Research on Contract Coordination Mechanism of Contract Farming Considering the Green Innovation Level
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
After the corrections made the paper can be accepted
Author Response
We really appreciate this comment. Thanks.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
The requested changes have been almost made. The exposition of the text has been expanded with some useful considerations both in the presentation of the case study and in the results and conclusions, but not in the literature review.
In this regard, given the relevance of the theme linked to the choices of farmers and economic operators with respect to environmental critical issues and more generally to the sustainability of economic activities, further considerations can be drawn by also taking into consideration the Mediterranean context which appears particularly critical with reference to these aspects. In this regard, some reflections can be drawn from the following papers:
- Farmers' preferences for enhancing sustainability in arable lands: Evidence from a choice experiment in Sicily (Italy), De Salvo, M., Cucuzza, G., Cosentino, S.L., Nicita, L., Signorello, G., New Medit, 2018, 17(4), pp. 57–70
- Estimating preferences for controlling beach erosion in Sicily, De Salvo, M., Signorello, G., Cucuzza, G., Begalli, D., Agnoli, L., Aestimum, 2018, 72, pp. 27–38.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestion. We have found that the paper you recommend is very inspiring for our work, and we have cited it. Thanks.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The authors brought some additional information, but insufficient to improve the quality of the work, the recommendations being treated superficially. Consequently, I consider that the article cannot be published in this form.
Author Response
Thank you for the comments. According to your opinion, we added the conclusion and discussion part, and explained the theoretical and practical value of this study. On the whole, our research has expanded the research on relevant aspects of green innovation level. In addition, our research results can not only promote the green innovation level of agricultural products, but also provide a stable cooperation mechanism for the farming cooperative and the agricultural enterprise, which is conducive to the sustainable development of agriculture. We have added content in the discussion and discussion part to further emphasize research contributions (Page 11). We do hope that the modification can meet your satisfaction. Thanks.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Article is discussing very interesting and relevant issue. However, I believe that phenomena is more complex and cannot be reduced only to the reasons highlighted by authors of the research. I understand that aspect discussed in the article is relevant, but is only one of the aspects surrounding this problem. Numerical analysis, presented in the paper is ok, but is a oversimplification of something more complex. Public policies, social mobilization, consumer behaviour, competition for marketshare, among others, are aspects not reflected in the research.
Author Response
Thank you for your recommendation. This paper studies the agricultural cooperation mechanism considering the green innovation level, and takes into account factors such as the random yield of agricultural products and consumer preference. The results of this paper have a certain reference value for the green development of agriculture. If public policy, social mobilization, and other factors continue to be taken into account, the calculation of the model will be very complex and trivial, and it will be difficult to derive closed-form optimal solutions. However, your suggestion is very interesting and challenging. We do appreciate it. Therefore, the agricultural cooperation mechanism that takes into account factors such as public policy and social mobilization can be further explored in the future. We have added this point as one of the further research directions in the revision (Page 11). Thanks.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
I keep my opinion. The authors brought some additional information, but insufficient to improve the quality of the paper, the recommendations being treated superficially. Consequently, I consider that the article cannot be published in this form.
Author Response
Thank you for the comments. We have made a careful examination of the grammar, format and other aspects of the paper and made corresponding modifications. We do hope that the modification can meet your satisfaction. Thanks.
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Thanks for considering my suggestions. I think that comments made in article are appropriate. Perhaps writing more about limitations of the study would be interessant.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the comment. We have made a careful examination of the grammar, format and other aspects of the paper and made corresponding modifications. Thank you.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, the paper tries to explore a theoretical model for the supply chain system of Chinese agriculture considering the green innovation level and presents results based on a numerical application from available data.
However, the paper fails to clearly present the objectives and state the results of such an effort.
The basic weakness of the presented study can be summarized in the following:
- The title of the paper as well as the introduction and the abstract is referring to the term “green ecology”. This term is presented without further explanations and justifications.
- The term “green ecology” cannot be traced down to the relevant literature.
- The scope of the paper as well as the objectives are not clearly stated. No clear picture is given in section 1 of the paper concerning the actual objectives and the subsequent application of the proposed methodology.
- The literature review is lacking focus and relevance. It seems too general and extensive.
- The application of the proposed theoretical model is conducted without proper justification and description of the utilized data. No details are given for each utilized variable and how this application is connected with the scope of the study.
- The presented results can be characterized as brief and partial.
- The final conclusions are too general and lack specific reference to the objective of the study.
Therefore, it is advised to restructure and rebuilt to a great degree the presented study with more emphasis on the clarity and relevance of the selected methodology, numerical application, and objectives.
Reviewer 2 Report
The work is interesting and original; I point out only some small typos in the text to check, please:
line 201: "in which ?" c probably must be more near to "which";
line 202: "...' s" and "... c" same problem with s and c;
line 206: "... and" same problem;
line 210: "purchase" same problem;
line 212: "means", same problem;
line 224: "q and", same problem; also Ï´ must be in italics?
line 327: "shary+", to be separeted?
line 346: lemma must be moved on the left?
line 379: "6.Numerical ...", must be separated?
line 388: "coefficientK.." and "=1consumer" must be separated?
line 389: "t = 3 ," , probably must be more near to "3";
line 404: U has to be removed?
line 434: " Cost ... expense " Cost and expense are quite distance to "
Reviewer 3 Report
The abstract must be completed with information related to the research methodology used by the authors.
The information contained in the introduction succeeds in familiarizing the reader with the conceptual framework of the work, and the specialized literature review brings up-to-date research to the fore. However, there is a lack of information regarding the elements of originality or novelty of the research, the need to carry out such research, possibly the gaps discovered in previous research in which this topic was addressed - I recommend the introduction of this information.
The article lacks a genuine analysis/discussion section where the results are contrasted with previous literature in a more specific way - I recommend introducing this section.
The theoretical, practical, managerial, social, etc. implications are not presented of the study, contributions to research development, etc.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
The topic of green farming is relevant and updated. However, it is important to clarify the paper regarding its focus and main contribution. The paper refers at least three topics: i) green farming; ii) cooperative production; iii) Pareto optimal results. The paper consists mainly in a mathematical model without a clear relation with the territory and the greening of farming.
