Biological Assets in Agricultural Accounting: A Systematic Review of the Application of IAS 41

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is interesting and provides valuable inputs for producers and policymakers. My main concerns focus on the research period and the final sample size. Why did you start the research in 2014 and not earlier? You have also chosen English and Spanish as languages. It is possible that the sample is biased and "favors" countries like Brazil. Why not limit the language or include papers written in languages like French and German in the research?

• Page 2: You write "several studies..." but mention only one paper.
• Page 3: Publications from 2015 to 2025 / Page 4: Publications from 2014 to 2025. I think that the appropriate period is from 2014 to 2024.
• Page 4: You mean 142 excluded (not 108).

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the observations and suggestions made by the reviewers to the manuscript. Each of them has significantly enriched the content and quality of the work presented. All recommendations have been carefully considered and incorporated into the revised version. We attach the manuscript with the respective corrections, as well as a change control table that will facilitate the quick understanding of the adjustments made. We deeply value the time and dedication devoted to the analysis of our study, which has contributed in a valuable way to the strengthening of this research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a critical gap in agricultural accounting literature by systematically reviewing empirical studies on biological asset valuation under IAS 41. It presents and analyzes methodological variations, regional disparities, and regulatory challenges. 

1. Title and Abstract

The abstract concisely summarized the content of the paper. I suggest that the authors clarify the term “reasonableness” in the title so it will accurately reflect the overarching purpose of the research. Also provide a clearer explanation of the research problem. 

2. Introduction

The introduction provides a comprehensive contextual overview of IAS 41 and the valuation complexities associated with biological assets. It also utilizes pertinent references to substantiate the study's significance. However, this section exhibits a certain level of density. Please, enhance the flow by segmenting lengthy paragraphs. Also, strengthen the articulation of the research gap by elucidating the areas which have not been comprehensively explored in prior research. Incorporate more recent data or regulatory developments post-2022 if feasible. The introduction could benefit from more international diversity in references, especially from underrepresented regions or major agricultural economies.

3. Materials and Methods

The manuscript adheres to the PRISMA methodology which enhances the study's credibility. I have a few suggestions. While the search terms are extensive, it would be beneficial to include a PRISMA checklist in the appendix. Also, provide detailed explanation of the exclusion of grey literature such as dissertations and working papers and outline the rationale behind that decision. The data collection relies heavily on databases such as Scopus and Web of Science but the authors need to acknowledge that Google Scholar and EconLit could be have been used. If they were excluded, an explanation is recommended. Also, the section does not clearly describe the quality or validity of the 22 selected studies was assessed. Were there any rating tools, checklists, or bias assessments used? Also, the review lacks a detailed search string with Boolean logic, and doesn’t mention whether the protocol was registered or peer-reviewed.

4. Results

The manuscript presents a concise and coherent summary of the 22 selected studies. It also includes comprehensive tables which categorize methodologies, countries, and sectors. Although the table are rich in data, it would be beneficial to enhance their visual appeal to improve the readability. Also, provide a more detailed discussion of Figure 1 and Figures 2 & 3 within the text. Clarify the evaluation criteria used to assess the methodological quality of the studies including whether risk of bias and effect sizes are considered. 

5. Discussion

The manuscript emphasizes the intricate interplay between fair value accounting and biological reality and highlights the significance of interdisciplinary approaches. Please, incorporate more specific and actionable recommendations (e.g. potential revisions to IAS 41 or contextual applications). Avoid overly general philosophical conclusions and focus on the accounting context. Are there any limitations? If so please report them (e.g. database selection and time). 

6. Conclusion

The conclusion includes a summary of the research findings and implications. I do not have suggestions to improve. 

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the observations and suggestions made by the reviewers to the manuscript. Each of them has significantly enriched the content and quality of the work presented. All recommendations have been carefully considered and incorporated into the revised version. We attach the manuscript with the respective corrections, as well as a change control table that will facilitate the quick understanding of the adjustments made. We deeply value the time and dedication devoted to the analysis of our study, which has contributed in a valuable way to the strengthening of this research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf