The Impact Mechanism of Land Scale on Farmers’ Participation in New Agricultural Business Entities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript entitled “Analysis of the impact mechanism of land scale operation potential on farmers' participation in new agricultural business entities”, the authors explore the connection between farmers and new agricultural management entities using survey data from 10 provinces. It finds that land scale operation positively impacts farmers' cooperation with these entities. However, the relationship is inverted U-shaped, peaking at specific land sizes. Farmers' current income and future income expectations play mediating roles. The study suggests differentiated moderate scale operation and long-term cooperation to boost agricultural efficiency and economies of scale. The manuscript can be published on “Sustainability” after major revision. The authors should consider the following issues:

1. In the background of the study, the role of relevant policies in promoting the cooperation model of "farmers + new agricultural operators" is mentioned, but the specific content, implementation and impact of these policies on the study area are not elaborated. It is suggested to supplement the detailed interpretation of relevant policies, including policy objectives, implementation measures, and specific incentives or constraints for farmers and new agricultural operators.
2. The data sources section mentions the use of data from the China Rural Revitalization Survey, but does not elaborate on the specific criteria and process for sample selection. It is recommended to further elaborate on the basis of sample selection, including how to ensure the representativeness of the sample, whether factors such as different regions and different types of agriculture are taken into account, and whether the sample selection may lead to biases and limitations.
3. In the variable selection section, the definition of some variables is more general. For example, if the "willingness to manage the future of management" is simply described as a future land management plan, it is recommended to further refine the definition of this variable to clarify what exactly it entails and how it can be accurately measured through data.
4. The model construction part does not elaborate in detail on the basis, assumptions and parameter estimation methods of model selection. It is suggested to supplement the theoretical basis and applicability analysis of model selection, explain why the binary Logit model and the mediating effect model are selected, and how to deal with the potential collinearity and heteroskedasticity between variables in the process of model construction.
5. The manuscript points out that there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between land size and farmers' participation in new agricultural management entities, but the mechanism behind this relationship is not analyzed in depth. It is suggested to further explore the reasons for the changes in farmers' willingness to cooperate at different land scales.
6. In the mediating effect analysis, the mediating role of farmers' current income status and future income expectation is briefly mentioned, but there is no in-depth analysis of how these variables play a mediating role between land size and willingness to cooperate. It is suggested to further explore how income status and income expectation affect farmers' cost-benefit assessment, risk perception and expectation of future development of cooperation, and then affect their cooperation decision-making.
7. In the heterogeneity analysis, the land scale effect of different groups of farmers was analyzed, but the theoretical basis and assumptions of heterogeneity analysis were not elaborated in detail. It is suggested that relevant theoretical support should be supplemented to explain why there are differences in the relationship between land size and cooperation willingness among different groups of farmers, and the significance of these differences to the research conclusions and policy recommendations.
8. In the part of growth curve diagnosis, there is a lack of specific methods and evidences on how to determine the optimal development path under different land scales, and how to realize the dynamic transformation from self-development to cooperative development to transformation development. It is recommended to further improve the method of growth curve diagnosis, combined with actual cases or data, to explain in detail how to develop personalized and actionable development strategies for farmers based on land size and other factors.
9. The conclusion and policy recommendations section put forward some macro-level suggestions, but they need to be strengthened in terms of pertinence and operability. It is suggested that more specific and detailed policy suggestions should be put forward, such as specific subsidy policy adjustment plans, training and support measures for specific groups of farmers, etc.

Author Response

1.In the background of the study, the role of relevant policies in promoting the cooperation model of "farmers + new agricultural operators" is mentioned, but the specific content, implementation and impact of these policies on the study area are not elaborated. It is suggested to supplement the detailed interpretation of relevant policies, including policy objectives, implementation measures, and specific incentives or constraints for farmers and new agricultural operators.

Response: Thank you. In the first paragraph of the introduction, we have supplemented the discussion with specific policy contents, concrete measures, and particular incentives for the cooperation of farmers and new agricultural entities.

2.The data sources section mentions the use of data from the China Rural Revitalization Survey, but does not elaborate on the specific criteria and process for sample selection. It is recommended to further elaborate on the basis of sample selection, including how to ensure the representativeness of the sample, whether factors such as different regions and different types of agriculture are taken into account, and whether the sample selection may lead to biases and limitations.

Response: Thank you. Although our data is limited to 10 provinces due to dataset constraints, it covers Northeast, South China, North China, Central, and Western regions, where agricultural production types and geographical features exhibit distinct characteristics, thus still maintaining good representativeness. We have enhanced the description of data representativeness and discussed potential limitations in line 195-198.

3.In the variable selection section, the definition of some variables is more general. For example, if the "willingness to manage the future of management" is simply described as a future land management plan, it is recommended to further refine the definition of this variable to clarify what exactly it entails and how it can be accurately measured through data.

Response: Thank you. We have strengthened the explanation of the "future intention" variable in Table 1.

4.The model construction part does not elaborate in detail on the basis, assumptions and parameter estimation methods of model selection. It is suggested to supplement the theoretical basis and applicability analysis of model selection, explain why the binary Logit model and the mediating effect model are selected, and how to deal with the potential collinearity and heteroskedasticity between variables in the process of model construction.

Response: Thank you. We have added the reasons of choosing these models in line 223-225, line 232-239.

5.The manuscript points out that there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between land size and farmers' participation in new agricultural management entities, but the mechanism behind this relationship is not analyzed in depth. It is suggested to further explore the reasons for the changes in farmers' willingness to cooperate at different land scales.

Response: Thank you. In line 297-306, we have supplemented the discussion on the reasons for the inverted U-shaped relationship, drawing on relevant literature.

6.In the mediating effect analysis, the mediating role of farmers' current income status and future income expectation is briefly mentioned, but there is no in-depth analysis of how these variables play a mediating role between land size and willingness to cooperate. It is suggested to further explore how income status and income expectation affect farmers' cost-benefit assessment, risk perception and expectation of future development of cooperation, and then affect their cooperation decision-making.

Response: Thank you. We added the discussion of how income become a mediate variable in this topic and the reason of why we choosing the detailed variables in section 2.3.

7.In the heterogeneity analysis, the land scale effect of different groups of farmers was analyzed, but the theoretical basis and assumptions of heterogeneity analysis were not elaborated in detail. It is suggested that relevant theoretical support should be supplemented to explain why there are differences in the relationship between land size and cooperation willingness among different groups of farmers, and the significance of these differences to the research conclusions and policy recommendations.

Response: Thank you. We have added a dedicated "Theory and hypotheses" section in the manuscript, providing detailed theoretical discussions on variable mechanisms and formulating different hypotheses based on farmer heterogeneity.

8.In the part of growth curve diagnosis, there is a lack of specific methods and evidences on how to determine the optimal development path under different land scales, and how to realize the dynamic transformation from self-development to cooperative development to transformation development. It is recommended to further improve the method of growth curve diagnosis, combined with actual cases or data, to explain in detail how to develop personalized and actionable development strategies for farmers based on land size and other factors.

Response: Thank you. In order to improve the legibility of the curve, we have moved the original table 10 into the supplemental materials. In addition, the growth path and specific inflection point data of farmers in the growth curve are further discussed in detail.

9.The conclusion and policy recommendations section put forward some macro-level suggestions, but they need to be strengthened in terms of pertinence and operability. It is suggested that more specific and detailed policy suggestions should be put forward, such as specific subsidy policy adjustment plans, training and support measures for specific groups of farmers, etc.

Response: Thank you. In the "Policy Implications" section, we have expanded

the discussion with detailed policy adjustment recommendations tailored to different types of farmer groups.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The paper could benefit from a stronger theoretical foundation, particularly in integrating concepts from agricultural economics, rural sociology, or institutional theory. For example, explicitly linking land scale to transaction costs, risk management, or social capital dynamics would enhance theoretical rigor.
2. While the study acknowledges farmer heterogeneity (e.g., job title, green production levels), the analysis could be deepened by disaggregating results by region, crop type, or socioeconomic context. This would better reflect the diversity of China’s agricultural landscapes and improve the generalizability of findings.
3. The manuscript emphasizes economic aspects but underplays environmental and social sustainability. For instance, discussing how cooperative models affect resource use efficiency, carbon emissions, or rural livelihood resilience would strengthen the paper’s contribution to sustainable food systems.
4. Recommendations should be more context-specific. While the current suggestions are valid, incorporating examples of successful regional policies (e.g., subsidies, training programs) would enhance practical relevance.
5. Technical terms (e.g., “moderate scale operation”) should be consistently defined.

The inverted U-shaped relationship between land scale and cooperation probability could be visualized in a supplementary figure to aid interpretation.

6. Include recent studies on smallholder-cooperative dynamics in other regions (e.g., Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia) to contextualize findings within a global framework.
7. Clarify why income status mediates cooperation with family farms but income expectations matter for cooperatives/enterprises. Theoretical explanations (e.g., trust, contractual obligations) would strengthen this section.
8. While the instrumental variable approach is a good start, additional robustness checks (e.g., propensity score matching) could further validate causal relationships.
9. Acknowledge potential biases in self-reported survey data (e.g., recall errors) and suggest future research directions (e.g., longitudinal studies).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. Ensure consistency in key terms (e.g., "new agricultural business entities" vs. "new agricultural management entities").
2. Simplify overly complex sentences to enhance readability (e.g., avoid excessive passive voice and nominalization).
3. Use parallelism for lists (e.g., "improving resource utilization efficiency, enhancing market competitiveness, and strengthening risk resilience").
4. Address minor grammatical issues (e.g., subject-verb agreement, article usage).
5. Correct tense inconsistencies (e.g., mixing past and present tense in the Methodology section).
6. Standardize punctuation in references (e.g., commas vs. periods in author names)

Author Response

1.The paper could benefit from a stronger theoretical foundation, particularly in integrating concepts from agricultural economics, rural sociology, or institutional theory. For example, explicitly linking land scale to transaction costs, risk management, or social capital dynamics would enhance theoretical rigor.

Response: Thank you. We have added a dedicated "Theory and hypotheses" section, further elaborating on the logical connections between our variables and farmer-new agricultural entity cooperation.

2.While the study acknowledges farmer heterogeneity (e.g., job title, green production levels), the analysis could be deepened by disaggregating results by region, crop type, or socioeconomic context. This would better reflect the diversity of China’s agricultural landscapes and improve the generalizability of findings.

Response: Thank you. Due to the limited sample size, we subdivide farmers with different job titles, different sales channels, livelihood structure, green production levels. Moreover, we strengthened the theoretical explanation and mechanism discussion on the analysis of farmer heterogeneity in the part of theory and hypothesis.

3.The manuscript emphasizes economic aspects but underplays environmental and social sustainability. For instance, discussing how cooperative models affect resource use efficiency, carbon emissions, or rural livelihood resilience would strengthen the paper’s contribution to sustainable food systems.

Response: Thank you. We strengthen the relevant elaboration in the conclusion section.

4.Recommendations should be more context-specific. While the current suggestions are valid, incorporating examples of successful regional policies (e.g., subsidies, training programs) would enhance practical relevance.

Response: Thank you. In the policy implications section, we have included specific cases and relevant policy references that have been successful.

5.Technical terms (e.g., “moderate scale operation”) should be consistently defined.

Response: Thank you. The “moderate scale operation” is literal. The specific amount of moderate scale is discussed in the inversion U-shaped rule inflection point of the second conclusion of the abstract.

6.The inverted U-shaped relationship between land scale and cooperation probability could be visualized in a supplementary figure to aid interpretation.

Response: Thank you. The inverted U-shape rule is verified by introducing the square term of land size into the model. We did not draw a graph because the cooperation probability itself is a binary attribute and therefore cannot be presented in scatter form, but we strengthened the discussion of the finding in the text.

7.Include recent studies on smallholder-cooperative dynamics in other regions (e.g., Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia) to contextualize findings within a global framework.

Response: Thank you. In the introduction of line 116-120, we add relevant literature on the cooperation between farmers and new agricultural management entities in different countries to discuss.

8.Clarify why income status mediates cooperation with family farms but income expectations matter for cooperatives/enterprises. Theoretical explanations (e.g., trust, contractual obligations) would strengthen this section.

Response: Thank you. We include a section on theory and hypothesis, and discuss in detail why we should consider income as a mediating variable.

9.While the instrumental variable approach is a good start, additional robustness checks (e.g., propensity score matching) could further validate causal relationships.

Response: Thank you. We have further discussed the basis for variable selection in section 3.3.

10.Acknowledge potential biases in self-reported survey data (e.g., recall errors) and suggest future research directions (e.g., longitudinal studies).

Response: Thank you. We add a discussion of data limitations and future

prospects to the conclusion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1.Ensure consistency in key terms (e.g., "new agricultural business entities" vs. "new agricultural management entities").

Response: Thank you. We have unified the term in the whole text.

2.Simplify overly complex sentences to enhance readability (e.g., avoid excessive passive voice and nominalization).

Response: Thank you. We rechecked the whole text and avoided some long sentences and passive voice and noun expressions.

3.Use parallelism for lists (e.g., "improving resource utilization efficiency, enhancing market competitiveness, and strengthening risk resilience").

Response: Thank you. Done.

4.Address minor grammatical issues (e.g., subject-verb agreement, article usage).

Response: Thank you. We checked the subject-verb agreement, article usage.

5.Correct tense inconsistencies (e.g., mixing past and present tense in the Methodology section).

Response: Thank you. We checked tense inconsistencies.

Standardize punctuation in references (e.g., commas vs. periods in author names)

Response: Thank you. We checked the punctuation.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents interesting results. However, several remarks should be taken into consideration in order to improve the final quality of the manuscript:

- The current title is too long and can lead to confusion. It is recommended to reword it in a more concise, clear and focused way, while mentioning the region studied.

- The abstract is too detailed. It would be preferable to focus only on the essential results, expressing them clearly with figures.

- Keywords should be chosen with care. Please delete those that are not relevant to your study and put them in alphabetical order.

- It is suggested that you add your research hypotheses in the Introduction section, in order to better frame the objective of the study.

- Please indicate clearly the sampling method used, as well as the inclusion and exclusion criteria applied to the selection of informants.

- It would be useful to add a map (figure) locating the areas where the surveys were carried out.

- The authors should explain how they ensured that the sample size was representative of the region studied.

- It is recommended to add the questionnaire as an appendix or supplementary material.

- Please specify the exact start and end dates of the data collection (survey).

- The discussion lacks scientific depth. It is important to compare the results obtained with previous work available in the literature.

- The conclusion is too long. It would be preferable to focus on the key elements, the specific contribution of the study, and to briefly present research perspectives.

Best regards,

Author Response

1.The current title is too long and can lead to confusion. It is recommended to reword it in a more concise, clear and focused way, while mentioning the region studied.

Response: Thank you. We simplified the title.

2.The abstract is too detailed. It would be preferable to focus only on the essential results, expressing them clearly with figures.

Response: Thank you. We simplified the summary

3.Keywords should be chosen with care. Please delete those that are not relevant to your study and put them in alphabetical order.

Response: Thank you. Done.

4.It is suggested that you add your research hypotheses in the Introduction section, in order to better frame the objective of the study.

Response: Thank you. We added a separate section on "Theory and hypothesis".

5.Please indicate clearly the sampling method used, as well as the inclusion and exclusion criteria applied to the selection of informants. It would be useful to add a map (figure) locating the areas where the surveys were carried out. The authors should explain how they ensured that the sample size was representative of the region studied.

Response: Thank you. This article uses data from the 2020 China Rural Revitalization Survey conducted by Rural Development Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences(Project Number: GQDC2020017). In view of the distribution and representativeness of data, we have added specific explanations in line 187-189.

6.It is recommended to add the questionnaire as an appendix or supplementary material.

Response: Thank you. The questionnaire and other materials used in the data in this paper come from the 2020 China Rural Revitalization Survey conducted by Rural Development Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and we have added the official website of the data set in line 189 of the revised manuscript.

7.Please specify the exact start and end dates of the data collection (survey).

Response: Thank you. We specified this in the section data reources.

8.The discussion lacks scientific depth. It is important to compare the results obtained with previous work available in the literature.

Response: Thank you. In the discussion section, we have strengthened the parallel discussion between the development proposals at each stage of the curve and the relevant studies.

9.The conclusion is too long. It would be preferable to focus on the key elements, the specific contribution of the study, and to briefly present research perspectives.

Response: Thank you. We simplified the conclusion.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We read the article in detail. The authors explore the impact mechanism of land scale operation potential on farmers' participation in new agricultural business entities. The overall description is reasonable and interesting. In addition, we also made some comments:

Title

Regarding "land scale operation potential", this is an imprecise term and ambiguity.

 

Abstract

1.Line 10, organic connection?

2.Line 11, new agricultural management entities?

3.Line 10-14, the sentence is too long. The purpose of the proposal and the method are separately written.

4.Line 31-34, Line 35-39, the text is too long. Too many compound sentences, the suggestion is concise.

5. In the abstract, “family farms, cooperatives, and enterprises” continue to appear, resulting in lengthy sentences.

 

Introduction

1.Line 45, symbiotic development?

2.Line 45-46, new agricultural management entities? Definition of suggestion. In the first paragraph, "new agricultural management entities" seems to be an important term. When it is not definitively defined, the writing that follows is apparently unclear.

3.In the introduction, the text is too long and difficult to read. The advice is concise.

4. “new agricultural business entities” continue to appear, resulting in lengthy sentences. It is suggested 5. The introduction covers some references, however does not introduce the scientific problem. How will this study contribute beyond the current literature?

 

Data sources and methodology

1.Line 134, why did you choose these 10 provinces? Why did you choose these 300 villages?

2.Line 142, variables selection is clearly explained.

3.In Table 1, "Employment status" appears in the defined column and overlaps with "Employment status" in the third column. Is this redundant?

4.Line 172, sentence number error.

 

Analysis of results

1. There are a lot of sentences that are too long to read. It is advisable to simplify or rephrase these sentences.
2. “family farms, cooperatives, and agribusinesses” continue to appear, resulting in lengthy sentences.

7.The statistical analysis and results are very good.

 

Discussion

Lack of discussion sections. It is recommended to increase this chapter.

 

Conclusions and policy recommendations

Regarding the chapter on "Conclusions and policy recommendations", it is recommended that the proposal be written separately. Expect a clear conclusion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Writing in English suggests revisions.

Author Response

Title

Regarding "land scale operation potential", this is an imprecise term and ambiguity.

Response: Thank you. We simplified the title and avoided ambiguous nouns.

Abstract

1.Line 10, organic connection?

Response: Thank you. We rephrased ambiguous words.

2.Line 11, new agricultural management entities?

Response: Thank you. We added an explanation of this concept in the first paragraph of the introduction.

3．Line 10-14, the sentence is too long. The purpose of the proposal and the method are separately written.

Response: Thank you. We rewrote the sentence.

4.Line 31-34, Line 35-39, the text is too long. Too many compound sentences, the suggestion is concise.

Response: Thank you. We simplified the last few long sentences of the summary.

5.In the abstract, “family farms, cooperatives, and enterprises” continue to appear, resulting in lengthy sentences.

Response: Thank you. We have abbreviated the entire paragraph of the abstract.

Introduction

1.Line 45, symbiotic development?

Response: Thank you. We used clear language instead.

2.Line 45-46, new agricultural management entities? Definition of suggestion. In the first paragraph, "new agricultural management entities" seems to be an important term. When it is not definitively defined, the writing that follows is apparently unclear.

Response: Thank you. We added an explanation of this concept in the first paragraph of the introduction.

3.In the introduction, the text is too long and difficult to read. The advice is concise.

Response: Thank you. We have simplified the introduction.

4.“new agricultural business entities” continue to appear, resulting in lengthy sentences. It is suggested 5. The introduction covers some references, however does not introduce the scientific problem. How will this study contribute beyond the current literature?

Response: Thank you. In the last paragraph of the introduction, we strengthen the review of previous studies and the introduction of the originality of this paper.

Data sources and methodology

1.Line 134, why did you choose these 10 provinces? Why did you choose these 300 villages?

Response: Thank you. This article uses data from the 2020 China Rural Revitalization Survey conducted by Rural Development Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. In view of the distribution and representativeness of data, we have added specific explanations in line 195-198.

2.Line 142, variables selection is clearly explained.

Response: Thank you. We have strengthened the explanation of the basis for variable selection in section 3.3.

3.In Table 1, "Employment status" appears in the defined column and overlaps with "Employment status" in the third column. Is this redundant?

Response: Thank you. We removed the repetitive expressions.

4.Line 172, sentence number error.

Response: Thank you. We checked for errors.

Analysis of results

1.There are a lot of sentences that are too long to read. It is advisable to simplify or rephrase these sentences.

Response: Thank you. We abbreviated the long sentences in the results section.

2.“family farms, cooperatives, and agribusinesses” continue to appear, resulting in lengthy sentences.

Response: Thank you. We wrote a similar long sentence in short.

3.The statistical analysis and results are very good.

Response: Thank you.

Discussion

1.Lack of discussion sections. It is recommended to increase this chapter.

Response: Thank you. We strengthened the discussion section.

Conclusions and policy recommendations

Regarding the chapter on "Conclusions and policy recommendations", it is recommended that the proposal be written separately. Expect a clear conclusion.

Response: Thank you. We reorganized the text by separating the policy implications into a single section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments have been revised. I suggest that it be published on “sustainability”.

Author Response

Thanks!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Expand the theoretical discussion by integrating more economic and sociological theories related to land use, cooperation, and agricultural development. For example, transaction cost theory could be used to better explain the factors influencing farmers' decisions to cooperate with NABE. Provide more detailed theoretical justifications for each hypothesis, and show how they are related to the overall research question.
2. Conduct a more comprehensive review of the existing literature on the impact of land scale on farmers' cooperation with NABE. This could include studies from different countries and regions, as well as different disciplinary perspectives. Highlight the gaps in the existing literature more clearly and explain how this study fills those gaps.
3. Consider using more sophisticated statistical methods to analyze the heterogeneity, such as interaction terms in the regression models, to better capture the complex relationships between variables.
4. Develop more specific and actionable policy recommendations. For example, if encouraging small farmers to join higher - level agricultural organizations, suggest practical measures such as providing training programs, financial incentives, or legal support.
5. Acknowledge the limitations of the study's generalizability more explicitly in the discussion and conclusion sections. Propose a research agenda for future studies to address the generalizability issue, such as conducting multi - region surveys or meta - analyses.

Author Response

1.Expand the theoretical discussion by integrating more economic and sociological theories related to land use, cooperation, and agricultural development. For example, transaction cost theory could be used to better explain the factors influencing farmers' decisions to cooperate with NABE. Provide more detailed theoretical justifications for each hypothesis, and show how they are related to the overall research question.

Response: Thank you. We expand the relevant theoretical discussion in the theory and hypothesis section in line 150-154, line 182-186 and line 202-217.

2.Conduct a more comprehensive review of the existing literature on the impact of land scale on farmers' cooperation with NABE. This could include studies from different countries and regions, as well as different disciplinary perspectives. Highlight the gaps in the existing literature more clearly and explain how this study fills those gaps.

Response: Thank you. In line 111-125, we explain research from different countries and regions and from different disciplinary perspectives, in line 126-135, we point out gaps in the existing literature, and explain how this study fills these gaps.

3.Consider using more sophisticated statistical methods to analyze the heterogeneity, such as interaction terms in the regression models, to better capture the complex relationships between variables.

Response: Thank you. We have provided relevant explanations in the supplementary materials and specified them in line 450-453 of the original text.

4.Develop more specific and actionable policy recommendations. For example, if encouraging small farmers to join higher - level agricultural organizations, suggest practical measures such as providing training programs, financial incentives, or legal support.

Response: Thank you. We put forward more specific and actionable policy recommendations in line 604-608.

5.Acknowledge the limitations of the study's generalizability more explicitly in the discussion and conclusion sections. Propose a research agenda for future studies to address the generalizability issue, such as conducting multi - region surveys or meta - analyses.

Response: Thank you. We more explicitly acknowledge the generalizations and limitations of the research in line 702-708 and propose a research agenda for future research to address generalizations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

None

Author Response

Thanks!

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We have read the entire article in detail and with care. In the revised version, we see the authors' efforts to explain and respond to the reviewers' comments and to make meaningful corrections. We are satisfied that the revised results reached an appropriate academic level. In conclusion, we hope that this article will be approved and accepted for publication. 

Author Response

Thanks!