Shifting from Fragmentation to Integration: A Proposed Framework for Strengthening Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System in Egypt
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article addresses a topical issue that is especially needed in a changing world, both in the face of the challenges of climate change and new technologies in agriculture. Therefore, consulting, training, knowledge transfer, dissemination of innovations are among the most important in order to both encourage more sustainable farming and contribute to productivity.
Despite the fact that the review of the scientific literature contains many important aspects, there is a lack of information about the methodological relevance of the survey. There is no clear substantiation of the blocks of questions as to why they were chosen and what they were intended to clarify. The survey construct requires more detailed presentation (lines 175-199)
In addition, the visual material is poorly presented. Figure 2 does not show that these are percentages, plus values with a comma on one side, without a comma on the other.
Two Figures with number 4. They need to be more accurate and more relevant to the text.
Section 4.6 “Suggested framework for developing AKIS” needs to be reconstructed and strongly commented on, with more insight and analysis.
Figure 7 does not fully display the information, check that you copied it correctly, improve its quality, and link more closely to the description.
In addition, more and deeper conclusions should be provided.
Author Response
Point 1: Despite the fact that the review of the scientific literature contains many important aspects, there is a lack of information about the methodological relevance of the survey. There is no clear substantiation of the blocks of questions as to why they were chosen and what they were intended to clarify. The survey construct requires more detailed presentation (lines 175-199)
Response 1: We modified the survey design part in the methodology to clarify the measurement of the questions.
Point 2: The visual material is poorly presented. Figure 2 does not show that these are percentages, plus values with a comma on one side, without a comma on the other. Two Figures with number 4. They need to be more accurate and more relevant to the text.
Response 2: We improved all the figures and percentages to be more accurate and easily understood.
Point 3: Section 4.6 “Suggested framework for developing AKIS” needs to be reconstructed and strongly commented on, with more insight and analysis.
Response 3: This section was reconstructed and we added more insights and discussion.
Point 4: Figure 7 does not fully display the information, check that you copied it correctly, improve its quality, and link more closely to the description.
Response 4: We redesigned this figure to link with the results in section 4.6.
Point 5: More and deeper conclusions should be provided.
Response 5: We added new sentences (highlighted) in the conclusion section to address this point.
Reviewer 2 Report
It is an interesting paper employing the AKIS concept into Egypt market.
Some ideas to improve the paper:
- Please include some limitations to the complex model proposed into the paper.
- It could be interesting to complete the paper with some additional statistical analysis as bivariate or multivariate options, to contrast the significant difference across the actors of AKIS model.
- If it is possible include a model to explain the three structural dimensions of the innovation process.
Author Response
Point 1: Please include some limitations to the complex model proposed into the paper.
Response 1: We added some limitations to the model as presented in section 4.6 (highlighted).
Point 2: It could be interesting to complete the paper with some additional statistical analysis as bivariate or multivariate options, to contrast the significant difference across the actors of AKIS model.
Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comment. According to our data, it is difficult to address this point for different reasons. Data in some sections obtained by asking open questions (qualitative). Furthermore, actors in some sections showed different response to the questions according to the nature of their roles and functions within AKIS. Accordingly, we found difficulty in performing significant difference across the actors.
Point 3: If it is possible include a model to explain the three structural dimensions of the innovation process.
Response 3: We redesigned the figure to present the three structural dimensions accurately.
Reviewer 3 Report
Agriculture faces in many regions a strong rigidity and, at the same time, strong challenges of new methods, procedures, and technologies. Simultaneously, it faces a problem of the growing number of people to feed and of the importantly limited primary sources. Application of best available techniques and/or technologies (BAT) is vital not only for agriculture itself but for all humankind. That is why this article is highly relevant and topical, even in the context of the sustainability requirements.
The "recent conceptualization" of AKIS could subject to a discussion as only the sources from the 2016-2019 period are mentioned. Agricultural knowledge and information systems are not as recent. This notion and the basic concept are known at least for 20 years, and the concept is gradually supplemented by new findings.
Authors did not state the objective of their paper in the text and in the abstract either. Was the objective to propose a framework? (The authors stated that "A proposed framework is developed based on the results of this study and the characteristics of the AKIS in the study area.").
Which way did the authors identify the potential roles of actors in developing the DG-AKIS? Have they issued from an open question, or did the authors offered them to respondents in the form of a list? If it was a list, what was the basis for defining the roles and which roles were not identified as potential by the actors? I have the same question concerning actors' views about the need for strengthening the DG-AKIS as well as the benefits gained from strengthening and barriers to DG-AKIS development.
At least several studies on regional AKIS could be found that can indicate functioning of such networks as well as the main issues and barrier to successful operation. There are also findings on how to overcome particular problems or barriers. Preceding authors also discussed specifics of particular regional AKIS or more general collaborating networks that impede any general guidelines for creating a successful regional AKIS. Authors’ findings should be discussed with such previous statements.
Just a minor comment to the spelling: Protentional - did author mean potential?
Author Response
Point 1: Authors did not state the objective of their paper in the text and in the abstract either. Was the objective to propose a framework? (The authors stated that "A proposed framework is developed based on the results of this study and the characteristics of the AKIS in the study area.").
Response 1: Yes, the objective is to propose a framework. We added this objective to the abstract and introduction sections.
Point 2: Which way did the authors identify the potential roles of actors in developing the DG-AKIS? Have they issued from an open question, or did the authors offered them to respondents in the form of a list? If it was a list, what was the basis for defining the roles and which roles were not identified as potential by the actors? I have the same question concerning actors' views about the need for strengthening the DG-AKIS as well as the benefits gained from strengthening and barriers to DG-AKIS development.
Response 2: All mentioned questions measured by open questions. We modified the part of survey design in the methodology (highlighted) to clearly present the measurement of the questions.
Point 3: At least several studies on regional AKIS could be found that can indicate functioning of such networks as well as the main issues and barrier to successful operation. There are also findings on how to overcome particular problems or barriers. Preceding authors also discussed specifics of particular regional AKIS or more general collaborating networks that impede any general guidelines for creating a successful regional AKIS. Authors’ findings should be discussed with such previous statements.
Response 3: We addressed this point in different sections. We added findings on how to overcome particular problems or barriers in section 4.3 (highlighted). Moreover, we added case studies to indicate function of different networks in sections 4.5 and 4.6 (highlighted).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for your input. The article is more clear now.
However, figure 4 could be designed in a better way (credit and private sector).
Author Response
We redesigned Fig. 4. to clarify axis of the credit and private sector.
