Exploring the Challenges Posed by Regulations for the Use of Drones in Agriculture in the African Context

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no objections to the article Exploring the Challenges Posed by Regulations for the use of Drones in Agriculture in the African Context.

As it is written in the abstract, the article systematized the literature related to the current obstacles in developing, executing and maintaining drone policies.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

General comments:

I have no objections to the article Exploring the Challenges Posed by Regulations for the use of Drones in Agriculture in the African Context.

As it is written in the abstract, the article systematized the literature related to the current obstacles in developing, executing and maintaining drone policies.

Response:

We thank you for your assessment and recommendation of our paper for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Please find my complete review comments in the attached pdf (comments made on the manuscript). 

This is an interesting topic, and I understand that the availability of literature on this topic for the study is limited. However, in my opinion, I think this study should be significantly improved before considering for publication. I have raised some questions on the methodology and reliability, accuracy, and representativeness of the findings. It would be helpful if the authors identify who the target audience should be? who would benefit by having this information? and how the findings and recommendations would help their cause?. Having this figured out first would help in structuring the article. It's not clear how the authors identified the 5 main issues identified in the study, which should have mentioned (and be transparent about the prioritization process) in the results section. Expanding the literature search to include reliable grey literature (government reports, agency reports etc.) could be an option. 

Again, this is an interesting topic and the authors have provided some good information/ insights in the discussion section about the issues raised. These should be backed by a strong approach in the data gathering and summarizing/analyzing process to make them more reliable. Therefore, I striongly recommend the authors to improve this study before re-submitting. 

Thank you,

Best,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

General comments:

This is an interesting topic, and I understand that the availability of literature on this topic for the study is limited. However, in my opinion, I think this study should be significantly improved before considering for publication. I have raised some questions on the methodology and reliability, accuracy, and representativeness of the findings. It would be helpful if the authors identify who the target audience should be? who would benefit by having this information? and how the findings and recommendations would help their cause?. Having this figured out first would help in structuring the article. It's not clear how the authors identified the 5 main issues identified in the study, which should have mentioned (and be transparent about the prioritization process) in the results section. Expanding the literature search to include reliable grey literature (government reports, agency reports etc.) could be an option. 

Again, this is an interesting topic and the authors have provided some good information/ insights in the discussion section about the issues raised. These should be backed by a strong approach in the data gathering and summarizing/analyzing process to make them more reliable. Therefore, I striongly recommend the authors to improve this study before re-submitting. 

Response:

We thank you very much for your constructive comments and suggestions which we have taken into consideration and have revised our manuscript appropriately. In the revised paper, you would see the changes made with MS track changes for your perusal.

We have expanded the methodology giving more reliability into the process. Also, we have indicated how the findings would impact the relevant stakeholders in the introduction section and added the key finding at the end of the abstract. At the results section, we have also revised the results presented following your suggestion/comment given in the manuscript. The discussion is also improved and the conclusion revised as well.  In summary, all your suggestions and comments have been acted upon and we hope the revised version would meet your kind expectation.

Thank you once again.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

The manuscript entitled "Exploring the Challenges Posed by Regulations for
the use of Drones in Agriculture in the African Context" highlighted the current obstacles in developing, executing and maintaining drone policies. The manuscript is very well drafted and introduction is strongly summarised. Results and discussion are adequate and concluded very nicely. I hereby recommend the current manuscript in present form for further processing.

Best Regards

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

General comments:

The manuscript entitled "Exploring the Challenges Posed by Regulations for the use of Drones in Agriculture in the African Context" highlighted the current obstacles in developing, executing and maintaining drone policies. The manuscript is very well drafted and introduction is strongly summarised. Results and discussion are adequate and concluded very nicely. I hereby recommend the current manuscript in present form for further processing.

Response:

We thank you very much for your assessment and recommendation of our paper for publication.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the authors for accepting the suggestions made during the initial review process and taking the required effort to address the issues. In my opinion the authors have done a nice job revising the manuscript and addressing the issues. As I mentioned in my initial review, this is an interesting topic, and I understand that past research on this context (in Africa) is lacking, to conduct a comprehensive literature review. So specifying those obstacles to the reader was required, and I think the authors have done a good in their justification in this revised version.

There are a couple of minor edits/suggestions commented in the attached pdf.

Good Job and congrats!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

General comments:

I would like to thank the authors for accepting the suggestions made during the initial review process and taking the required effort to address the issues. In my opinion the authors have done a nice job revising the manuscript and addressing the issues. As I mentioned in my initial review, this is an interesting topic, and I understand that past research on this context (in Africa) is lacking, to conduct a comprehensive literature review. So specifying those obstacles to the reader was required, and I think the authors have done a good in their justification in this revised version.

There are a couple of minor edits/suggestions commented in the attached pdf.

Good Job and congrats!

Response:

We thank you very much for your compliments and suggestions to which we have taken into consideration and have revised our manuscript appropriately again. 

Once again, thank you.