Differential Game-Theoretic Models of Cournot Oligopoly with Consideration of the Green Effect

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is interesting and organized but to improve the quality the following recommendations can be incorporated.

1.    The manuscript is vague. Despite the interesting mathematical model, it is difficult to understand the main idea of paper.

2.    I suggest the authors improving the Abstract Section. The abstract needs the briefly description of main methods and the results.

3.    The Introduction Section. According to Instructions for Authors, in the Introduction Section, the current state of the research field should be carefully reviewed and key publications cited. However, there are only 12 citations. The analysis is rater weak. It must be expanded. The authors should review worldwide experience. It is desirable for the authors to strengthen their arguments and deepen the analysis of previous studies.

4.    The authors should clarify the aim of their study.

5.    Scientific gaps should be revealed.

6.    The Materials and Methods Section should be added. Methods should be described in detail and appropriately cited.

7.    The authors should improve citing. For example, ‘…  presented in [1].’. I would recommend the following wording: ‘ … presented by Zhang et al. [1]’. 

8.    The authors should use Instructions for Authors concerning the References Section, Tables, Formulas, etc.

9.    Some paragraphs have 2 lines. They must be merged.

10.The Conclusions Section: The prospects for further research should be more specifically and clearly described.

 

General conclusion

I expected more from this study. The description of the study is very short and it needs to be expanded. Also, both better organization, results presentation and more discussion are required. Improvements in the language style are also needed.

Author Response

The answer is attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner.

The cited references are mostly recent publications (within the last 5 years) and relevant.

The article is scientifically sound and is the experimental design appropriate to test the hypothesis.

The article’s results are reproducible based on the details given in the methods section.

The figures and tables are appropriate for the article.

The data is easy to interpret and understand.

The data are interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the article.

The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.

The results indicate that additional work is needed to improve the precision of the method.

There are several comments on the article:

1. Why did the authors vary the parameters within the following limits: n from 2 to 40; a from 5 to 70; c from 1 to 50; m from 0.1 to 30; k from 0.1 to 30; y from 1 to 50?

2. It is necessary to explain the meaning of the indicator ρ.

3. The authors need to check the writing of the equations. For example, in the formula between equations (11) and (12), the sign "=" is used twice.

The paper can be published after correcting the comments.

Any attempt to continue the investigation is to be warmly welcomed.

Author Response

The answer is attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is interesting and relevant for the journal. The main idea is to present a novel technology game for green environmental efforts. The mathematical foundation is presented in great detail. However, the case study is not. The tables were filled with some data, but not sufficient detail is presented on the simulation assumptions, nor on the environmental case. The reviewer suggests to do the case study a separate paragraph from the mathematics. A minor revision is to pay attention and put one table on a page.

The abstract is good, but please do not repeat the same in the introduction - put it with other words instead.

Author Response

The answer is attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

The comments suggested in the previous round have been well-reflected. Thank you for your time and effort in the revision! 

The paper can be published in the current version

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper improved significantly in the discussion regarding the role of models and the difference between static and dynamic simulation.