Next Article in Journal
Effect of Environmental Information Disclosure on the Financing Efficiency of Enterprises—Evidence from China’s Listed Energy Companies
Next Article in Special Issue
Physiological, Morphological and Biochemical Responses of Exogenous Hydrogen Sulfide in Salt-Stressed Tomato Seedlings
Previous Article in Journal
A Scoping Review of Pipeline Maintenance Methodologies Based on Industry 4.0
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Biochar and Process Water Derived from the Co-Processed Sewage Sludge and Food Waste on Garden Cress’ Growth and Quality
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Participatory Assessment of Potato Production Systems and Cultivar Development in Rwanda

Sustainability 2022, 14(24), 16703; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416703
by Jean Baptiste Muhinyuza 1,*, Alphonsine Mukamuhirwa 1, Marie Chantal Mutimawurugo 1, Jean Damascène Mazimpaka 1, Delitha Girumugisha Muhinyuza 2 and Rodomiro Octavio Ortiz Rios 3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2022, 14(24), 16703; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416703
Submission received: 18 October 2022 / Revised: 26 November 2022 / Accepted: 5 December 2022 / Published: 13 December 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author analyzed the problems existing in the local potato production system through a large amount of survey and research data, which has important guidance for future industrial policy formulation. The authors are to be commended for undertaking such work. However, there are concerns with the current version of the manuscript.

 

1.The sample survey distribution map is necessary because it reflects the representativeness of the samples.

 

2. The authors should introduce the content of the questionnaire design, the education level of the interviewees, the time span of the survey and other specific details, and so on.

 

3. The data analysis in Materials and methods part is too simple. How to analyze the description and statistics of large samples? How are important statistics handled?

 

4. The conclusion part should be revised thoroughly and concisely. The results need to be summarized and then draw a conclusion. There are too many descriptive sentences about the results in this section.

Author Response

All my responses, comments and corrections were included in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

All my responses, comments and answers were included in the revised manuscript for your consideration. the manuscript was send in the form of track change

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept in present form.

Back to TopTop