A Pathway for Sustainable Agriculture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the manuscript, the authors presented "A Pathway for Sustainable Agriculture". The manuscript is only 7 pages long. In the manuscript, the authors presented an important point, although the manuscript has some drawbacks:

1. Intruduction - the introduction is very short.

2. Literature review - this is missing.

3. Conclusions - very short conclusions. In applications, please answer the following questions:
• what are the directions for the future?
• what are the research gaps?
• what is new to this manuscript?

4. Discussion - there is no in-depth discussion.

5. References - poor literature. Only 27 items.

Author Response

Greetings

Thank you so much for your comments, We cover all the comments. Please, see the revised version.

Thanks

Reviewer 2 Report

• I find this paper to be both interesting and policy relevant to understand food and water sustainability. I only have few comments for improvement. I hope they are helpful. 
• What are the takeaways from Figure 1-3? I would be helpful if the authors could provide more discussions/implications for readers to understand Figure 1-3. 
• In the conclusion section, the authors summarize the future path and acknowledge potential limits of this study, which are great. In addition to those, I think it would be good if the authors could provide some directions for future academic research. 
• Minor point: Line 166, "Though this model it ...." should be "Though this model is ... ".

Author Response

Greetings

Thank you so much for your comments, We cover all the comments. Please, see the revised version.

Thanks

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript needs a lot of work. Better structure of the scientific question, hypothesis, goal, objectives, methodology, and conclusions are needed.

There are several information that comes out of the blue and several statements are thrown with no background. Hard work in English is needed.

A better description of why and how the methods used were chosen. 

The Discussion part is missing and the conclusions could be concluded by reading any paper about sustainability.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Greetings

Thank you so much for your comments, We cover all the comments. Please, see the revised version

Thanks

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors did not take into account all my comments (literature review etc.).

Author Response

Greeting,

Thank you so much for your comments, We will cover all your comments. Please see the attachment.

Thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I did like the new version. A lot was improved regarding the hypothesis, which is now clearly stated, and the objectives. clearly stated as well. 

What I am concerned now is about the methodology. It is difficult to understand if that model already exist or if the authors created that. Clarification is needed here. Also, the manipulation of the data and how the authors are integrating them to obtain their results is a little unclear for me. Because of that. the results and discussion section is jeopardized.

It would be good if the authors can reword the objectives sentences indicating briefly what method they are using. For example: "The first objective of this research is ... by doing ....". Then, in the methodology, the subtitle of the section would be the method they used to accomplish their objective, and so on.

One note is about their concept of sustainability horizon and sustainability gap. These concepts are briefly defined in the abstract and not mentioned in the Introduction or Methodology sections. Then, they base their conclusion saying these tools were useful to explore future trajectories. 

I do think if they improve the methodology explaining about the model they used, explain these tools they used and how all of them help them to achieve their objectives. The paper will improve even more and have a nice thesis about sustainability.

Thank you again! 

Author Response

Greeting,

Thank you so much for your comment. Please see the attachment.

Thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

• as I wrote before, the "literature review" part is missing,
• the entire manuscript - editorial errors, see editorial requirements,

Reviewer 3 Report

It is weird to have objectives stated in the middle of Results and Discussion. I would change that.

Also, the text saying what the objective is and how it is going to be achieve d is repetitive