Sorghum Production in Northern Namibia: Farmers’ Perceived Constraints and Trait Preferences
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Author
I have checked the manuscript and the article is scientifically well written.
The article was interesting and excellent and is acceptable in all respects.
The article does not need to be revised and thus acceptable.
With Thanks
Author Response
Comment 1: I have checked the manuscript and the article is scientifically well written. The article was interesting and excellent and is acceptable in all respects. The article does not need to be revised and thus acceptable.
Response 1: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and finding it acceptable and satisfactory for Sustainability.
Reviewer 2 Report
Suggestions made on attached PDF manuscript file, kindly see the file and make corrections accordingly.
Following are the suggestions and some common mistakes
Revise Key words
Grammar mistakes to be revised
Repetition of some words like sorghum and constituencies
Figures and tables are not aligned properly
The results are not showing correlation
How survey show significance results with farmers preferences
Methodology section need to be appropriate and step wise.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment 1: Revise Key words.
Response 1: Thank you for the feedback. The keywords are revised as follows: “Farmer-preferred traits; Namibia; Participatory Rural Appraisal; sorghum breeding; production challenges”
Comment 2: Grammar mistakes to be revised.
Response 2: The mistakes are corrected as suggested.
Comment 3: Repetition of some words like sorghum and constituencies
Response 3: Thank you for the insight. All possible repetitions have been checked. The repeated word sorghum in a sentence was replaced with the word “crop”.
Comment 4: Figures and tables are not aligned properly.
Response 4: Thank you for the suggestion. With the editorial team, we will well-align the Figures and Tables before publication.
Comment 5: The results are not showing correlation
Response 5: Thank you for the suggestion. To our knowledge, the results presented in each section feed each other and are well-correlated, and the set objectives were achieved.
Comment 6: How survey show significance results with farmers preferences
Response 6: The preferences of the sampled farmers were determined through traits descriptions provided along the known varieties grown in the areas (Please see Section 3.6.). This allowed us to make inferences.
Comment 7: Methodology section need to be appropriate and step wise.
Response 7: Thank you for the suggestion. We have provided defined methodologies that are appropriate for the study and align with other standard PRA studies.
Reviewer 3 Report
One minor correction, on page 3 to be consistent with the rest of the document insert a comma as below.
600 to 2000 inhabitants should read 600 to 2,000 inhabitants.
Author Response
Comment 1: One minor correction, on page 3 to be consistent with the rest of the document insert a comma as below. 600 to 2000 inhabitants should read 600 to 2,000 inhabitants
Response 1: Edited as suggested.
