Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript demonstrates data volume and technical execution but suffers from theoretical inflation, weak hypothesis logic, and post hoc justification. Substantial restructuring of theory integration, hypothesis logic, and methodological coherence is required

1. p.1, 16–19: The integration of four theories is asserted but not analytically justified. The manuscript stacks industrial cluster, symbiosis, TBL, and contingency theories without formally specifying causal hierarchy or boundary conditions. This risks theoretical overloading rather than genuine integration.
2. p.2, 53–56: The problem statement overstates novelty. Claims that logistics park–dominated CASCs are “rarely studied” are inaccurate; related work in platform governance and agri-logistics is cited but not critically differentiated. The research gap is descriptive, not analytical.
3. p.3, 101–110: The transition from literature gaps to theory selection is weak. The manuscript does not explain why these four theories are necessary together to answer the research questions, creating a post hoc theoretical justification.
4. p.5, 170–181 & Fig.1: Conceptual definition is verbose and overlaps with later hypotheses. Figure 1 is conceptually redundant and does not add explanatory clarity beyond text. Conceptual compression is required.
5. p.7, 248–259: Industrial cluster theory is treated as a background condition, yet later modeled implicitly as a causal driver. This creates construct model misalignment between theory and SEM specification.
6. p.9, 360–376: Hypotheses H1–H4 are directionally obvious and lack falsifiability. No competing hypotheses or counter-theoretical expectations are discussed, which weakens theory-testing rigor expected in SSCI journals.
7. p.11, 445–455 & Fig.2: The SEM model is overly complex relative to theoretical clarity. Moderating effects are introduced without prior theoretical interaction logic. Model appears data-driven rather than theory-driven.
8. p.14, 484–495: Sample justification relies on G*Power ANOVA logic, yet SEM and fsQCA are the primary methods. This is a methodological inconsistency that undermines statistical justification.
9. p.15, 506–514: Confirmatory Tetrad Analysis (CTA) is mentioned but not reported transparently (no tetrad statistics shown). This gives the impression of methodological name-dropping rather than rigorous application.
10. p.18, 592–603: Only H7 is supported among moderating hypotheses, yet H5, H6, and H8 are theoretically defended post hoc. This ex post rationalization weakens causal credibility.
11. p.19, 636–653 & Fig.3: SEM model is repeated as “Figure 3” in fsQCA section, creating confusion. Figures are poorly differentiated.
12. p.21, 682–714: fsQCA results largely restate SEM findings rather than offering genuinely alternative causal logic. The added value of fsQCA is incremental, not transformative, calling into question the necessity of a dual-method design.

13. (Tables 3–5): Tables report reliability/validity statistics but lack clear linkage to corresponding constructs and hypotheses
14. (Table 7): fsQCA configuration table omits frequency and consistency cut-off justification in the table itself; key thresholds are only described in text, reducing transparency and replicability

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses the sustainability of cross-border agricultural supply chains by focusing on logistics parks and proposes a hybrid SEM–fsQCA approach. The topic is relevant; however, the manuscript is currently difficult to follow due to excessive conceptualization and several methodological and presentation issues. I recommend major revision.

Major comments

1. Sample composition requires stronger justification. The survey includes not only supply chain practitioners and researchers but also consumer groups (15.28%). Consumers may not have the expertise to evaluate constructs such as park governance, interface efficiency/security, or supply chain collaboration. Please justify their inclusion and/or provide robustness checks by respondent type.

2. The moderator “park dominant type” is conceptually unclear. The manuscript discusses dominant park types as categorical (government-led, enterprise-led, cooperative) but then measures “Park Dominant Type” using perception-based items (DT1–DT3). Please clarify whether the moderator is a categorical grouping variable or a latent construct and align the analysis accordingly.

3. Theoretical integration is heavy and partly repetitive. Four theories are presented (cluster, symbiosis, triple bottom line, contingency), but the links to the operational constructs and questionnaire items are not always clear. Please streamline the theoretical discussion and explicitly show how each theory informed the model and measures.

4. Statistical reporting and interpretation need correction. Some descriptions of fit indices are inaccurate (e.g., SRMR interpretation). Please revise the language and ensure correct statistical interpretation.

Minor comments

• Table formatting should be improved. Table 1 appears duplicated and contains encoding/typographical issues (broken words with special characters).

• The manuscript uses “Chapter 2/Chapter 3” wording, which is more suitable for a thesis than a journal article. Please revise section transitions accordingly.

• English language should be revised for conciseness (many overly long sentences and repetitive statements).

Overall, the study has potential, but substantial revisions are required to clarify the conceptual model, improve methodological rigor, and enhance readability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While this manuscript may merit further consideration after substantial revision, it cannot be accepted in its current form.

The introduction is overly lengthy and reads as tedious primarily because it relies on extended background exposition, dense theoretical enumeration, and repetitive signposting before clearly articulating the manuscript’s core contribution. Broad contextual discussions of global sustainability and agricultural transformation employ familiar formulations and delay engagement with the study’s central problem and analytical framework. The sequential listing of theories and prior studies resembles a comprehensive literature inventory rather than a focused motivation, increasing cognitive load and weakening narrative coherence.

Furthermore, I suspect that the following rationales are not adequately addressed:

How do symbiotic unit compatibility, symbiotic mode operation, symbiotic interface efficiency and safety, and symbiotic environment cultivation jointly influence the sustainability of cross-border agricultural supply chains?

 Which of the four symbiotic dimensions plays the most critical role in enhancing CASC sustainability under global agricultural green transformation and trade restructuring?

How do different dominant logistics park types moderate the relationships between symbiotic mechanisms and CASC sustainability outcomes?

What distinct configuration pathways lead to high sustainability of cross-border agricultural supply chains according to fsQCA analysis?

How can logistics parks leverage these configuration pathways to simultaneously achieve economic, ecological, and social value in cross-border agricultural supply chains?

I still believe that the conclusions repeat theoretical frameworks, methods, and case descriptions rather than foregrounding core insights. The results are presented procedurally instead of being distilled into clear takeaways and implications. Excessive emphasis on robustness and generalizability weakens the closing impact of the work. The future research section is overly detailed, resembling a research proposal rather than directional guidance. Instead, the conclusion should prioritize concise synthesis of key findings, theoretical contributions, policy implications, and a focused outlook on research extensions. I suggest potential condensation of these sections on pages 24-25.

Finally, while I am unable to independently verify the data reported in the tables, I encourage the authors to carefully cross-check all reported results for consistency and accuracy.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

--

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text under review considers the importance of logistics parks and their connection to cross-border agricultural supply chains.

Given the current potential for supply shortages, a study on this topic is crucial to prevent supply disruptions.

The text presents a very sound statistical analysis based on industrial cluster theory, symbiotic systems, the triple bottom line, and contingency theory, all supported by a robust literature review.

The existence of existing parks, concentrated in Henan province, influences their future sustainability, which must be improved by studying the compatibility of qualitative parameters and their integration with pre-existing facilities.

For a more thorough evaluation of the text, the following questions are addressed:

What is the main question addressed by the research? Considering the importance of logistics parks and their connection to cross-border agricultural supply chains.

Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? It is an original topic and offers valuable theoretical insights.

However, it lacks practical application. Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/is not the case. The topic is not developed in the field of agricultural parks, perhaps due to a lack of political interest in the subject, as the authors mention.

What does it contribute to the subject area compared to other published literature? The work's contribution is theoretical; practical application is lacking.

What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? The methodology is simple and does not require much explanation. They are statistical/mathematical studies.

Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? And do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this is/is not the case. The conclusions follow the hypotheses described above and are consistent.

Are the references appropriate? They are appropriate and adequate in terms of the literature review.

Any additional comments on the tables and figures?

Line 71. Include a map of China showing the location of Henan and its surroundings. Figure 2 is not referenced in the text.

Table footnote 2: indicate that they are CR, AVE, VIF

Figure 3 is not mentioned in the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been improved. I hope the authors can check the grammarical erorrs again.

Author Response

Comments 1: The paper has been improved. I hope the authors can check the grammarical erorrs again.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Adhering to high-quality standards and rigorous academic norms, we have prioritized a comprehensive linguistic overhaul of the manuscript to ensure professional clarity . Therefore, we have implemented a multi-stage proofreading and correction process: (1) Systematic Internal Audit: The authors conducted several rounds of internal proofreading to rectify grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and inconsistent punctuation throughout the text . (2) Professional External Polish: We subsequently invited a senior professor of English from the School of Foreign Languages to perform a rigorous secondary audit. All grammatical corrections and linguistic enhancements have been marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good job!

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which have significantly improved the quality of our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have indeed made revision to their ms, and I have no other comments for them to revise or improve their ms. I suggest considering this ms for publication. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

--

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which have significantly improved the quality of our manuscript.