See this: However, our analysis of the optimal traffic acquisition of live-streamer shows that when the size of the fan base increases, increasing the number of public domain traffic purchases can effectively increase the profits of streamers. This is because an increase in the size of the fan base can improve consumers' trust in the streamer, enhance social network utility, and ultimately increase the marginal effect of unit traffic acquisition on the profit increase of streamers. 
9. The methodology used for this study is not relevant, as the Nash bargaining model is very old.
10.  Results need to be more scientific and impressive, linking them with implications, future direction, and conclusion.

Many such flaws make this work not an impressive work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language of the articles looks like the AI Humainzer tool was used to remove the AI Writing report. The majority of the citations are too old and are very less in number.  It seems no proofreading was done before the submission.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review

This paper addresses a timely and relevant topic: the effectiveness of the "volume guarantee" commission mode in live-streaming e-commerce, analyzed within a supply chain framework under Nash bargaining fairness. The authors develop a game-theoretical model incorporating social network effects, traffic costs, and bargaining dynamics among manufacturers, live-streamers, platforms, and consumers. The findings contribute to the literature on supply chain coordination, social commerce, and live-streaming cooperation modes.

The article is generally well-structured and provides a clear theoretical model with logical derivations. The conclusions are insightful and aligned with the analytical results. However, there are areas where the manuscript could be strengthened to improve clarity, rigor, and overall contribution.

Abstract

The abstract clearly introduces the research problem but is a bit too long. Some sentences are heavy and could be simplified to make the key contributions stand out. The phrasing “this study hope can provide” should be corrected to “this study hopes to provide.” Shorten the abstract slightly, polish the English, and make the contribution to practice more prominent.

Introduction

The introduction effectively frames the context of live-streaming commerce, the rapid growth of the business model, and the challenges of unequal bargaining power. Alao, the motivation for studying the "volume guarantee" mode is well explained.

The introduction is somewhat lengthy and includes detailed examples that could be moved to later sections.

The research gap could be stated more explicitly. For example: “Existing literature has inconsistent conclusions… therefore, our study introduces Nash bargaining fairness to address this gap.”

The research questions are present, but could be framed more directly at the end of the introduction in bullet points for clarity.

Try to condense the text, highlight the research gap more sharply, and clearly list contributions.

Literature review

The review is comprehensive, covering social operations management, supply chain decision-making in live streaming, and cooperation mode selection. It references relevant studies  and explains how the paper extends prior work.

However, the section is very long and descriptive; at times it lists studies without strong synthesis.

It should emphasize more clearly what this paper adds beyond existing state of knowledge.

Some cited works are working papers (e.g., Qi et al. 2022 on SSRN); where possible, updated journal versions should be cited.

Try to synthesize findings into a table or figure if possible, and strengthen the statement of contribution relative to prior studies.

Methodology

The game-theoretical model is rigorous and carefully developed. Moreover, assumptions about players are clearly stated.

However, the section is mathematically dense, which may discourage some readers. Only one figure is included, more visual would improve accessibility.

Take care, the realism of some assumptions (such as symmetric information, uniform distribution of consumer valuation) is not fully justified.

Add intuitive explanations alongside formulas, provide numerical examples, and briefly discuss limitations of assumptions.

Results

Some results repeat what is already intuitive ( see this: higher traffic costs reduce welfare) without adding strong novelty.

Add figures or numerical case studies to illustrate the theoretical findings; emphasize the non-intuitive insights.

Discussions

The discussion could be expanded to include potential policy implications.

It lacks reflection on limitations of the model and directions for future research (beyond what is briefly mentioned in the conclusion).

I think this work can be considered for publication but only after major revisions are done.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Not applicable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Kindly refer to all stated comments and act accordingly.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Kindly take a professional proofreading service and ensure to augment the writing quality and overcome grammatical errors, typographical mistakes, and lengthy sentences. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend this publication to be considered for further processing after row 69 is corrected (”However, Research on power asymmetry between.”).