A Study of the Impacts of Air Pollution on the Agricultural Community and Yield Crops (Indian Context)
, Thippa Reddy Gadekallu 3, Praveen Kumar Reddy Maddikunta 3,* and Rohit Sharma 4,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript will be ready for publication after a careful review of spelling and grammar.
Author Response
Q-1 This manuscript will be ready for publication after a careful review of spelling and grammar.
As per the given suggestions we have corrected the spelling and grammar errors throughout the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Q-1 Authors should rewrite Abstract.
Thank you for valuable suggestions. As per the given suggestions we have written the abstract.
- Authors should clear is it Review or Research paper? Authors have written Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion. However, in Abstract authors presented this paper as Review. This Ms must be critically revised.
It is a review analysis of the effects of Air pollution on the agricultural community in the Indian context. As per given suggestions we have revised the manuscript at critical places and made the required changes and highlighted with blue color.
- This Ms. must checked by an English expert.
Thank you for valuable suggestions. As per the given suggestions we have corrected spelling and grammar errors throughout the manuscript.
- Authors should need to strengthen the introduction section.
Thank you for valuable suggestions. As per the given suggestions we have strengthen the introduction section, and highlighted with blue color.
- In Result discussion, relevant research works are not cited.
Thank you for valuable suggestions. As per the given suggestions we have cited latest research works and highlighted with blue color.
- Authors should add how this study can be beneficial to the society.
Thank you for valuable suggestions. As per the given suggestions we have mentioned the significance of the study for the society in the conclusion section and highlighted with blue color.
- Authors must cross check references from text to reference list, vice versa.
Thank you for valuable suggestions. As per the given suggestions, we have cross verified the references.
- Authors must check any typological errors to avoid any mistake.
Thank you for valuable suggestions. As per the given suggestions we have corrected typo errors throughout the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Title: A study of the Impacts of Air Pollution on the Agricultural Community and Yield Crops (Indian Context)
Key words
Authors should rephrase keywords. Do not use words or terms in the title as keywords: the function of keywords is to supplement the information given in the title. Words in the title are automatically included in indexes, and keywords serve as additional pointers.
Background and Motivation
The authors give a sufficient introduction to the background of the study and this part can be refined, and need to be more clear and specific about the motivation for the study.
Impacts of Air Pollution on the Crops and Farmers
This section contains should refined the language, write around the section title, and reorganize the language structure of the section. Add depiction of the economic impact of crop growth conditions under the established air pollution.
Line 135 Figure 1 (a), (b) need remake
Materials and Methods
The relation between subsections needs to be reworked, e.g. 3.1 should not be juxtaposed with the rest of the subsections, Application Layer should occupy a separate subsection, etc.
Needs A brief description of the working principle of the physical sensing layer,
Line 2 Figure 2 Please increase the resolution of the image.
Results and discussion
A more visual description of the pollution situation and the impact on crops and a summary of the general pattern are needed in the article. The summary of the nature of the content needs to be strengthened and the content describing the nature needs to be refined. More innovative outlooks are needed. Or consider splitting the content into a section as conclusion.
Author Response
Q-1 Authors should rephrase keywords. Do not use words or terms in the title as keywords: the function of keywords is to supplement the information given in the title. Words in the title are automatically included in indexes, and keywords serve as additional pointers.
As per the given suggestions we have reframed some of the keywords to match the theme of the manuscript and highlighted it with red color.
Q-2 The authors give a sufficient introduction to the background of the study and this part can be refined, and need to be more clear and specific about the motivation for the study.
As per the given suggestions we have refined the introduction section and highlighted it with red color.
Q-3 This section contains should refined the language, write around the section title, and reorganize the language structure of the section. Add depiction of the economic impact of crop growth conditions under the established air pollution.
As per the given suggestions we have renamed appropriate sections.
Q-4 Line 135 Figure 1 (a), (b) need remake
As per the given suggestions we have redrawn the Figure 1 and 2.
Q-5 The relation between subsections needs to be reworked, e.g. 3.1 should not be juxtaposed with the rest of the subsections, Application Layer should occupy a separate subsection, etc.
As per the given suggestions we have reworked the subsections throughout the manuscript and highlighted it with red color.
. Q-6 Needs A brief description of the working principle of the physical sensing layer,
As per the given suggestions we have added the description of the physical sensing layer and highlighted it with red color.
Q-7 Line 2 Figure 2 Please increase the resolution of the image.
As per the given suggestions we have improved the resolution of Figure 2.
Q-8 A more visual description of the pollution situation and the impact on crops and a summary of the general pattern are needed in the article. The summary of the nature of the content needs to be strengthened and the content describing the nature needs to be refined. More innovative outlooks are needed. Or consider splitting the content into a section as conclusion.
As per the given suggestions we have refined nature related contents and highlighted it with blue color.
Reviewer 4 Report
Overall, it is considered to be a well-written thesis.
However, overall readability and analysis need to be added.
1. There are quite a lot of articles related to introductions. Therefore, it is judged that it would be better to present the previous research parts as different items.
2. In the case of the result, the picture and the sentence do not match each other well. Therefore, the readability is inevitably reduced considerably. For example, there should be Figure 4 just below the description that corresponds to Figure 4. Therefore, a match with the relevant content is required.
3. There is not much evidence to explain the reason compared to the data presented. Many sources have been used for analysis and results, but there is not much to explain the reasons for the results.
Therefore, it is judged that if the above contents are corrected, it will be a good thesis.
Author Response
Q-1. There are quite a lot of articles related to introductions. Therefore, it is judged that it would be better to present the previous research parts as different items.
As per the given suggestions we have corrected the spelling and grammar errors throughout the manuscript and highlighted with green color.
Q-2. In the case of the result, the picture and the sentence do not match each other well. Therefore, the readability is inevitably reduced considerably. For example, there should be Figure 4 just below the description that corresponds to Figure 4. Therefore, a match with the relevant content is required.
As per the given suggestions we have placed and description in more convenient way for better understanding to readers and highlighted it with orange color.
Q-3. There is not much evidence to explain the reason compared to the data presented. Many sources have been used for analysis and results, but there is not much to explain the reasons for the results.
As per the given suggestions we have highlighted the summary and societal benefit of results in the conclusion section for better understanding to readers, and highlighted it with orange color.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors replied most of the comments satisfactorily. So the Ms can be acceptable.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed most of the comments; they have also tried to make changes according to the reviewers suggestions. After revisions, the quality of the manuscript has been adequately enhanced.
Therefore, the manuscript could be considered for the publication in the Journal.
