Analysis of Cultivated Land Quality Protection Policy in China Based on the Content Analysis Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript applies content analysis to cultivated land quality protection policy documents in China. The coding framework and periodisation are acceptable, and the descriptive mapping provides a baseline picture of policy evolution, but only as a starting point.
To align with the journal, the study needs a further analytical step beyond reporting keyword frequencies and stages. The authors should translate the coded material into explicit analytical outputs, such as policy orientation or intensity measures, and undertake systematic comparisons across governance levels or regions. These extensions are necessary to support clearer inferences and to demonstrate relevance for land systems and land-related outcomes. Without this added analysis, the contribution remains primarily descriptive.
More comments are attached in the Word docx.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The manuscript is generally well written, and the English is clear and readable throughout. Only minor stylistic polishing would be beneficial to improve concision and reduce repetition, but no substantive language editing is required.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment"
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript demonstrates sound alignment with the journal's scope,
appropriate sample size, comprehensive data coverage, rigorous analytical framework,
and practical policy relevance in its recommendations. It constitutes a well-grounded,
theoretically coherent synthesis paper.
However, numerous issues remain, including significant concerns such as the
disconnect between innovation and policy outcomes.I have enclosed my review comments in the PDF attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
"Please see the attachment"
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors-
Comment 3 (composite indices) is not properly addressed
The reviewer explicitly asked for one or more composite indices, for example a quality orientation index or an ecology orientation index, tracked over time and across governance levels. In the response, the authors mainly restate that the paper is intended to be descriptive and that Table 6 already shows the broad shift. That does not directly answer the request. If the authors do not plan to construct indices, they need to say clearly why an index is not feasible or not appropriate in this setting, and then offer an alternative that still achieves the reviewer’s analytical purpose in the article. For example, they could provide a staged index, a weighted score, a normalised share of grouped keywords by period, or a simple difference between grouped keyword baskets over time. As it stands, the response reads as though the request was declined in favour of continuing with descriptive analysis. But that's the reason for a rejection if it is only a descriptive analysis.
-
“Land economics theories” is repeatedly invoked but not grounded
The response repeatedly says the revisions are “based on land economic theories”, but it does not anchor this in any core theory, citations, or a clearly specified mechanism. At the moment, that phrase looks like a label rather than a disciplined conceptual framing. The authors should specify which theories they mean and cite them, and then state the mechanism in a clear, defensible way. For example, if the argument is about capitalisation, information asymmetry, or investment incentives, then it needs to be named and supported properly. As written, “(based on land economic theories)” (p.2) is too vague. -
Comment 4 (governance level or regional comparison) may still be under-evidenced
The authors state that they expanded Section 3.2 to compare governance levels and regions, which is the right direction. However, the response needs to show that this is supported by evidence rather than narrative interpretation. It would be stronger if they added either (i) a table or figure reporting keyword frequencies by governance level and by region, or (ii) a clear description of how policies were assigned to regions and levels, including the document counts in each category. Without that, the comparison may read as commentary rather than analysis.
The manuscript is generally well written, and the English is clear and readable throughout. Only minor stylistic polishing would be beneficial to improve concision and reduce repetition, but no substantive language editing is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised manuscript has been sufficiently amended to address the comments and issues raised in the initial review. I consider it ready for acceptance without further modifications.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your insightful comments. Your suggestions have significantly improved the quality of our manuscript.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised manuscript has improved. The authors have responded to my comments and have strengthened the analytical framework. The added sections clarify the logic of policy evolution and instrument use, and the revisions move the paper beyond a purely descriptive account. The remaining issues are minor and mainly relate to language polishing and consistency, which can be addressed during the final editing stage.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript is generally well written, and the English is clear and readable throughout. Only minor stylistic polishing would be beneficial to improve concision and reduce repetition, but no substantive language editing is required.
