Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the manuscript is intresting and relevant. However i think it is better the authors shorten the introduction, at the end of introduction exlpicity state the study goal and more two issues explain in more details about formula that they applied and also resrach method. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your article, and I believe you are addressing a timely and relevant issue. However, after reading your research, I had some major reservations about it, which prevented me from recommending its publication. I believe that the editors should reconsider this article after some major revisions. I'll go into more detail about my concerns below. This response letter is organized in the same manner as your article. I hope these suggestions will assist you in improving the quality of your research.

Introduction

Introduction is mostly well-written. Authors introduce the problem, provide some literature review, and then state the objectives. However, several deficiencies remain which are as follows. First, please define the GTFP at the outset to clarify the concept. Second, more information is required on maize purchasing and storage policy reform (MPSR). That is, what were the objectives of this reform? Was it aimed at reducing the carbon emissions? Why do the authors need to check its impacts on GTFP specifically? Third and most important, the literature review does not adequately cover the depth and breadth of the issue. The authors should clearly position their paper in the scholarly literature, emphasizing how they are going to contribute to the scientific debate. Enhancing the positioning of the article should lead the authors to identifying the knowledge gaps affecting the scholarly debate. To this end, I would suggest the authors to read and include the following relevant studies in the literature:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102255

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.266

https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.944156

https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMTM.2021.121110

https://doi.org/10.3390/w14121832

Theoretical Background

The major concern about the logic of your theoretical model. As stated by authors, the MSPR aims to gradually reduce the government intervention and let the market forces prevail in price determination. How is this reform expected to essentially reduce the input usage? It is not explained well. Also, on Line 145. The authors state that “Farmers who suffer losses due to fluctuating corn prices are subsidized by the government”. In the presence such backstop arrangement, what incentives do farmers have to reduce the use of inputs?

Methods

Please indicate which software was used to run the SBM model.

Results

Authors need to apply statistical tests to ensure the robustness of some results. For instance, you could use Mann-Whitney U test or Kurskal-Wallis t test on the results shown in Table 3.

Discussion

This section also needs revisions. At present, it merely presents an overview of the study findings, but it does not critically contextualize the study results in light of the extant scholarly debate. As a consequence, the authors are unable to provide us with thick and consistent information about how they are adding to the scholarly debate. Implications for theory and practice are limited.

Conclusion

Finally, yet importantly, the authors do not effectively elaborate on a relevant and inspiring agenda for further developments.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper measures the green total factor productivity (MGTFP) of maize in China from 2010 to 2020 by using the SBM Super-Global-Malmquist-Luenberger (SBM-SGML) model, then tests the impact of agricultural subsidy market-oriented reform on MGTFP by using the DID model. There are many interesting findings in this paper, but there are still some problems in the language and analysis process. The specific issues are as follows:

(1) Line 135-136, theoretical and data support should be provided.

(2) Line 172: “first” should be “Firstly”.

(3) Equation (1) is not the Super Global production frontier, and it is recommended to correct.

(4) In Table 2, “TFP” should be “MGTFP”.

(5) In the Section 3.1 Evolution of MGTFP in China, this article pays too much attention to the numerical changes analysis of each index. It should adequately explain the economic meaning of the index changes and the possible reasons behind them.

(6) It is recommended to cite the latest relevant literature: Hu, J., Zhang, X. & Wang, T. (2022), Spatial Spillover Effects of Resource Misallocation on the Green Total Factor Productivity in Chinese Agriculture. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(23).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have made the necessary changes which were requested by me in my review. I believe that the quality of manuscript has improved due to these changes. As a results, I am please to recommend the acceptance of the article in its current form.