Pricing and Quantity Decisions under Asymmetric Carbon Emission Reduction Information and Cap-and-Trade Mechanism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Analysis can be improved.

The samples have not been rigorously established.

Identify other static justifications for the use of the mentioned specific tests.

Provide few more insights in future directions and literature review.

Author Response

Great thanks for your efforts in reviewing the manuscript. Following your suggestions, we try our best to revise the paper. All the comments are addressed accordingly, please see the PDF file named "Reviewer 1".

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

There are several weaknesses in this paper. First, it is that it is very poorly written - it has significant problems with its language and structure. Second, even more important is the lack of contribution. What the authors claim on page 3 can not be considered as contributing factors - it should be stated clearly what novel methods/ algorithms have been developed. There is no model developed in a 1-page length section 3, titled "Model".  

The paper is  not in a stage that can be considered for publication in a top class journal. 

Author Response

Great thanks for your efforts in reviewing the manuscript. Following your suggestions, we try our best to revise the paper. All the comments are addressed accordingly, please see the PDF file named "Reviewer 2".

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

-

Author Response

Thank you again for your efforts in reviewing the manuscript. I wish you all
the best.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

After a careful review of the paper, this reviewer feels that it is in the author’s best interests to consider making a major revision of the paper.

First of all, the problem is not clearly stated. What specifically are the decisions of the manufacturer and retailer (regarding question (1) in line 81)?  Why does a high-type manufacturer want to avoid mimicry from the low-type manufacturer?

More specific comments related to the main concerns (unclear problem statement):

- In the abstract, the authors state that "Furthermore, the low-type manufacturer tends not to hide emission reduction information, while the high-type manufacturer tends to disclose the information." - is it a mistake? Both types of manufacturers are motivated to provide the information, then?

- In the text, the authors write about "carbon emission efficiency" while in table 1 they use the term "carbon reduction efficiency" - is it the same? If so, what is the important difference between "carbon reduction efficiency" and "carbon reduction level" which is claimed novelty of the reviewed paper?

Besides, the paper is still plagued with typos, even in the abstract!! Thus the use of English should be tidied up. Some examples follow:

- his the wholesale price

- manufacturers who is 

- it is always impossible 

- asymmetric the carbon emission reduction information

- the manufacturer as signal sender use

- which makes retailer refers the carbon emission reduction rate is high.

- titles of 2.1. and 2.2, Table 2, section 4 and 5

Author Response

Great thanks for your efforts in reviewing the manuscript. In accordance with the suggestions, once again, we try our best to revise the paper, which we think makes our paper more reasonable and convincing. All the comments are addressed accordingly, please see the file named "Reviewer 2".

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf