Exploratory Research on Overfertilization in Grain Production and Its Relationship with Financial Factors: Evidence from China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- In the abstract, a short aim or goal should be added.
- The introduction part should be revised. The aim, research problem, goal, are not revealed.
- Information about the method (lines 63-73) seems more suitable to other part of paper, where the general methodological framework is described.
- I suggest to rethink the presentation of the results part, some of the graphs are really difficult to understand.
- The conclusions could be improved by making analysis with other research done.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: In the abstract, a short aim or goal should be added.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We’ve added an aim at the beginning of the abstract, please see line 15-20.
Point 2: The introduction part should be revised. The aim, research problem, goal, are not revealed.
Response: Thank you for your comment. According to your suggestion, we’ve made corresponding revision, please see line 110-125.
Point 3: Information about the method (lines 63-73) seems more suitable to other part of paper, where the general methodological framework is described.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added the method in the model construction part, please see line 315-317 and 336-337.
Point 4: I suggest to rethink the presentation of the results part, some of the graphs are really difficult to understand.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion, which is of great significance to the improvement of our paper. We’ve revised the corresponding paragraphs including adding necessary explanation, and added axis titles to the graphs, please see line 400-466.
Point 5: The conclusions could be improved by making analysis with other research done.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. The contribution and originality of this paper was presented more clearly in the conclusion part, please see line 546-565.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper aims was to evaluated the degree of overfertilization in the production of wheat, rice, and maize in some provinces of China from 2004 to 2018 by developing a panel-data model, as well as exploring the impact of financial factors on overfertilization. The manuscript fits within the scope of the journal. The manuscript is interesting and well organized. The title is clear and it is adequate to the content of the article. The conclusions or summary are supported by the content. The minor revisions are necessary to improve clarity of the presentation.
I have some recommendations for authors:
- Please follow the rules for editing the manuscript in accordance with the requirements of the Journal (see the name of the authors, the contribution of the authors ...)
- Enter a phrase in the abstract to describe the scientific context.
- Please highlight the degree of novelty and originality of the work.
- Include in the text potential research directions.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Please follow the rules for editing the manuscript in accordance with the requirements of the Journal (see the name of the authors, the contribution of the authors ...)
Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We’ve revised the authors information part, reference part and other parts according to your suggestion, please see line 5-13 and 587-593.
Point 2: Enter a phrase in the abstract to describe the scientific context.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We’ve added corresponding expression, please see line 15-20.
Point 3: Please highlight the degree of novelty and originality of the work.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We’ve highlighted the degree of novelty and originality of the work, please see line 110-141 and line 546-565.
Point 4: Include in the text potential research directions.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We’ve rearranged a separate paragraph to show them clearly, please see line 573-585.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear author(s),
I would like to thank you for preparing and submitting your manuscript to Sustainability. I must confess that when I read the topic of your manuscript I was intrigued because I was expecting that with compelling evidence you might have a point. However, I was disappointed when I read it and found out that your argument was not justified et al. So you need to make your case stronger. I hope the following comments help you in this direction.
It has several aspects that must be amended. The first one is the English language. The manuscript would benefit from a professional translator that would clean up some of the sentences.
GENERAL COMMENT: The content of the manuscript at its current presentation is not adequate and indicative of a potential contribution to the literature. Specifically, the approach of the manuscript is rather simplistic and it does not provide any new and in-depth knowledge of the topic and the concepts under investigation. I do not see what is new in this study that we already do not know.
INTRODUCTION
A) The purpose and objectives of the study are not clearly stated as well as its contribution to theory and practice. What is different from previous studies? The introduction section is very poor and needs to be re-written in a more clear way by formulating better the problem of the study and explaining its importance. There is a significant lack of connecting ideas and further explaining them throughout the manuscript. Moreover, the introduction is used to introduce the topic to the reader and show the purpose of the study and contribution not to define terms and just focus on the context of the study. What are the authors trying to accomplish that is not known already?
REVIEW OF LITERATURE - BACKGROUND
I would prefer to name the section either Conceptual Framework or Review of Literature before presenting the sub-sections.
The manuscript lacks a sound, clear, and well developed conceptual framework. The theoretical background is less than mediocre and therefore I suggest that the manuscript should be more open to theoretical perspective. I would recommend that the literature review be rebalanced to emphasize the conceptual underpinnings for the study and streamline the recitation of descriptive research findings regarding the topics of interest in general. Again there is a lack of good presentation of ideas.
This section is very weak and limited in terms of a conceptual framework that will indicate the possible relationships between the constructs under investigation. Therefore, the proposed hypotheses are not well justified. Moreover, relevant research findings should be presented.
METHOD AND FINDINGS
The analysis of the data is descriptive, the information provided does not add much to the existing literature. Not appropriate discussion in the presentation of results.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The findings are of limited value and the discussion regarding their theoretical and practical implications very poor. What the findings mean and for whom? How are they helpful? How do they contribute to current theories and practice?
Overall, it seems that the authors have focused on the technical aspect of the study (analysis) and not on making theoretical and practical sense out of it. Therefore, I recommend that they should re-write the manuscript before submitting it to any other journal. I hope my comments are helpful in improving the manuscript. I wish you good luck in your research endeavors.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: The first one is the English language.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have done our best to improve the language of the whole text, please see the marked words of the revised manuscript.
Point 2: The purpose and objectives of the study are not clearly stated as well as its contribution to theory and practice. What is different from previous studies? The introduction section is very poor and needs to be re-written in a clearer way by formulating better the problem of the study and explaining its importance. There is a significant lack of connecting ideas and further explaining them throughout the manuscript. Moreover, the introduction is used to introduce the topic to the reader and show the purpose of the study and contribution, not to define terms and just focus on the context of the study. What are the authors trying to accomplish that is not known already?
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. According to your suggestion, we have made a major revision, in fact, we rewrote the introduction part, including stating the aim, the problem of the study and its importance, contribution of the study, as well as differences from previous studies, please see line 40-141.
Point 3: The manuscript lacks a sound, clear, and well developed conceptual framework. The theoretical background is less than mediocre and therefore I suggest that the manuscript should be more open to theoretical perspective. I would recommend that the literature review be rebalanced to emphasize the conceptual underpinnings for the study and streamline the recitation of descriptive research findings regarding the topics of interest in general. Again there is a lack of good presentation of ideas. This section is very weak and limited in terms of a conceptual framework that will indicate the possible relationships between the constructs under investigation. Therefore, the proposed hypotheses are not well justified. Moreover, relevant research findings should be presented.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. According to our research questions, we have rebalanced the literature review for evidence such as relevant research findings and more research on the subject or related topics to construct the conception framework to support our hypotheses, including adding the classic theories such as permanent income hypothesis developed by the US economist M Friedman, please see Line74-109 and 157-260.
Point 4: The analysis of the data is descriptive, the information provided does not add much to the existing literature. Not appropriate discussion in the presentation of results.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. According to your comments, we’ve conducted a more detailed and in-depth analysis and discussion, and the contribution of the study, please see line 400-411, 419-446, and 546-565.
Point 5: What the findings mean and for whom? How are they helpful? How do they contribute to current theories and practice?
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have made corresponding revision to state the value and contribution of the study more clearly in the conclusion part (Line 544-565) and the introduction part (Line 110-125 and 132-141).
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a carefully revised manuscript. From the mark of the revised manuscript, I can see that the authors are working hard to correct the English usage.
The authors compared the differences between this study and previous studies, and made appropriate amendments to the importance and contribution of the study.
In terms of literature review, the authors also reviewed relevant research results. And more researches on this topic or related topics to build a conceptual framework to support the author's hypothesis.
In the research results, in-depth analysis and discussion were carried out.
I suggest accepting this manuscript.
