Evaluation of Crop Diversification on Indian Farming Practices: A Panel Regression Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General Comments:
This article discusses the assessment of crop diversification on Indian farming practices. The main findings of this article are very vague. Also, I am not sure if this is an original article or a review article.
The paper is generally not well written and structured. First of all, this article was not number lined for easy review. Some sentences and vocabularies used in this article are inappropriate and vague. In scientific articles, simple and straightforward words are recommended so that anyone who reads it can easily understand them. Also, there is a lack of sufficient information about the literature review, which could make readers not follow the present study rationale and methods, and also the findings were quite vague. In my opinion, this article has major shortcomings regarding some text ambiguities. I have provided some remarks below. In addition, the abstract section needs some major revision and I suggest that you add some analytical data results as this would help to have a better understanding of your research findings.
Specific Comments:
Title: The title of the article does not reflect in the abstract. The abstract sounded quite different from the title. For example, "The Assessment of Crop Diversification on Indian Farming Practices" but what I understood from the abstract was "The Effect of Crop Diversification on Indian Farming Practices"
Abstract:
1. The whole abstract was quite confusing. These words [imprint, refinement, and detected] should be changed to simple words such as "effect, improvement, and discovered" respectively. Or you can change those words to any other simple words for a better understanding.
2. In the abstract section, there is this line that says.. "the analysis was carried out from 1971 -72 to 2017 -18," what does this mean? Please explain in detail.
3. Also, you added "Crop concentration" to your abstract. I am not sure of the point you are trying to make. Please explain that part of the abstract in detail.
What does JEL Code mean?
Introduction:
In the introduction section, there is this line that says... " There is a supply dearth of various crops," what do you mean? Do you mean "There is a lack of supply of various crops"?
I suggest that you thoroughly revise the whole manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attached word file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript “The Assessment of Crop diversification on Indian Farming Practices” is a study on agricultural diversification in the major agricultural dominant states in India, as well as the factors that influence crop diversification. The finding of this study “India's agricultural sector is gradually diversifying in favor of high-value commodities such as fruits, vegetables, vegetable oils and oilseeds, and other high-valued commodities” is valuable and interesting; however, the way of presentation of results is not satisfactory. The manuscript is poorly structured with many grammatical errors. The description of results could be improved. Besides, the language of the manuscript doesn't meet the minimum standards of publication. Many sentences are hard to understand. The author should pay more attention to the usage of grammar and punctuation. I suggest that the author send the manuscript to the English Language Editing Services or a native English speaker for the further improvement.
Introduction section has many grammatical errors, needs modification. eg. "After the green revolution in 1960, India carried through the record production of food grain production from 51 million tonnes in 1950-51 to 287.17 million tonnes in 2018-19 (Kumari, Mehta, & Bhatia, 2020)."
Change it with "record food grain production"
"But, this is the fact that the increase in production of food grain has been restricted primarily only in cereals (rice and wheat), instead of other food grain products (coarse cereals and pulses)."
Sentence not clear. Avoid using "but" " if" etc. Plesae check other similar problems in the whole manuscript .
Results: The description of results could be improved. The results would better be more clear and concise.
Discussion: Discussion section requires to be improved a lot. Results should be properly discussed in light of earlier studies. Thoroughly improve the discussion section.
In tables authors wrote “Source: Authors’ calculation” is not appropriate.
Tables should contain uniform data set. Example: In Table 1, first four rows (1971-72, 1981-82…….10 years gap in data sets and then after 2012 it continuous. Please use same format, either in 10 year interval in whole table or year wise data.
References are not written as per the journal’s format.
Author Response
Please see the attached word file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Review
Sustainability
The Assessment of Crop diversification on Indian Farming Practices
I suggest following comments/suggestions to be made in the revised version.
Title
Title need to improve…..it should be impressive.
Abstract
Abstract should more concise and provide clear message of crop diversification of Indian farming practice. There is no data in abstract. It should be data base concise information.….. which is lacking.
Abstract should provide a concise summary of the most information of the manuscript. Please condense the information and provide a succinct abstract.
Introduction
Introduction need to improve with latest references…. Old reference as (Chand & Pal, 2003)
English Language should improve ……not well written …arrange the paragraph in such manner to link each other.
What are hypothesis, aim and objectives of investigations….should clearly mention
Please include newest references.
Material and method
Only two year has taken for analysis….some year data required in this study? ….parameters need to analysis for crop diversification should clearly mention and define.
Statistical analysis is also lacking. Without this the different treatments data is not comparable scientifically. There should some statistical parameters ……SD, LSD…. It may also perform regression-correlation analysis between different treatments….
Result and discussion
Result should written data as table & graph result. But it is written hypothetically. It needs to improve…
In 3.1 last paragraph, it is written……..”under organic certification process (registered under National Programme for Organic Production), the cultivable area has also increased. Among all the states, Madhya Pradesh has covered largest area under organic certification followed by Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and Karnataka (APEDA, 2021)”….without any data in table 1. It should be hypothetical.
Still there is a lot of improvement in language and discussion part.
I think the result and discussion has written well except language and supported by data. I did not find any mechanism or concept of crop diversification and transformation to achieve for balance crop productivity as intended by the authors in their study.
Conclusion
Very lengthy conclusion ….which should improve accordingly.
There should be clear recommendation ….not this much discussion.
You will be able to revise your manuscript prior finalizing its resubmission.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attached word file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
I have gone through the manuscript in details, authors has tried a lot explore the best possibility for Assessement of crop diversification in Indian farming practices. But in my view, a lot of improvement is still required for clearcut message to the International readers. My comments is appended in pdf file of manuscript for its quality improvent. Some other observation is noted by me also and it should be included before considering the manuscript for further considerations.
1. Titles of the manuscripts need to be modified
2. Backgrounds needs to be addressed properly for its practical implications for policy and planning stratigies
3. Nothing is mentioned about millets diversification and occupational diversification in whole manuscripts
4. Results and discussion part is to be improped further and supported by suitable references
5. Conclusion to revised in brief modes as it is lengthy and mentioned in bullet formats for clear message to the international readers
6. Avoid lumsum references to supportsimilar statements
6. Way forwards for working futhert in direction ahead is to be included
Other minor correction is also suggested and done in manuscript file for necessary incorporations
Author Response
Please see the attached word file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have revised and corrected the essential parts of the manuscript. The manuscript is now easy to follow. Information about the literature review was presented for readers to follow the present study rationale and methods, and the findings were given accordingly.
Author Response
see the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors could not sufficiently revise the manuscript to address the concerns raised. The manuscript is poorly structured, and there is no flow between sentences and paragraphs; some sentences are too long and hard to understand, especially in the Introduction section. Besides, the language of the manuscript doesn't meet the minimum standards of publication. Material and methods section is improved after revision. Results and discussion section still need substantial revisions.
Author Response
see the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Title & abstract is ok.
In introduction part still old reference is there. If possible to add newest references.
In heading 3.1. last para, pl check spell of 'hector'....it should be hectare.
References need to check with Journal style.
Author Response
see the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
I have gone through the revised manuscript and some minor correction/modification cis done in pdf for its quality improvemnts. I have given the comments in pdf and partculrly concusion is still lengthy need to be concised much. After incorporating all the suggestion, manuscrpt may kindly be considered for publication in journals.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
see the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Author have incorporated all the suggestions, I do not have any additional comments. The manuscript can be accepted.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable suggestion and comments.
