Research on Construction Waste Recycling Subsidy Model Considering Contractor’s Environmental Awareness
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Unfortunately, I cannot support the publication of the manuscript in its current form. After serious revision, I propose to resubmit the work. My general comments on the work:
The manuscript is very difficult to follow because of the many equations between the texts.
The aim and novelty content of the work (Abstract, Introduction, Conclusion) should be much better highlighted.
It is not clear how the models are validated.
The tools used should be much better substantiated.
The results presented are difficult to interpret and poorly described.
If the above is clarified, it could make a very interesting and good manuscript.
Best regards
Author Response
1.“ Please check that all references are relevant to the contents of the manuscript.”
My main revision to this is rewriting the Introduction section and make clear the Literature Review section.
2.“ If one of the referees has suggested that your manuscript should undergo extensive English revisions, please address this issue during revision.”
I didn’t use the suggested editing services for the reason that I may receive revision from you again and I would like to have the editing services when my paper have the chance to be accepted.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Please see the attached file for my review of your manuscript.
Please notes all comments are of qualitative nature.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
1.“ Please check that all references are relevant to the contents of the manuscript.”
My main revision to this is rewriting the Introduction section and make clear the Literature Review section.
2.“ If one of the referees has suggested that your manuscript should undergo extensive English revisions, please address this issue during revision.”
I didn’t use the suggested editing services for the reason that I may receive revision from you again and I would like to have the editing services when my paper have the chance to be accepted.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is more like a technique report or a hand-written manuscript rather than a formal paper. It must be entirely rewritten by the one of these authors who has the experience of publishing a scientific paper in a journal, so that it can compliance with the basic academic paper writing standards.
Author Response
1.“ Please check that all references are relevant to the contents of the manuscript.”
My main revision to this is rewriting the Introduction section and make clear the Literature Review section.2.“
If one of the referees has suggested that your manuscript should undergo extensive English revisions, please address this issue during revision.”
I didn’t use the suggested editing services for the reason that I may receive revision from you again and I would like to have the editing services when my paper have the chance to be accepted.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your resubmission. Congratulations, much improved the manuscript. But because of the severity of my comments, I recommend a major revision of the manuscript.
Comments:
1. I still see no evidence to validate the model. Please clarify.
2. Figures 8. and 9. seem the same.
3. Please expand the description and explanation of figures 3-9.
Best regards,
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for your valuable time and helpful suggestions on my article.And I am sorry about the last revisions reply because I made a mistake about the reply system. The following is my reply:
- I still see no evidence to validate the model. Please clarify.
A: I have rewritten the numerical analysis section to show how I validated the model, please refer to Section 6 of the attached article.
- Figures 8. and 9. seem the same.
A: I have replaced Figure 9 with the correct content this time.
- Please expand the description and explanation of figures 3-9.
A:Please check the analysis of Figure 3- Figure 9 in the numerical analysis section of the article I resubmitted.
Thank you again for your suggestions. I have learned a lot from your suggestions. I look forward to your valuable reply.
Best wishes
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see the attached file for my review, Round 2.
I didn't consider that all issues were resolved and no point-to-point answers were provided. Note that I considered rejection at this stage but I consider that the manuscript contains good quality data.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for your valuable time and helpful suggestions on my article. And I am sorry about the last revisions reply because I made a mistake about the reply system. Here are my unrevised and confused points and rewritten responses to the comments you mentioned.
- “be described in more details including the utilized software and the meaning of the basic parameters a, b and c (despite relevant works being cited).”
A: The meanings of parameters a, b and c have been explained in the symbolic Problem Description in Section 3. They are generally defined parameters of linear inverse demand functions. I would like to know what interpretation you would like to know about these three parameters.
- “In terms of research design and value comparative data with other solutions found in the literature needs to be added and the reference list extended accordingly”
A: I did not consider the analysis of the no model versus the other two models. The reason is that this paper is different from the previous subsidy models in considering the subsidy for the contractor, so I focus on the comparative analysis of the subsidy model for contractors and manufacturers.
- Other suggestions
A：I have made the maximum modification according to your suggestion, please check in the attachment.
Finally, I would like to express my deepest thanks to you once again. Your reply is very detailed, which is a good learning opportunity for me. I really appreciate your reply and your earnestness. Please be sure to point out if there is anything I didn’t understand about your suggestions in my revision and reply letter. I will look forward to and cherish your reply.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
None
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for your valuable time and suggestions on my article.And I am sorry about the last revisions reply because I made a mistake about the reply system.
I have modified my article according to the opinions of you and other reviewers, please check in the attachment.I am looking forward to your valuable comments and reply.
Best wishes.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors!
Congratulations. The manuscript has improved a lot and I recommend its acceptance in its present form. I would like to comment that Table 1 (page 5) still contains non-Latin letters. I suggest that this should be checked.
Yours sincerely,
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Your revisions now greatly improved the quality of the manuscript and publishing can be recommended. However, one suggestion for improvement is that the Section structuring is a bit complicated with 8 section. Maybe you can reduce the number of the section if you consider it before publishing.
