Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents a potential interesting work with regard to government income from land sale and rural revitalization in China and gets some results. However, I think the current manuscript have some limitations does not meet the criteria of Land. Mainly because of the manuscript lack global views, weak analysis and logical is chaos. 
1. The whole manuscript need to check by a native speaker, there are a lot of wrong explanations, unclear sentences and errors in the current manuscript. 
2. The title of manuscript need revise and study area needs clarify. For example, does "nation" refer specifically to "China"? Is "province" a province of China or other countries?  In title “…Rural Revitalization among Provinces”,which country?
3. In line 100, “… end of the 14th five-year Plan period…”, what are they? Which year?
4. The abstract need condense to highlight the results and author’s work.
5. Current literature is weak, the importance of author’s work need to discuss under the global view. Therefore, related literatures from other countries work need to be added and discussed.  
6. Because of the data cannot access in the globe, therefore the original data need to added as 
Supplementary Information of the manuscript. 
7. Line 115, “According to the research design and research content…”, where are research design? And what are research content?
8. In section of materials and methods, the author introduces some methods, but these introductions only explain the mathematical expression of methods, and do not explain why we need them? The logical of this section is chaos.
9. Current results and tables could be improved to enhance their readability. For example, in line 235, the content described is inconsistent with what is expressed in Table 2. In line 228-232, the imformation description does not come from table 3.
10. The section of discussion need to revised base on the global literatures and global cases. Currently is only focus on China, and lacks global views.
 11. Current conclusion is more like a summary not conclusion

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

The manuscript presents a potential interesting work with regard to government income from land sale and rural revitalization in China and gets some results. However, I think the current manuscript have some limitations does not meet the criteria of Land. Mainly because of the manuscript lack global views, weak analysis and logical is chaos. 

Thank you for your careful review, your work has provided great help for me to better complete the paper. Here is my reply.

Comment 1:

1. The whole manuscript need to check by a native speaker, there are a lot of wrong explanations, unclear sentences and errors in the current manuscript. 

Answer to Comment 1:

On the question of language expression, I will further polish it.

 

Comment 2:

2. The title of manuscript need revise and study area needs clarify. For example, does "nation" refer specifically to "China"? Is "province" a province of China or other countries?  In title “…Rural Revitalization among Provinces”,which country.

Answer to Comment 2:

The research scope of this paper is 31 provinces and cities in China. I will make a special supplement to this, and at the same time, since 31 provinces and cities cannot be understood by people in other countries, I will also explain this.

 

Comment 3:

3. In line 100, “… end of the 14th five-year Plan period…”, what are they? Which year?

Answer to Comment 3:

I should point out in the literature that the end of the 14th five-year Plan ends in 2022.

 

Comment 4:

4. The abstract need condense to highlight the results and author’s work.

Answer to Comment 4:

I will condense my summary.

 

Comment 5:

5. Current literature is weak, the importance of author’s work need to discuss under the global view. Therefore, related literatures from other countries work need to be added and discussed.

Answer to Comment 5:

 I will further revise and improve this part.

 

Comment 6:

6. Because of the data cannot access in the globe, therefore the original data need to added as Supplementary Information of the manuscript.

 Answer to Comment 6:

I will ask the editor's opinion to see if this part of the raw data is needed, and if so, I will sort it out and upload it.

 

Comment 7:

7. Line 115, “According to the research design and research content…”, where are research design? And what are research content?

Answer to Comment 7:

There is a mistake in the expression here, so it should be accurately stated to achieve the purpose of the study. From the purpose of my research to design my research content.

 

Comment 8:

8. In section of materials and methods, the author introduces some methods, but these introductions only explain the mathematical expression of methods, and do not explain why we need them? The logical of this section is chaos.

Answer to Comment 8:

For the use of the method and why it is needed. SPSS cluster analysis and TOPSIS have been introduced in detail. At the same time, these formulas are necessary steps to better deal with a large number of original data and get more clear and intuitive data results.

 

Comment 9:

9. Current results and tables could be improved to enhance their readability. For example, in line 235, the content described is inconsistent with what is expressed in Table 2. In line 228-232, the imformation description does not come from table 3.

Answer to Comment 9:

After reading this part carefully, I will modify it. Thank you for your reminder.

 

Comment 10:

10. The section of discussion need to revised base on the global literatures and global cases. Currently is only focus on China, and lacks global views.

Answer to Comment 10:

After carefully referring to your opinions, I will further read the literature on relevant topics and refer to similar cases around the world to extend the article from a global perspective.

 

Comment 11:

11. Current conclusion is more like a summar.

Answer to Comment 11:

The author thinks that the conclusion is a summary of the work done and the results of the full text. Regarding this part, the author will pay more attention in the later paper writing.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study want to clarify the potential obstacle mechanism of land transfer income supporting rural revitalization, and measure the obstacle degree. The topic is very interesting, especially in the stage of rural revitalization. The author gave clearly questions and study objectives in the manuscript, however, the english is poor, and the layout is not suitable for review, so, this make more diffculty for reviewer to giva more constructive suggestion.

1. the abstract and the conclusion is too long, please delete some content. in addition, some description maybe repeat in these two section.
2. author should confirm "land transfer income" or "land transferring fees", please reference some other published papers.
3. in the section of introduction, what is the promotion role of land transfer income to rural revitalization? What is the obstacles of  land transfer income to rural revitalization? please add these.
4. please added the study range in the section of 2.1, table 6 in line 125 maybe table 1? why do yo choose thse 8 obstacles in 125?
5. line 199, maybe the location of table 1 is wrong.
6. author gave three question in the introduction, however, only two of them were studied or presented in the results.
7. The discussion is not clearly, please add some theories from the published articles and add some governmental policies to make it strong.  In addition, too many tables and figures in this section, maybe some of them should emerge in the section of 3.

Author Response

Comment 1:

This study want to clarify the potential obstacle mechanism of land transfer income supporting rural revitalization, and measure the obstacle degree. The topic is very interesting, especially in the stage of rural revitalization. The author gave clearly questions and study objectives in the manuscript, however, the english is poor, and the layout is not suitable for review, so, this make more diffculty for reviewer to giva more constructive suggestion.

The abstract and the conclusion is too long, please delete some content. in addition, some description maybe repeat in these two section.

Author should confirm "land transfer income" or "land transferring fees", please reference some other published papers.

In the section of introduction, what is the promotion role of land transfer income to rural revitalization? What is the obstacles of land transfer income to rural revitalization? please add these.

please added the study range in the section of 2.1, table 6 in line 125 maybe table 1? why do yo choose thse 8 obstacles in 125?

line 199, maybe the location of table 1 is wrong.

Author gave three question in the introduction, however, only two of them were studied or presented in the results.

The discussion is not clearly, please add some theories from the published articles and add some governmental policies to make it strong.  In addition, too many tables and figures in this section, maybe some of them should emerge in the section of 3.

Answer to Comment 1:

    Thank you for your careful review. The content of the article will be further revised, and the summary and conclusion will be further revised.

Land transfer income and land transfer income are different terms for the same thing. This article will use the income from land sales as an expression, and I will proofread one by one to make sure that the words used in the article are not confused. Both the abstract and the conclusion have been revised and revised in the original text. The revised article will be attached later.

On the question of the setting of the table in this article, I think, in terms of the logical order of this article, the table setting of this article is more reasonable, and the readers can read it more smoothly. I will polish my article again in the part of the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Review on the paper entitled “The Income from Land Sale Supports the Potential Obstacles to Rural Revitalization among Provinces”.

 

The main goal of this paper is to explore the potential obstacle mechanism of land transfer income that supports rural revitalization.

As for the scientific content of the study, I think it is suitable for publication in Land. However, the authors should improve the quality of the paper because now it is a bit difficult to read it. Furthermore, for researchers who are not aware of the Chinese administrative system, it might be challenging to understand which administrative units under the name of “province” are examined in the study.

I provide a list about my observations for the authors:

1) The title should be corrected. I think its meaning is not what the authors intended to express.  

2) The first two sentences of the Introduction should be corrected.

3) Before the Introduction, the name of country appears once in the Abstract and once among the keywords. I think the authors should make it clear in the Introduction that the research is focusing on China. For example, in line 66, they mention the “central region” and the “east” but there is no reference in previous paragraphs in the Introduction that geographical scope of the research is China.    

4) In line 69, we can read about type I and type II big cities. These expressions should be clarified for international readers. This issue also applies for the expression “super-mega-cities”.

5) In line 76, the following sentence can be read: “The general consensus is that the scope of agricultural land expropriation is random, the compensation is low, and the income distribution is unreasonable.” I think the authors should include some references to underpin that there is a consensus about that the scope of agricultural land expropriation is random, etc.

6) In lines 92-93, the authors write that “From 2020 to 2016, the degree of equality among the subjects of distribution is reduced…” Does it apply for China in general, or the eastern region exclusively?

7) There are many verbatim quotations in the paper without references on the sources of the quotations (see for example in lines 380-382).

8) I assume that in line 125, the authors wanted to refer to Table 1 rather than Table 6.

9) I am a bit confused about the way how the authors define the administrative unit “province”. Here is a list about different definitions:

Lines 101, 107, 110, 190: province (autonomous region and city)

Lines 146, 166, 179, 185, … : province (city and district)

Lines 192, 218, …. : province (city and region)

Lines 256, 273: province (municipality and autonomous region)

Lines 257, 258, 269: province (city)

Lines 277, 282, 305, 306: province (region)

I assume that there is a straightforward explanation on the different definitions on the unit “province”, and it should be demonstrated for international readers.

10) In lines 326-329, a reference on Figure 2 can be found, but there is no such figure there.

11) Both the first and the second sentences of the Conclusions start in this way: “One of the important prerequisites…” This should be changed.

12) The paper needs proofreading.

Author Response

Comment 1:

The title should be corrected. I think its meaning is not what the authors intended to express.

Answer to Comment 1:

Considering your suggestion, I also think that the English title of our article should be further renovated. I think the title should be revised as follows：Inter-provincial differences in the otential obstacles of land transfer income to support rural revitalization. I will revise it and send it to you later in the original text.

 

Comment 2:

The first two sentences of the Introduction should be corrected.

Answer to Comment 2:

    After seriously considering your opinion, I have revised and embellished the original text, and I will revise it to the following sentences.

 

Comment 3:

    Before the Introduction, the name of country appears once in the Abstract and once among the keywords. I think the authors should make it clear in the Introduction that the research is focusing on China. For example, in line 66, they mention the “central region” and the “east” but there is no reference in previous paragraphs in the Introduction that geographical scope of the research is China.

Answer to Comment 3:

    Having carefully considered your opinion, I will make this clear in the introduction, highlighting that the scope of my research is China. Both the central region and the eastern region fall within the scope of our study in China. These parts are only introduced in the form of examples. On the whole, this article regards the whole region of China.

 

Comment 4:

     In line 69, we can read about type I and type II big cities. These expressions should be clarified for international readers. This issue also applies for the expression “super-mega-cities”

Answer to Comment 4:

     “Type I and type II big cities”, this statement comes from the notice on adjusting the criteria for dividing the size of cities, that is, the new standard for dividing the size of cities takes the resident population in urban areas as the statistical caliber. Type I big cities represent cities with a resident population of more than 3 million and less than 5 million, type II big cities represent cities with a resident population of more than 1 million and less than 3 million. I will explain and mark this point later in the article.

 

Comment 5:

     In line 76, the following sentence can be read: “The general consensus is that the scope of agricultural land expropriation is random, the compensation is low, and the income distribution is unreasonable.” I think the authors should include some references to underpin that there is a consensus about that the scope of agricultural land expropriation is random, etc.

Answer to Comment 5:

    Thank you for your valuable advice. I will look up the relevant literature and attach it.

 

Comment 6:

     In lines 92-93, the authors write that “From 2020 to 2016, the degree of equality among the subjects of distribution is reduced…” Does it apply for China in general, or the eastern region exclusively?

Answer to Comment 6:

     I carefully re-examined my article, and I think the meaning expressed here is applicable to the whole of China. After that, I will improve the expression of this part.

 

Comment 7:

    There are many verbatim quotations in the paper without references on the sources of the quotations (see for example in lines 380-382).

Answer to Comment 1:

     . Thank you for your careful review, the content of this part of the citation is universal, not particularly need to be guided, just to emphasize the role of the table.

 

Comment 8:

     I assume that in line 125, the authors wanted to refer to Table 1 rather than Table 6.

Answer to Comment 8:

     I carefully considered your opinion, I think this is indeed my article writing, typesetting and repair neglect, thank you for your careful reading, which is very important to me. I will revise it in the original manuscript. Thank you very much.

 

Comment 9:

      I am a bit confused about the way how the authors define the administrative unit “province”. Here is a list about different definitions:

Lines 101, 107, 110, 190: province (autonomous region and city)

Lines 146, 166, 179, 185, … : province (city and district)

Lines 192, 218, …. : province (city and region)

Lines 256, 273: province (municipality and autonomous region)

Lines 257, 258, 269: province (city)

Lines 277, 282, 305, 306: province (region)

I assume that there is a straightforward explanation on the different definitions on the unit “province”, and it should be demonstrated for international readers.

Answer to Comment 9:

     I did notice in this part that as the expression and meaning in Chinese are difficult to localize accurately in English, I will clarify these words that express the same meaning and try to make the content of the article more accurate and readable. Here I will make an introduction to the provincial administrative units. China.Provincial administrative units are local administrative areas at the highest level under the jurisdiction of the people's Republic of China and the Central people's Government, including 23 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, 4 municipalities directly under the Central Government and 2 special administrative regions. There are now 34 provincial administrative units in China. The scope of this study does not include two special administrative regions and Taiwan Province only includes the remaining 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions and 4 municipalities. For the provinces (autonomous regions, municipalities), provinces (autonomous regions) and provinces (municipalities). I will proofread them one by one according to what I have written and revise them in the original text.

 

Comment 10:

     In lines 326-329, a reference on Figure 2 can be found, but there is no such figure there.

Answer to Comment 10:

     Thank you for your careful observation, this section was not carefully reviewed during the typesetting, and I am sorry for the inconvenience caused. I will delete this unnecessary example from the manuscript.

 

Comment 11:

      Both the first and the second sentences of the Conclusions start in this way: “One of the important prerequisites…” This should be changed.

Answer to Comment 11:

      Thank you for your careful review. I will further check my article and polish it.

Comment 12:

      The paper needs proofreading.

Answer to Comment 12:

      Thank you for your valuable advice. I will proofread and review it again.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript makes a valiant attempt at assessing rural revitalization in 31 provinces in China. The manuscript is virtually impossible to read and understand by a non-expert English-speaking audience, and has so many editorial inconsistencies and errors to make the task of the reader even more difficult. The authors should review the entire article for English clarity as well as logical consistency, then consider submission again.

Author Response

Reviewer 4:

Comment 1:

The manuscript makes a valiant attempt at assessing rural revitalization in 31 provinces in China. The manuscript is virtually impossible to read and understand by a non-expert English-speaking audience, and has so many editorial inconsistencies and errors to make the task of the reader even more difficult. The authors should review the entire article for English clarity as well as logical consistency, then consider submission again.

Answer to Comment 1:

Thank you very much for your review. I proofread and retouched the whole content of my article again.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents a potential interesting work with regard to government income from land sale and rural revitalization in China and gets some results. However, I think the current manuscript did not substantial improved compared with previous version. In my previous comments I think the manuscript need intensive revised and most part of manuscript need to rewrite. It not easy to finished in 3-5 days. On this version, still, I would like to give some my comments for improvement of manuscript.

#1. There are a lot of grammar errors, long sentences and misuse words in the manuscript. A native speak need to check the manuscript thoroughly.

#2. Land is an international Journal not a national Journal; therefore, the section of methodology, introduction and discussion of the manuscript should be based on coordinate system (i.e. literature review) of global scale, not in China. HOWEVER, current manuscript lacks these. Therefore the whole section of methodology, introduction and discussion need to rewrite.

#3. The title of manuscript need revise and study area needs clarify. For example, in title “Inter-provincial Differences”, which country？

#4. The logical of manuscript is chaos. For example, there is no sub-section of results; the fourth section is Conclusions and fifth section is discussion? I strongly suggest author make major modification throughout manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The manuscript presents a potential interesting work with regard to government income from land sale and rural revitalization in China and gets some results. However, I think the current manuscript did not substantial improved compared with previous version. In my previous comments I think the manuscript need intensive revised and most part of manuscript need to rewrite. It not easy to finished in 3-5 days. On this version, still, I would like to give some my comments for improvement of manuscript.

#1. There are a lot of grammar errors, long sentences and misuse words in the manuscript. A native speak need to check the manuscript thoroughly.

Thank you for your careful examination. Thank you very much for all you have done for our paper. Please check it again. We have invited native English speakers to polish it. Please check it carefully.

#2. Land is an international Journal not a national Journal; therefore, the section of methodology, introduction and discussion of the manuscript should be based on coordinate system (i.e. literature review) of global scale, not in China. HOWEVER, current manuscript lacks these. Therefore the whole section of methodology, introduction and discussion need to rewrite.

Thank you for your careful review, because the previous paper is not so English that it is difficult to read, which makes it difficult for you to read. The research content of this paper is to standardize the obstacles of land transfer to support rural revitalization under the background of national conditions with Chinese characteristics, and to measure the specific obstacles of 31 provinces. This is the path of rural revitalization to predict and avoid possible obstacles in advance, but the opinions of reviewers are very useful, this part mentioned abroad, based on an international perspective can develop the inclusiveness of our article. Because I have combed it roughly and am in the process of modifying it. The final draft is still being finalized.

#3. The title of manuscript need revise and study area needs clarify. For example, in title “Inter-provincial Differences”, which country？

Thank you for your careful review, the title of the article has been revised. Thank you very much for your academic rigor. I wish you well.

#4. The logical of manuscript is chaos. For example, there is no sub-section of results; the fourth section is Conclusions and fifth section is discussion? I strongly suggest author make major modification throughout manuscript.

This part of the content has also been revised, please pay attention to check, and finally thank you again for your careful review. You have carefully taken care of the interests of the paper itself and the readers. Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Review on the paper entitled “Inter-provincial Differences in the Potential Obstacles to Land Transfer Income to Support Rural Revitalization”.

I thank the authors for carefully addressing my comments and correcting the paper according to them. There is only one issue remained that should be corrected. Because the paper was co-produced by three researchers, this line should be rewritten (see the last page of the manuscript): “…I think China's approach provides…” (i.e., the pronoun “I” should be changed to “we”).

Author Response

Review on the paper entitled “Inter-provincial Differences in the Potential Obstacles to Land Transfer Income to Support Rural Revitalization”.

I thank the authors for carefully addressing my comments and correcting the paper according to them. There is only one issue remained that should be corrected. Because the paper was co-produced by three researchers, this line should be rewritten (see the last page of the manuscript): “…I think China's approach provides…” (i.e., the pronoun “I” should be changed to “we”).

Thank you very much for your careful review. Your review has given great help and support to the paper. In addition, I have noticed the address problem you mentioned. As my new section still needs to be proofread and retouched, I will upload the final version in three days. Thank you again.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript's English has markedly improved, but is still not at a level to which a high-quality journal should aspire.

Author Response

The manuscript's English has markedly improved, but is still not at a level to which a high-quality journal should aspire.

Thank you very much for your careful review. Other parts of this paper have been carefully reviewed. At the same time, other parts of the paper will be proofread in three days. Your review has given great support to the paper itself.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx