Managing Strategic Interactions for a Circular Economy: An Evolutionary Game Analysis of a Dynamic Deposit-Refund System in Electric Vehicle Battery Recycling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please refer to the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English must be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are extremely grateful to the editors and reviewers for their careful examination and comments on our paper. We are very pleased to be able to revise and improve this paper. Guided by the review comments, we made careful revisions based on the issues that the reviewers focused on. To help better communicate the changes we made in the paper, we provide detailed responses (in red words) to each of the comments raised by the review team. In order to clearly display the revised content of this time, we have highlighted the revised parts in green in the newly uploaded manuscript. Please check.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed several structural and mathematical issues identified in the first round. The manuscript is generally improved in clarity, consistency, and model explanation. However, two of my core concerns remain only partially resolved: (1) the issue of data validity and reproducibility, and (2) the limited substantive contribution beyond existing studies. My detailed assessment follows.

1. Although the response letter claims the earlier “data sharing does not apply” checkbox was a submission error, the revised manuscript still ends with:

“Data sharing does not apply to this article.”

This contradicts the authors’ response and leaves the reproducibility concern unresolved.
Furthermore:

• • No dataset, SD model file, or code is provided.
  • All parameter values remain literature-derived or assumed.
  • The study does not use primary or industry-collected data.

It is recommended to provide the complete simulation dataset and Vensim model file as supplementary material, or clearly limit the paper’s empirical claims.

2. All parameter values stem from policy documents or previous research. The study does not incorporate:

• • Actual enterprise compliance records,
  • Real DRS implementation data,
  • Field-measured costs or revenues.

Thus, the model remains theoretical and lacks external validation. In this case, the manuscript must explicitly acknowledge this limitation and avoid overstating real-world applicability.

3. The dynamic DRS mechanism resembles structures already explored in:

• • Miao et al. 2023 (dynamic PV DRS),
  • Ji et al. 2019 (dynamic incentives for EV subsidies),
  • Li et al. 2020 and Wu et al. 2024 (dynamic adjustments under EPR).

The revised version still does not clearly articulate how its contribution differs. Please, add a paragraph or short subsection in the Literature Review and compare concretely with the closest models.

4. Simulation findings such as “higher deposit increases compliance” or “higher R₂ reduces compliance” merely restate model structure, instead of offering insight. Kindly, include deeper discussion on:

• • Parameter thresholds,
  • Policy feasibility constraints,
  • Trade-offs and practical implementation considerations.

5. Simulation figures (Figs. 4–12) have thin lines, small fonts, and overlapping labels.

6. Despite some corrections, several grammatical inconsistencies remain

7. Sections 5.3, 6.3, and 6.4 restate similar information. Condense and restructure.

8. Use consistent notation for D, d, D(x), αD throughout.

9. Abstract still too long and includes excessive technical detail.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

    We are extremely grateful to the editors and reviewers for their careful examination and comments on our paper. We are very pleased to be able to revise and improve this paper. Guided by the review comments, we made careful revisions based on the issues that the reviewers focused on. To help better communicate the changes we made in the paper, we provide detailed responses (in red words) to each of the comments raised by the review team. In order to clearly display the revised content of this time, we have highlighted the revised parts in green in the newly uploaded manuscript. Please check.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is very timely and addresses a very critical aspect in the implementation of electric vehicles, namely, the implementation of policies necessary to recycle batteries at the end of their functional life.  I have a few general comments and certain specific ones. The general comments are as follows:  (a) Throughout the text the word government or local government is used extensively. It is not clear what message you are tying to convey as to who is going to implementing the battery recycling policy.  I don't think this a local government issue but rather a national government one.  Please explain and change the wording in the manuscript accordingly.  (b) You use the term Responsible Enterprises throughout the text -  it appears that it is left up to such enterprises to be part of battery recycling implementation and the only motivation would be certain financial gain.   Is that a realistic scenario or highly utopian?  Please elaborate.  (b) Include a table of all the acronyms at the ends or the beginning of the document to facilitate a prospective reader.  Also, spell out the acronyms when they appears for the first time in the main body of the document.  Section 2: Subsection 2.3 - Explain in a sentence or two how traditional game theory is different from evolutionary game theory.  Subsection 2.4 - In a few sentences explain how you plan to integrate /employ evolutionary game theory with EPR and DRS. Section 3 - Subsection 3.1 - Figure 1 as presented is partially meaningless as it relates to the bottom part on DRS non implementation.  Please revise.  Subsection 3.2 - Line 259 sates: it is assumed that this deposit doesn't influence decision making.  This cannot be true. Most important how crucial is this assumption to your analysis?  Please explain. Subsection 3.3 - model Construction - this entire subsection can move to the end of the paper in an Appendix as it doesn't help the reader much and detracts from the results of the analysis that follow.   Section 4 .  Line 301 - What is ESS? Please explain.   Sections 4 and 5 -  Both contain extensive mathematical formulations that could be moved to an appendix as they detract the reader from the conclusions of the article that follow.  Section 5.3.1 - Date Source -  The values given are extremely low - for example base deposit of 20 yuan per kWh.  You don't need a mathematical analysis such as the one presented in this paper to conclude that such a figure is totally ineffective.  Please comment. Section 6.4 -  There is a true cost of battery recycling associate with recovery of critical components particularly for lithium batteries uses in current EVs vs lead in earlier models.  Based on my understanding of these costs elsewhere - not in China, the proposed or suggested deposit values necessary to attain true recycling are very low.  Please comment on that as the conclusions of the article could be irrelevant from a practical/real battery recycling program. Section 6.4  - Discussion - it would be useful to summarize all the conclusions in a tabular form to facilitate the reader's  appreciation of the numerical values of the various parameters in addition to the description in the text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

    We are extremely grateful to the editors and reviewers for their careful examination and comments on our paper. We are very pleased to be able to revise and improve this paper. Guided by the review comments, we made careful revisions based on the issues that the reviewers focused on. To help better communicate the changes we made in the paper, we provide detailed responses (in red words) to each of the comments raised by the review team. In order to clearly display the revised content of this time, we have highlighted the revised parts in green in the newly uploaded manuscript. Please check.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been substantially improved in response to the previous round of comments. Language, notation, and logical explanations are now clearer, and the earlier issues have been appropriately addressed. The paper is well structured and its conclusions are convincingly supported; I recommend acceptance, with only a final careful proofreading at the production stage.

Author Response

Comment 1: The manuscript has been substantially improved in response to the previous round of comments. Language, notation, and logical explanations are now clearer, and the earlier issues have been appropriately addressed. The paper is well structured and its conclusions are convincingly supported; I recommend acceptance, with only a final careful proofreading at the production stage.

Response : Dear reviewer, we thank you for your valuable comment. We are very pleased to hear that our manuscript has been greatly improved, and it is now clear and well-structured. We sincerely thank you for the time and constructive feedback you have spent throughout the review process. This undoubtedly enhances the quality of our paper. We note the your’s final recommendation for acceptance and the suggestion for careful proofreading at the production stage. We will gladly cooperate with the editorial office to complete this final step. Thank you again for your consideration.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors for their thoughtful revisions. I would like to gently note that Comment 1 may still need a bit more clarification. The revised manuscript still contains the sentence “Data sharing does not apply to this article,” which seems to conflict with the explanation provided in the response letter. In addition, no supplementary material (e.g., simulation dataset or Vensim model) has been included. To help avoid any possible misunderstanding for future readers, it may be helpful for the authors to either provide the relevant model files or, alternatively, clearly state that the study is based solely on theoretical simulation and that no empirical data are available. This small adjustment would fully resolve the reproducibility concern. Thank you again for the careful revisions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your efforts and valuable suggestions, which have greatly enhanced the quality of our paper. We have carefully dealt with all the questions you raised. Our point-by-point responses are detailed below. All the alterations in the revised original manuscript have been highlighted in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The added/modified text has improved the presentation significantly.  The only remaining concern is the utilization of consistent terminology regarding "local government" vs. "local governments" vs. "government" vs. "governments."  The terminology should be consistent throughout the text. otherwise it may confuse the reader.   Your article is based on the involvement of a local government as the key partner in the DRS implementation.  What is the extent of a local government in China?  Is it a city or a province or another entity?  It may be obvious to you, but not to somebody not living in China.     

Author Response

Comment : The added/modified text has improved the presentation significantly.  The only remaining concern is the utilization of consistent terminology regarding "local government" vs. "local governments" vs. "government" vs. "governments." The terminology should be consistent throughout the text. otherwise it may confuse the reader. Your article is based on the involvement of a local government as the key partner in the DRS implementation.  What is the extent of a local government in China? Is it a city or a province or another entity? It may be obvious to you, but not to somebody not living in China.  

Response : Thanks for your valuable comment. Based on your comments, we have standardized the terminology used in this article regarding local government. In the new version, it has been highlighted in red for indication. Furthermore, we have provided additional explanations regarding the scope of local governments mentioned in this article. Specifically as follows:

Based on the current situation of battery recycling in China, local government referred to in this article can represent a city, such as Shenzhen and Hefei, or a province, such as Shanghai.

Similarly, we have highlighted it in red for emphasis. 

Thank you again for your consideration.

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please refer to the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please find my specific comments in the Word document attached

The article is well written and well presented. It is very well referenced and the literature review is very thorough. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper studies a timely topic and presents an interesting idea by linking the deposit–refund system with enterprise behavior through a dynamic model. However, the study depends entirely on simulated data and assumed parameters. None of the results are based on real observations or validated data, and the authors also state that data sharing does not apply. Because of this, the findings cannot be verified or reproduced. The analysis therefore remains theoretical and does not provide reliable evidence to support the conclusions.

The model is mathematically sound however it offers limited new insight beyond existing studies, and the policy recommendations are very general. The authors are encouraged to collect real data, validate their model, and resubmit a more evidence-based version in the future.