Research on Realization Mechanism of Land Value-Added Benefit Distribution Justice in Rural Homestead Disputes in China—Based on the Perspective of Judicial Governance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic is very interesting and important. Especially in recent years, the pilot reform of the homestead system has presented many cases in various places. The manuscript provided a good explanation from the perspective of judicial justice, but there are several issues that need to be considered.
1. There are many types of value-added benefits for homesteads, and the manuscript should clarify the concepts and the generation sources of homesteads' value-added benefits.
2. Generally speaking, entering the market for transaction of homesteads is an important prerequisite for generating the added value. However, before the pilot reform of the homestead system, there were almost no market transactions for homesteads, and the impact of this practical issue needs to be considered. Moreover, there are many policy tools involved in the use of homesteads, and there are significant differences in value distribution policies. The roles played by local governments and market entities are also different. How did the author consider the impact of this difference?
3. The currently selected cases in the manuscript may not be a conflict of added value for homesteads, but rather a conflict of distribution for homesteads. I think these are two different concepts.
4. The section title needs to be checked and modified. e.g. the section 2 is Literature Review, is it? the section 3 is Materials and Methods. And the title of sections 4 and 5 are all for discussion.
Generally, the language expression is clear.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an extensive analysis of land disputes in China. While the topic is important in general around the world, the way the land issues exist in China are more or less unique to that country, so many readers will not go through the country-specific findings. Having said this, China is so important that some land reform researchers will read and use this paper. It is not useful for the more casual researcher.
Because the research is so extensive and has so many observations (findings), it is difficult to follow. China land reform scholars will find the paper useful, but the analysis is dense. If the paper is to be read and used by the world community of scholars the authors should remove a lot of detail that is China-specific.
The density of the paper is illustrated by having sentences that are 20 lines long. Many sentences repeat the same world again and again losing their impact. Clearly, the English could be improved but the problem is that the authors are trying to say too much.
This is an important topic and probably a unique research effort. Most researchers outside of China would like to know about land reforms and this paper has all they want to know, but this information is surrounded by too much local detail.
The manuscript deserves to be published because of its core importance and high-quality research methodology. It will have more impact if a lot of detail is removed. For example, who will read the 37 long endnotes? On the one hand, the endnotes reflect good scholarship. On the other hand, it is an article, not a PhD dissertation. I would edit and publish.
See above. The English needs some editing and the paper needs to remove information that is not useful for international researchers. China is complex and thus at some level the paper must reflect this point, but the description of complex findings can be more clearly made.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for inviting me as a reviewer for this great manuscript.
This paper review will be focused on the structure of the paper and the flow of the logic. Firstly, I acknowledge this manuscript wrote in a very good manner with good English but needs more effort to understand the idea presented, especially for the broader reader. So, in order to reach a broader readership, from this section I prefer to use a simple/conventional structure.
In the following passages, I summarized the backbone of this manuscript (rather than push a strong suggestion, it can be treated as asking for author confirmation and soft suggestions).
I. Introduction: Background/context --> Gap --> Research Objective 1,..., ROn ---> Research Question 1,..., RQn.
2. Materials & Methods (OK).
3. Results: this section arranges into subsections in that the title refers to section 1 (RO and/or RQ, and vice versa).
4. Discussion: same structure to number 3 above.
5. Discuss: I don't have any clue(s) why this section pops up with such a title.
6. Conclusion: I have no issue regarding this section, but this section must refer to the latest version of this manuscript.
Check also the review file attached.
Warm regard.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
