Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The recent paper is seeking to answer a really relevant question on the connection between the performance of agriculture and internet use. In my point of view this issue is much broader than that of the authors’ reading. Maybe a more specified and focused title would be proper.

Although some literature is cited in the introduction part – concerning the connection of Internet use and development – a more detailed and separate literature chapter is mandatory. Beyond specific papers (e.g. Mihailovic, 2009) a broader context should be introduced (knowledge economy, economic competition, RIS, precision agriculture etc.) too in order to put the topic into an adequate theoretical framework. It would be great to include Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS) and EIP-AGRI process too.

The methodology and data session is clear and well organized. The reviewer can ask the question if the period of analysis (2012-2019) is long enough to draw such cardinal conclusions.

 

The discussion part contains only four references which is quite a small set of literature. The conclusions chapter is short too and does not contain relevant parts (e.g. the limits of the research and conclusions).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

Thank you for your valuable comments, We have already revised and confirmed through the PDF file with name "Answer to Reviewer 1 (Sustainability)"

Kind Regards

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

- Abstract. What is the purpose of this study? What methods were used and the most important arguments?

- Figure 1. What is the unit of measurement here?  Strange difference between 2009-2010? 

- Figure 2. What is not known what is represented here as a percentage? What does it compare to?

- Figure 3. You do not need to show these zeros on the Y axis. You must convert them into millions. It is not what is the value of "Agriculture, forestry..."

-Tables 2,3,4. No need to introduce intermediate calculations. It would be good to explain the results more clearly (who and what influences, what are the benefits of this);

-Table 5. More explanation is needed for this table. What do those asterisks (*) mean, what are FEM and REM? Who is compared to what here? How do the factors affect the outcome? 

- The conclusions are very weak and not clearly written. The unanswered question" is what is the impact of the Internet on agriculture (production? trade? services?). What impact can it have in the future? What is your advice to the authorities? In which countries is the situation good, average and bad? These questions are not answered here.

 - The same proposals are in the attachment.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

Thank you for your valuable comments, We have already revised and confirmed through the PDF file with name "Answer to Reviewer 2 (Sustainability)"

Kind Regards

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

• The paper is within the scope of the ‘Sustainability’.

·         The article addresses important issues from the point of view of the agricultural sector and the entire economy of both Indonesia and the world.

POINTS FOR IMPROVEMENT:

1. Abstract & Conclusions are very general. More financial information should have been provided.

 2. Numbers corresponding to References (in the text) should be placed in square brackets [1-3], [4] etc.

3. L77: “…in 44 African Countries…” à “…in 44 African countries…”

4. L95, L97: Questions: Q2 & Q3 should end with question marks

5. Figure 3. Real Sector Value Added in Global World can be given in billions of dollars to reduce the number of zeros

6. Table 5. and Table 6 - Please standardize the text typeface

7. Please standardize the citation record of References. Specifically, this note applies to Reference 11 (L303-304).

MDPI Style is given below (for example):

Iheukwumere-Esotu, L.O.; Yunusa-Kaltungo, A. Development of an Interactive Web-Based Knowledge Management Platform for Major Maintenance Activities: Case Study of Cement Manufacturing System. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11041. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141711041

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

Thank you for your valuable comments, We have already revised and confirmed through the PDF file with name "Answer to Reviewer 3 (Sustainability)"

Kind Regards

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors modified the paper to a great extent. My former objections - in general - were taken into consideration. The discussion and conclusion parts were extended, and the absent considerations were added.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

We appreciate your feedback and the prior revision. We think it is very helpful to improve our manuscript

Kind regards

Author

Reviewer 2 Report

1) Figure 3. Do not show zeros on the Y axis..Better to show 1, 11 , 21 mln. (as common units) and so on.

2) According to the purpose of your work (1 p).  What is the impact of the Internet on the results of the agricultural sector in the world? It must be answer in Conclusions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

Thank you for your comments. We have already made revision in manuscript, especially in Figure 3 (changing the Y unit values into million US$/unit) and Conclusion (Lines 261-262: "Based on the results, we found that all of internet variable have a positive effect on agriculture sector performance in global world"). 

Kind Regards

Authors

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The data in the Tables 5 & 6 are still written in different fonts.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

Thank you for your revision. The font in Table 5 and 6 have already revised in our new manuscript

Kind Regards

Author