User Privacy Awareness, Incentive and Data Supply Chain Pricing Strategy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The conclusions punctuation need addressing e.g : For SDP etc. should be : for xxxxx
There needs to be a sentence in the abstract and conclusion that "this study does not evaluate where these pricing mechanisms fall within the national and regional data protection and privacy laws. Further research is needed to reconcile this economic development with the law. This is because there is likely to be cross border data issues related to data within supply chains".
Author Response
Please see the attachment, thank you so much!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper has some problems, as follows：
1. The description about centralized and decentralized pricing model are too simple. It is necessary to show the differences between these two strategies.
2. What are the differences between the centralized pricing strategy and the buyback contract in the supply chain?
3. There will be more than one EU in many cases. It will be much persuasive if there are several different EUs in your discussion.
4. Is it possible to add the curve of the total supply chain profit in figure 5.1?
5. It said “For DP, it is more advantageous to adopt decentralized pricing mode, while for SP, revenue sharing model is a better choice…” in your Conclusion. But it said “SP's revenue under the decentralized pricing model is higher than the revenue sharing pricing.” in 5.5. These two places are quite opposite.
Author Response
Please see the attachment, thank you very much!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors propose a pricing strategy of data products considering data incentive and data protection levels. They present three pricing models, namely centralized, decentralized, and revenue sharing.
The paper is quite clear for the most part. However, there is space for improvement, especially with regards to ease the reading.
My comments are in the following:
1. Introduction: add clear and highlighted paragraphs or subsections about the following aspects of the paper: i) motivation, ii) objectives, iii) gaps and limitations in the literature, iv) gaps filled, limitations overcome with your proposal, v) major contributions to the literature and novelties. Furthermore, add a paragraph about the sectioning of the paper.
2. Introduction or Section 2.2: Authors are strongly recommended to engage with very recent literature about privacy awareness and awareness on the Internet against different kinds of threats (see, in particular, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2021.108614 and https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06343-6)
3. Section 2.3: Please, add a table summarizing main aspects of related works and highlighting similarities and differences with yours.
4. A visual abstract of the proposal, in the introduction, is strongly recommended. Such a figure should show what happens before and after your proposal takes action, like in a comic strip or something similar.
5. A visual example of what happens in the three pricing models is welcome.
6. How the numerical simulation has been run? Which software has been used? How? Please, add details about it.
7. I suggest authors to share the code used for running the simulation for reproducibility for other researchers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment, thank you so much!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have replied to all my comments. I appreciate their effort in revising the paper.
I apologize about one comment I made that probably was not clear: "Comment 1, iii)" gaps and limitations in the introduction must be referred to the existing literature not your paper. I suppose I wrote it in a not comprehensible way. It's clear that a paragraph about limitations of your work should be in the last part of the paper after discussing the own proposal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment, thank you very much!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
