Internet Use, Social Capital, and Farmers’ Green Production Behavior: Evidence from Agricultural Cooperatives in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGreetings
The paper is well done and good research has been done. In order for the paper to be as good as possible, it is necessary to make certain corrections. First, the abstract should be shortened so that only the most important results are mentioned.
In the introduction, the authors defined the goals, motivation and contribution of this paper. Based on that, they also gave it in the form of a research question. It is necessary to emphasize the objectives of the paper in the introduction as to say what was the motivation for conducting this research. Hypotheses and model are well explained.
The authors did not specify which gaps this paper solves, but they made a detailed introduction and explained what was done in this paper.
The empirical analysis is well done, nothing needs to be changed. What needs to be corrected is the discussion, it needs to be expanded and explained in more detail as to why such results were obtained.
The conclusion is well done only to add guidelines for future research.
The references in the paper are good and recent papers are cited.
The figures and table were made according to the instructions and are transparent.
This paper, in contrast to similar papers, conceptually shows how social capital affects behavior, and everything is viewed from the aspect of green production in agriculture.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments to the Authors:
Thank you for the work you have done. However, I think some improvements should be made to better justify the results and the conclusions ultimately reached. Before accepting this manuscript, I think it needs at least major revisions.
1. The introduction lacks depth. The authors should adopt an international perspective and highlight the importance and relevance of the research question.
2. The authors focus on the impact of Internet use and social capital on farmers' green production behavior. However, some previous studies have shown that Internet use and social capital significantly contribute to the greening of agriculture. Therefore, the authors need to clarify the new contribution of this study to farmers' green production behavior.
3. Previous studies have divided social capital into different dimensions. It is better to explain the concepts of organizational norms and organizational trust in more detail.
4. The mediating effect needs to be supported by more adequate theory and literature. It is better to add
some new literature in the section “The mediating effect of organizational trust and organizational norms”.
5. The author focuses on the moderating effect of sales satisfaction. The author needs to further elaborate on why sales satisfaction plays a negative role.
6. Check the format of the full manuscript, e.g., Line 168.
7. “Heilongjiang Province, one of the main rice-producing regions in China, boasts a rice planting area that makes up 12.8% of the country's total, with its rice commodity volume accounting for 34.2%.” It is better to add the timing and source of the data information.
8. “Based on the survey data of 530 members of rice planting cooperatives in Heilongjiang Province in China, this paper selected 8 green production behaviors commonly used by rice farmers as explained variables, and constructed an ordered probit model.” Content regarding the representativeness and size of the sample needs to be mentioned in the context of research limitations and future directions.
9. The similarity of some paragraphs is too high and it is recommended to check the full text to reduce the similarity.
10. Overall, the study is very focused on China (especially Heilongjiang). The authors need to indicate in the discussion section the applicability of the findings to other regions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper attempts to explore the role of agricultural cooperatives in the green transformation of agriculture driven by Internet use. The author focuses on the impact of Internet use on the green production behaviors of members of agricultural cooperatives, empirically testing the direct impact effect of the Internet use, the mediating effect of cooperatives in this process from the perspective of social capital theory, and the moderating effect of sales satisfaction on this process. The research design is reasonable, with adequate data sources. The framework of the article is clear and logical, with fairly smooth language. However, there are still the following issues need to be fixed:
1. Inadequate review of previous studies:
Regarding the impact of internet usage on the green production behaviors of cooperative farmers and the associated mechanisms, the author could benefit from introducing previous research in this area. By providing a comprehensive background, the study can better situate itself within the existing body of knowledge, offering justification for the research and highlighting its unique contributions to the field.
2. Insufficient description of the research background:
(1) Regarding the relationship between cooperatives, social capital, and green production, as well as the rationale for adopting a social capital theory perspective, the author has briefly touched upon this in the last paragraph of the introduction. However, it would be more appropriate to elaborate on these points in the second paragraph, emphasizing the innovative aspects of the study. The final paragraph should serve only to summarize without introducing new content.
（2）The introduction fails to address how cooperatives provide sales channels for green agricultural products, which in turn increases sales satisfaction. The reason why cooperatives can play a moderating role in the impact of the Internet on farmers' green production practices within the cooperative is only briefly summarized in one sentence and lacks support from relevant research findings. Overall, while the author does touch upon this aspect in Hypothesis 3, the arguments presented do not seem robust enough to fully convince the reader.
3. Unclear variable descriptions:
The abstract mentions that there are eight explained variables, but this is not clearly articulated in section 3.2. It would be best to list each variable separated by commas to avoid any misinterpretation.
4. Issues with text and figure correspondence:
Table 4 is not referenced within the text, even though the author has placed it alongside corresponding text.
5. Insufficient depth in the discussion section:
The author explains the research findings in the discussion but does not adequately compare them with existing studies, nor does the author delve deeply into the practical reasons behind the results. There is also a need to further highlight the innovative aspects of this study, such as the perspective of social capital theory, which is mentioned but not subsequently emphasized. Alternatively, the author could directly compare the findings with those of previous studies, discussing similarities and differences, thereby summarizing the innovations, significance, and importance of this research.
6. The conclusion section needs further elaboration:
In recommendations 1 and 3, the author suggests both increasing farmers' use of the Internet and expanding sales channels for cooperatives. However, the results indicate that the Internet can promote green production behaviors among cooperative members, while sales satisfaction can to some extent substitute for members' use of the Internet. Therefore, how should these two aspects be balanced? I believe this relationship should be clarified when making recommendations.
7. Language expression issues:
There are a few instances in the text where the English expressions are unclear.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors has made significant revisions based on the comments, and the revised manuscript has basically eliminated my doubts.
