Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the opportunity to read you paper - it was interesting and insightful.  The paper was easy to follow, the methods clearly defined, and the results and discussion followed logically.

My only comment for enhancement is to define what small-scale vs large-scale is in terms of size of farm (acreage, output, etc.) 

Lines 207-208 you suggest you should use specific tests. I would recommend saying that tests were required and you conducted them. 

Lines 260-261 - I suggest rewording because it reads as a double negative and is difficult to understand.  

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some errors in english, but they generally don't detract from your meaning.  

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments, please see the attachment of the “Response Letter to Reviewer 1” for a specific response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.- although the total number of surveys is mentioned, it would be useful to know what percentage of the population it represents (line 66).

2.- in the introduction, it would be advisable to make a small reference to the differences between the different platforms, in order to illustrate more to the reader who does not know them.

3.- although the hypotheses make clear the main idea of each one, I suggest reducing them, as they are usually shorter and more precise; for example, in hypothesis 2, it is enough to indicate that "Transaction price. WeChat e-commerce can improve sales prices by eliminating the price extracted by intermediaries and reducing information asymmetry".

4.- in the presentation of the variables, it would be good to indicate what is expected of them, for example, if the sign is positive, what will it indicate; or what will it indicate if it is negative, and what is expected to result in the model for each one of them.

5.- it seems to me that what is commented in line 312 onwards (The more farmers know about the policy, the easier it is to choose to use WeChat e-commerce, which is greatly related to the "Internet + rural revitalization" and "development of the digital countryside" policies promoted by the government in recent years), is a value judgment and should be subject to review.

6.- similar to the above, in line 322 and what follows, the conclusion obtained is a value judgment, there may be other reasons for it.

7.- it is proposed that the conclusions be associated to the lack of specific studies of the respondents, therefore, the idea would be to propose courses where they are taught the pros and cons of the different applications, rather than improving the years of regular study, in this sense, a policy could be to teach, for example, the use of the Internet and weChat.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments, please see the attachment of the “Response Letter to Reviewer 2” for a specific response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read your paper on WeChat e-commerce, social connections, and smallholder agri-2 culture sales performance: a survey of orange farmers in Hubei 3 Province, China. The subject of the paper is very interesting and complies with the topic of the Agriculture journal. It contains new information adequate to justify publication. 

The paper demonstrates an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and no significant work have been ignored. I can find the new contributions to the theory.

The authors present well the motivation why the approach has been chosen. However, it lacks the identified research goal in the introduction.

The paper's argument are built well on an appropriate base of theory and the research framework but methodology should be improved. There is no information on who developed the survey or whether the authors were involved. What was the size of the population surveyed? Is the survey sample representative? Etc.

Results are interesting but the article should discusse the results in depth. Moreover, it is needed more contributions to theory.

The paper provides suggestions for policy. The authors indicate the limitations of their work.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments, please see the attachment of the “Response Letter to Reviewer 3” for a specific response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf