Assessing the Plant Health System of Burundi: What It Is, Who Matters and Why

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is not a research article. In fact, it is a report of a project formatted to make an article. It does not contribute to the knowledge of science and sustainability. I do not recommend this article be published as a scientific article.

Author Response

Comments 1: This is not a research article. In fact, it is a report of a project formatted to make an article. It does not contribute to the knowledge of science and sustainability. I do not recommend this article be published as a scientific article.

Response: Thank you for your comment. It is our considered opinion, however, that contrary to the claim that the article does not contribute to the knowledge of science, the article, in fact: (i) provides insights into definitive features of the in-country contextual influences (key features and multiple issues affecting the plant health system), and (ii) identifies domains and intervention points for strengthening the wider plant health system – two aspects we feel are quite novel.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper summarises a comprehensive assessment process for the PHS of Burundi. Authors have used literature review, and workshops and meetings with Burundian PHS stakeholders to understand their national PHS. They have mapped the stakeholders according to their interest, influence, and their interactions, they have identified the role and function of key actors, and they have recognised the strengths and weaknesses of the elucidated PHS. They conclude the paper with seven specific recommendations for strengthening the PHS of Burundi.

This work constitutes an important contribution. I hope that once published, serves to motivate similar enterprises in other African countries and beyond.

I strongly recommend its publication with minimal revisions. For instance, the numbering of the reference list must be corrected. On the other hand, I would like to know why the bibliographical review was done from 2016. I wonder if you are not losing crucial additional literature, published before that date, that could help us in your assessment.

Author Response

Comment 1: I strongly recommend its publication with minimal revisions. For instance, the numbering of the reference list must be corrected.

Response: It has been noted that the numbering in the reference section was erroneous where instead of starting at 1, it inadvertently started at 16. This has now been corrected.

Comment 2: On the other hand, I would like to know why the bibliographical review was done from 2016. I wonder if you are not losing crucial additional literature, published before that date, that could help us in your assessment

Response: We realize the wording of the statement in question may have been misleading. Indeed, literature published before 2016 was also considered. Consequently, the text has been reworded appropriately.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

N/A

Author Response

Comments 1: Moderate English changes required

Response: Thank you for the advisory; in the revised version, we have attempted to (i) improve spelling, grammar, and punctuation; (ii) make the writing easier to understand; (iii) make the writing more interesting and effective. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript