The Theory of Agriculture Multifunctionality on the Example of Private Households
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Review comments
1. The abstract is still long. It should comprise the purpose, methods, results and policy implication. They are so many useless sentences. Rewrite.
2. The authors need to find a native English speaker to polish the English
Author Response
Dear reviewer!
Thanks for the positive review.
1. Prepared a new version of the abstract.
2. On editing the English language. They gave the article for editing to a specialist. He found no significant errors. If you tell me what exactly needs to be corrected, we will be very grateful.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
This article is a resubmission of the earlier version agriculture-1899390 on which I gave comprehensive comments. I see that in response the authors have significantly improved the manuscript. However, some limitations still remain:
Although authors have enriched the introduction section (previously it was very short), still it needs to organized to improve the readability and flow. Some paragraphs are very short and there are many missing links. Please read some articles from the journal in this section and improve the writing.
In addition, literature review needs to be enhanced to include a global perspective. Although authors have included many new studies, still a global perspective is missing. Please see the following suggested literature while improving the literature review part which is currently merged with Introduction section:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102255
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031175
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118459
https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11010049
Althought the authors have made some improvements to the methods section in response to my earlier comments, it still needs clarity in explaining data collection and analysis procedures.
The results section is okay now.
I still cannot see the Discussion section in the manuscript. Please refer to my earlier comments "Furthermore, there is no discussion section and no comparison with previous studies at all. The article lacks depth in results.".
Author Response
Dear reviewer!
Thanks for the positive review.
We have tried to correct the comments. We made changes to the sections "Introduction", "Methods", "Conclusions". Added a "Discussion" section. Added several new sources of literature.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
The authors have made comprehensive revisions in response to my comments on the earlier version. The manuscript can be accepted for publication now.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
My comments and suggestions for the article titled “The theory of agriculture multifunctionality on the example of personal households”.
Comments and suggestions
The theory of agriculture multifunctionality on the example of personal households is a good topic to explore but the authors have some issues to address to improve the article. The study contributes to literature and make significant impact; however, as I said, I have some comments and suggestions to make.
HOUSEKEEPING ISSUES
1.1 The abstract is poorly written. Get an abstract containing the purpose, methods, findings and implication of the study. No need of using a word like “she” in an abstract. Please, rewrite it!
1.2 The introduction needs an improvement. What is the motivation and novelty backing this study? Please show them in the Introduction. Actually, the concept of the study is not well spelled out in the study.
1.3 I also realized that you have long sentences. This make it difficult to understand what you are saying. Work on those long sentences; especially in the results and discussions section.
1.4 2. At the conclusion section, get use some limitations of the studies and what are the policy implications emanating from the study.
CONCLUSION: Whether the study has achieved its objective. In my opinion, this paper does suffer from elementary errors, but the overall science of the paper is persuasive enough. Therefore, it can be considered for publication conditional on the indicated revision.
Author Response
Dear reviewer! Thank you for appreciating our work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled “The theory of agriculture multifunctionality on the example of personal households” attempts to use the theory of multifunctionality in agriculture to determine the role of agriculture and its structural elements in the modern economy. Specifically, the purpose of the study is to determine the list of functions performed by personal subsidiary farms, identify their unique nature and justify the increase in the role of private household plots in the system of state support. The authors find that private household plots, as one of the significant elements of agriculture, perform unique functions, the totality of which can be divided into four groups - economic, social, environmental, and others. However, the article has severe shortcomings which are listed below:
The abstract is missing key elements. Please rewrite to include methods, data, and more findings.
Keywords are okay.
Introduction is very short, merely three small paragraphs which fails to introduce the problem, the relevant literature, research gap and justification of the study. Considering these points, the introduction requires major revisions.
Please provide a theoretical framework of the study and introduce the theory of multifunctionality and its different aspects along with the relevant literature. Furthermore, no testable hypotheses are presented. It is suggested to include a separate section to make up for these shortcomings.
Materials and Methods section is also mired with problems which are listed below:
The authors have failed to provide the details of survey such as when and how it was conducted, how were the samples selected, what is the criterion of selection.
In fact, it is not clear what dataset the authors have used.
Furthermore, no map of the study area is provided. The authors also failed to provide a description of study area.
The methods used to analyze the data are not described in detail.
Keeping in view the above points, the material and methods section needs substantial revisions.
The results are entirely descriptive in nature and merely consist of several graphs without contextualizing the findings. Furthermore, there is no discussion section and no comparison with previous studies at all. The article lacks depth in results.
Despite so many limitations in the current study, the authors do not mention any of it.
Author Response
Dear reviewer! Thank you for appreciating our work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
