Research on the Relationship between Price Mechanism and Short-Term Behavior in Chinese Farmland Trusteeships
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This a review of the article "Research on the Relationship between Price Mechanism and Short-term Behavior in Chinese Farmland Trusteeship". This article addresses a topic which I'm unfamiliar with and found interesting. However, the quality of the writing was not at a level that would merit publication in Sustainability.
The introduction, rather than providing a clear overview of the subject, only managed to confuse me. The authors need to carefully and significantly rewrite this section, with a focus on clarity. There are numerous cases of run on sentences (e.g. line 47-53 needs to be broken up into several sentences). Compounding the problem are a multitude of grammar mistakes, including unnecessary commas, misused words, and unnecessary words. These mistakes are too numerous to mention here; I recommend a professional editor review the manuscript before resubmitting it.
The first paragraph of section 2.1 introduces the topic and concerns in a clear way- this needs to be introduced much sooner, perhaps in the first or second paragraph of the article.
The dynamic game itself is difficult to understand due to some careless errors, such as describing the fixed point price system as a variable-price system on line 215. Readers will not be able to follow the model unless all of the descriptions are exact. The authors should review this section carefully and make sure all of the wording is precise.
The discussion section is poorly written, which is a shame because it seems like there are some good recommendations. The authors claim that a variable price system would induce farmers to sign long term contracts, and agricultural social services would engage in long term (sustainable) behaviors. Similar to the introduction, this section needs to be carefully rewritten. Again, a professional editor is suggested.
Overall the idea, model, and discussion are not communicated clearly enough to the reader to be publishable at this point.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable suggestions on my article. I have read them carefully and modified my paper accordingly. Now let me respond to them point by point.
（1）Suggestion：The introduction, rather than providing a clear overview of the subject, only managed to confuse me. The authors need to carefully and significantly rewrite this section, with a focus on clarity. There are numerous cases of run on sentences (e.g. line 47-53 needs to be broken up into several sentences). Compounding the problem are a multitude of grammar mistakes, including unnecessary commas, misused words, and unnecessary words. These mistakes are too numerous to mention here; I recommend a professional editor review the manuscript before resubmitting it.
Response: I have rewritten the introduction carefully and invited professional editors for English writing according to your suggestions. Try my best to avoid errors in grammar, words, sentences, punctuation.
（2）Suggestion：The first paragraph of section 2.1 introduces the topic and concerns in a clear way- this needs to be introduced much sooner, perhaps in the first or second paragraph of the article.
Response: I have rewritten the first and second paragraphs in “1.1Background, Purpose and Significance”, highlighting the theme and focus of this article.
（3）Suggestion：The discussion section is poorly written, which is a shame because it seems like there are some good recommendations. The authors claim that a variable price system would induce farmers to sign long term contracts, and agricultural social services would engage in long term (sustainable) behaviors. Similar to the introduction, this section needs to be carefully rewritten. Again, a professional editor is suggested.
Response: I have modified the error description in line 215 and checked for other careless errors in the text.
（4）Suggestion：The discussion section is poorly written, which is a shame because it seems like there are some good recommendations. The authors claim that a variable price system would induce farmers to sign long term contracts, and agricultural social services would engage in long term (sustainable) behaviors. Similar to the introduction, this section needs to be carefully rewritten. Again, a professional editor is suggested.
Response: I have revised the discussion section and invited professional editors to polish the English writing of this article.
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions, best wishes!
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is focused on an original issue and it represent a step in the scientific knowledge on the theme of relationship between land price and ownership, contract, and management rights. The Chinese case is particularly suitable since the usual separation among these rights. The methodology is correctly run and discussion of the findings is coherent with them.
However, I suggest publication after some revisions useful to improve quality and readability of the paper.
1. Objective of the paper needs to be more clearly highlighted in the "Introduction". I suggest to shift the sentence reported in lines 298-301 in the introduction as to improve clearness of the objective illustration.
2. Some tables or graphs should be introduced in the "Results" paragraph for better show results. Readability is hard in some sentences and presence of tables could facilitate (e.g., illustrating the different possible relationships and the consequent implications).
3. "Discussion" needs to be developed more in depth. Specifically, policy implications derived from results should be more highlighted (with reference to the Chinese rural lands). Furthermore, the author should better explain if (and how) these findings and the used approach might be replied in other realities.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable suggestions on my article. I have read them carefully and modified my paper accordingly. Now let me respond to them point by point.
（1）Suggestion：Objective of the paper needs to be more clearly highlighted in the "Introduction". I suggest to shift the sentence reported in lines 298-301 in the introduction as to improve clearness of the objective illustration.
Response: The sentence reported in lines 298-301 has been transferred to “1.3Main Aim and Principle Conclusions”.
（2）Suggestion：Some tables or graphs should be introduced in the "Results" paragraph for better show results. Readability is hard in some sentences and presence of tables could facilitate (e.g., illustrating the different possible relationships and the consequent implications).
Response: I have added two tables to the Results section to describe results of the fixed price system and the variable price system separately to improve the readability of the Results section.
（3）Suggestion："Discussion" needs to be developed more in depth. Specifically, policy implications derived from results should be more highlighted (with reference to the Chinese rural lands). Furthermore, the author should better explain if (and how) these findings and the used approach might be replied in other realities.
Response: I have added the Conclusions section, which introduced the recommendations of the study to promote the land transfer contract system, the recommendations for improving China's land policy system, and the reference significance for East Asian countries' land policies.
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions, best wishes!
Reviewer 3 Report
1.Line 21:The keywords sustainable utilization of farmland is exectly?why not market land?
2.Line 416:It is suggested that this chapter must be named better in Dicussion and Open Question After need to insert a Chapter n 5 as Conclusion.
3.This paper needs the conclusion of a chapter, in which the author must clarify the support that this research can provide to the major issue of land in agricultural sectors around the world in an updated way.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable suggestions on my article. I have read them carefully and modified my paper accordingly. Now let me respond to them point by point.
（1）Suggestion: adjust the keyword “sustainable utilization of farmland” to the first place.
Response: The keyword “sustainable utilization of farmland” has been adjusted to the first place.
（2）Suggestion：Whether the farmland mean market land?
Response: The research object of this paper is agricultural land, not market land. Now China would practice a land system in which ownership rights, contract rights, and management rights are separated, but didn’t legally indicate that the land can be traded. And there are strict restrictions on the use of agricultural land to guarantee the quality of cultivated land. Overall, The research object of this paper is agricultural land. If you think it market land is better, you can point it out in the reply and I will try to change it.
（3）Suggestion：It is suggested that this chapter must be named better in Dicussion and Open Question After need to insert a Chapter n 5 as Conclusion.
Response: In the template provided by the magazine, the fourth chapter has been clearly named Discussion, so the name of Chapter 4 has not been modified. But I have added the fifth chapter Conclusions according to your suggestion.
（4）Suggestion：The paper need a chapter of conclusion where the authors must clarify the support that this study could give at the big question of the land in agricultural sector around the world in a updating approach.
Response: This paper has added Chapter 5, Conclusions, to introduce the reference significance of the results of this paper to the land policy of East Asia and other agricultural countries.
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions, best wishes!
Reviewer 4 Report
In my opinion, this paper presents an interesting methodological study on the use of game theory to illustrate the possible mechanisms decision makers’ reactions when choosing an alternative version of a land trusteeship contract. The study is of a methodical nature and its main contribution is just an illustration of the problems discussed using the model described by specified formulas. In my opinion, however, this does not apply well to the broader context of "Sustainability". I understand that the Authors have adopted several fundamental assumptions, e.g. that "long-term behavior improve land quality" and "short-term behavior causes pollution" but in my opinion it should better justified. The theoretical considerations of the study should be better addressed in the context of "sustainability". The question is how the survey conducted in Shangshui County, Henan Province (mentioned authors in chapter 1.1) relates to the above mentioned considerations). Are the assumptions adopted in the theoretical model a direct consequence of the results of this survey? There is also no literature source indicated where the results of the survey (conducted in Shangshui County) are presented.
For a foreign reader, it would also be useful to better present the background of the considerations. Although references to other sources are given, but one could give a little more details about the importance of land trusteeship contracts in Chinese agriculture, describe in a few words the mechanism of the trusteeship, explain the concept and role of "agricultural social service providers" ect.
Other minor notes:
- I don't understand why in section 1.3 there is: "principale conclusions" - it should probably be at the end of the paper, isn't it ??
- in order to facilitate the understanding of the main problem, it may be worth presenting key elements of the characteristics of "short" and "long" contracts (and "fixed-price system" and "variable-price system") in a table
- there are many scenarios in the description of the model - it can also be presented briefly in a table for easier comparison.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable suggestions on my article. I have read them carefully and modified my paper accordingly. Now let me respond to them point by point.
（1）Suggestion：I understand that the Authors have adopted several fundamental assumptions, e.g. that "long-term behavior improve land quality" and "short-term behavior causes pollution" but in my opinion it should better justified. The theoretical considerations of the study should be better addressed in the context of "sustainability". The question is how the survey conducted in Shangshui County, Henan Province (mentioned authors in chapter 1.1) relates to the above mentioned considerations). Are the assumptions adopted in the theoretical model a direct consequence of the results of this survey? There is also no literature source indicated where the results of the survey (conducted in Shangshui County) are presented.
Response: I have revised the 2.1Game model Description and Assumptions section, which explained the theoretical basis of the research hypothesis, the source of the literature, and the relationship with the Shangshui County survey.
（2）Suggestion：For a foreign reader, it would also be useful to better present the background of the considerations. Although references to other sources are given, but one could give a little more details about the importance of land trusteeship contracts in Chinese agriculture, describe in a few words the mechanism of the trusteeship, explain the concept and role of "agricultural social service providers" ect.
Response: I have revised the 1.1Background, purpose and significance section, explained the importance of land custody contracts to Chinese agriculture, the current land custody mechanism, and the concept and role of agricultural socialization services.
（3）Suggestion：- I don't understand why in section 1.3 there is: "principale conclusions" - it should probably be at the end of the paper, isn't it ?? -
Response: The “Sustainability” magazine provides a paper template with the following requirements for the Introduction section:“It should define the purpose of the work and its significance. The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited. Please highlight controversial and diverging hypotheses when necessary. Finally, briefly mention the main aim of the work and highlight the principal conclusions.”
The main conclusion is placed in section 1.3, mainly due to the template requirements of the magazine. And if you think it should be changed, please point it out in the next reply, and I will change it.
（4）Suggestion：- in order to facilitate the understanding of the main problem, it may be worth presenting key elements of the characteristics of "short" and "long" contracts (and "fixed-price system" and "variable-price system") in a table. -
Response: I have included the corresponding tables in the 2.1Game model description and assumptions section, which explained the characteristics and key elements of long-term contracts, short-term contracts, fixed price systems, and floating price systems.
（5）Suggestion：- there are many scenarios in the description of the model - it can also be presented briefly in a table for easier comparison. -
Response: This paper deals with four game situations: T-L, T-S, 1-L, and 1-S. In this revision, the tree diagram method is used to describe the game relationship in Figure 1, and a brief text introduction is added at the top of the figure to facilitate the reader's comparison. Since both the tree diagram and the table are descriptions of the game situation, there is no further table added after the picture is modified, and I hope to get your understanding. If you think the form of the form is better, please let me know in the letter and I will continue to modify it.
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions, best wishes!
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for submitting a revised version of your manuscript "Research on the relationship between price mechanism and short-term behavior in Chinese Farmland Trusteeship". My main concern with the original draft was that the writing was not at a sufficient level to warrant publication. I suggested a major revision of all sections with an emphasis on clarity, and that this be done by a professional editor.
Unfortunately, your current draft still does not reach a level of clarity that I would consider sufficient. Again, there are numerous run on sentences and grammatical mistakes- still too numerous to mention. While I think your core idea is solid, it loses its value if the reader can not understand the writing. I would, again, strongly recommend you collaborate with a professional editor in order to bring your paper to a high enough level to warrant publication.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Many thanks about your advice about English editing.
I have submitted my manuscript to the MDPI English editing service based on your suggestion. And my manuscript is now revised by a professional editor. Some mistakes has been corrected.
Thank you again for your valuable suggestions.
Kind regards.
Pengfei Chen
September 30, 2019
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
This is the third review of the article "Research on the Relationship between Price Mechanism and Short-term Behavior in Chinese Farmland Trusteeships". The first review suggested major revisions, while the second review was a rejection. These decisions were based primarily on my assessment of the readability of the article to other researchers. Although I believed your idea may have merit, it was impossible to clearly understand the research topic, model, and conclusions due to the numerous grammatical problems.
While I appreciate the effort in getting the article professionally edited, I cannot say it reaches a level that I consider to be publishable. The following sentence, for example, is in the first paragraph and is incredibly long:
" For-profit entities such as agricultural machinery operators, families who farm on a large scale, and agricultural cooperatives who provide farmers working in cities in sowing, irrigation, fertilization, pesticide application,
harvesting, and other farmland-related services with tractors, drones, and other agricultural equipment are called agricultural social service providers, and the services they offer are called land trusteeship services."
This is a severe run on sentence which could be easily broken into multiple sentences to increase clarity. Next, I run into this sentence on line 45:
"Currently, however, there are such problems with land trusteeship, such as short-term contracts and short-term behaviors, causing adverse effects on the sustainable utilization of land."
This is not grammatically correct. It needs to be changed to something like "Problems with land trusteeship include short-term contracts and short-term behaviors, which may cause adverse effects on the sustainable utilization of the land".
In the same paragraph we have this sentence:
"Related studies and this survey conducted in Shangshui County, Henan Province, show that many farmers breached the long-term trusteeship contracts they had signed or directly signed oral and short-term trusteeship contracts [2], and some agricultural social service providers involved in agricultural production were not willing to make long-term investment in land and even adopted short-term behaviors such as flood irrigation and fertilizer and pesticide overuse [3], resulting in adverse effects on the sustainable utilization of land."
1) The first part, "related studies and this survey..." makes it unclear which study was conducted where, 2) this is a very long run on sentence.
At this point it was clear to me that the manuscript still does not meet my own standards for a scientific research article. Conveying complex topics and methods to general audiences requires an emphasis on clarity, otherwise it is difficult to gauge the adequacy of the research design. Thank you for putting in the effort to fix some numerous minor issues, but in my mind the major issues are still there, and the article is not publishable in its current format.
