Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study is quite interesting and the outcome of it will be a significant contribution to the body of knowledge after few changes. Below are some comments to address.

Overall, the paper is written well, only few changes are needed.

In abstract, line no. 12, please use more kind words instead of "There is no research on the influence mechanism of network externalities on green manufacturing......"

The Introduction needs to be started from a broader context/area then relate it with your your context/area of research. Highlight problems/issues/gaps in your research area/context, raise questions and your proposed solution to address these issues. Also highlight your contributions in the introduction section and provide paper structure. 

I suggest to link your study with SDGs/sustainability to show the relevancy of your work with the journal scope and enhance its readability - link how your study contributes to SDGs or addresses sustainability issues. Authors should consult:  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-022-24842-4 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504509.2022.2134230 

Please provide complete details (missing information such as year/date/time) in references, e.g., Xu et al. line no.86; Yi et al. line no. 88; Li et al. line no. 94, etc. 

I think the sub-section 2.3 is the review of past literature, please revise the heading.

Please support your arguments and discussion with latest references throughout.

Cite few more latest articles to enhance the readability of the study.

I hope the comments and papers will help in this regard. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

This paper focuses on the impact of externalities on the green strategies of various stakeholders in the supply chain. Unfortunately, this paper lacks clarity in problem definition and theoretical contribution, which are crucial aspects. For instance, the Introduction section contains excessive background information but lacks emphasis on the research and practical issues, proposed solutions, key findings, and the marginal contribution of this paper. It does not fully adhere to academic writing standards.

Specifically, (1) in the second paragraph of the Introduction, several issues can be identified. Firstly, it is important to clarify the logical relationship between the second sentence and the subsequent text. Secondly, the main idea of this paragraph should be clearly stated. The author introduces various concepts such as green supply chain management, green manufacturing, and green marketing, using new energy vehicles as an example to explain the increasing preference for green ecological products in the capital market. However, the paragraph appears disorganized and lacks internal coherence, which hampers the reader's comprehension. Thirdly, the example provided may not be entirely appropriate and fails to align well with the main idea. Additionally, several concluding statements in this paragraph lack citations, undermining the support for the mentioned conclusions. Finally, it is not clear why a low market share would result in a weak network externality effect. Further explanation is needed in this regard.

(2) In the third paragraph of the Introduction, two issues can be identified. Firstly, it is unclear why providing advice on the development of the new energy vehicle market is significant and how it directly relates to the theme. Secondly, the two examples mentioned fail to illustrate the benefits of green strategies or demonstrate how "manufacturers' green manufacturing and retailers' green marketing are important means for enterprises in the chain to make green decisions."

(3) In the final paragraph of the Introduction, you have presented your research question. However, it appears that the content in this section is insufficient to provide strong support for your research question.

(4) To strengthen your research, I recommend establishing a connection between sections 2.1 and 2.2 with your own study. This will help create a more coherent and integrated framework for your research.

(5) In the concluding part of section 2.1, it is important to clarify the nature of the relationship discussed and how "the role" operates. This portion of the literature review is relevant to your topic and can be further expanded as needed.

(6) In section 3, there are layout issues that need to be addressed and adjusted for better readability and organization.

Given the substantial issues present in the paper, I have to recommend rejecting the submission. However, I encourage the author to make substantial revisions and consider resubmitting the paper.

 

Moderate editing of English language is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

See the attached, please

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

need extensive editing

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

See the attached, please.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf