National and International Policies and Policy Instruments in the Development of Agroforestry in Chad

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My comments:

This manuscript is an interesting topic and has the potential to print in a valuable international journal like Journal of Sustainability. There are some points if applying them, the manuscript has a good potential to accept and publish.

1 Title:

- The title is good.

2 Abstract:

- The abstract is appropriate. However, it is advisable to mention "research method (methodology)" in the abstract (What was the “research method”?)

3 Keywords:

It is best to avoid repeating title words as much as possible.

4 Introduction:

- In the introduction, it is necessary to address the following issues that have not been done.

What is the novelty of this research? It should be emphasized from different angles.

- What is the ontology and epistemology of the subject?

5 Materials and methods:

- This section is good. But I have some questions:

- In general, what was the kind of research method in this study (Paradigm, type, data, time, gathering data, …)

- Sampling logic needs further explanation

- How was the validity and reliability of the research obtained?

6 Results and discussion:

- This section is very useful and clear provided.

7 Conclusion:

- Please mention the limitations of the research in this section.

8 References:

- Good and many sources have been used.

- With regard to what was said, my suggestion is to accept the manuscript after minor revisions”.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

we have now gone through all the comments and suggestions you made. We are grateful and want to use this opportunity to thank them for your support.  We are honoured to say that we found the comments to be very constructive and have integrated most of them as they will contribute to improve the quality of our submission. Our reactions to each of the comments attached.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review Comments on Manuscript entitled "Potential of national and international policies and policy instruments in the development of agroforestry in Chad" (sustainability-1326376)：

Please consider the following points during the revision of the manuscript:

Lina 39 - "ibid" - please use references in accordance with the requirements of the journal

I believe that the conclusions from the conducted research should be much shorter - this is not a place for discussion.

References - adapted to the requirements of the journal

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

we have now gone through all the comments and suggestions you made. We are grateful and want to use this opportunity to thank them for your support.  We are honoured to say that we found the comments to be very constructive and have integrated most of them as they will contribute to improve the quality of our submission. Our reactions to each of the comments attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is not written well enough, but leaves a good impression.

Several technical disadvantages need to be fixed:

1) line 2: word wrap is not allowed in the title of the article; it is better to remove the words "Potential of" from the title of the article;

2) Line 27: The keyword "climate change and environmental degradation" is best split into two words;

3) line 48: literature sources in the same brackets must be mentioned in the order of publication years;

4) lines 64, 72, 99, 245, 253 and others: there are many misprints and mistakes in references to literature;

5) line 278-292: the +/- symbol is misspelled; it is not clear what the number after +/- means – this is the standard error, standard deviation or error: this must be specified;

6) line 290: it is imperative to apply correct statistical processing methods when comparing samples; it is doubtful that 3.44 is significantly different from 4.88 at such large +/- values;

8) lines 296-297, 589-591 and others: exact data must be provided for percentages rounded to tenths;

9) line 585-587: the table is not very informative, I recommend giving the data presented in it in the form of text; the note under the table does not correspond to the data contained in the table; therefore, doubts arise about the correctness of static processing;

10) line 602: the method of statistical processing is not clear from table 2; the entry (0.000) *** is incorrect, it is necessary to write specifically, for example, 6.5 * 10–12; I do not understand what 81.8 means in the first column of the first row of the table;

11) line 603-604: it is necessary to add to the table note what columns M, F, No, Yes, Seg1, 2, 3 mean, the reader is not clear;

12) line 602: the rounding of numbers does not correspond to the standards: the author must round all the numbers in one column to integers, or round all the numbers to tenths;

13) line 616: all numbers in the columns must be rounded to tenths;

14) line 617: the title of the figure does not stand up to criticism: the title must be exhaustive, when reading it, the reader must understand all the subtleties of the results, the reader must not re-read the title of the article or the Material and Methods section;

15) line 688: the contents of the table are not clear; what do cells with "/" mean, what does an empty cell mean;

16) the meaning of lines 690, 698, 783, 801, 813 and others is not clear: the structure of the article should be clearer, 80% of the article is occupied by results and discussion, the structure of which must comply with the requirements of international scientific journals; the Introduction, Material and methods and Conclusion raise few questions, but the structure of the Results and Discussion should be revised;

17) the design of the literature does not correspond to the requirements of the journal: you need to find 15–20 similar researches in other regions of the world in journal articles and expand the list of references with them; it is necessary to remove unscientific publications, links to Internet sites; almost all literature sources are framed with mistakes.

In general, these technical disadvantages do not diminish the value of the results. The research results are of practical value and can be published.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

we have now gone through all the comments and suggestions you made. We are grateful and want to use this opportunity to thank them for your support.  We are honoured to say that we found the comments to be very constructive and have integrated most of them as they will contribute to improve the quality of our submission. Our reactions to each of the comments attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf