Determining Factors for Farmers to Engage in Sustainable Agricultural Practices: A Case from Indonesia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Very interesting study and impressive amount of work due to the size of the sample. I find that it might be lacking a bit of ambition. With that work you could be presenting a wider study, with a better academic framework where you could state hypothesis, select variables according to previous studies and so on.
References should be checked as for the way they are cited. And minor English editing is needed because some sentences seem to be missing something and so, they are difficult to understand.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your invaluable comments, which helped us a lot in improving our article. We have revised the article as per your suggestions. Below are our responses to your comments:
Comment:
Very interesting study and impressive amount of work due to the size of the sample. I find that it might be lacking a bit of ambition. With that work you could be presenting a wider study, with a better academic framework where you could state hypothesis, select variables according to previous studies and so on
Response:
We have made major revision to the article as you suggested. The hypotheses are put in the materials and method section, line 164 – 174. We also put justification based on previous studies to the variables’ selection. These justifications are spread in the last part of introduction section and more detailed in the materials and method section starting from line 142 to 175.
Comment:
References should be checked as for the way they are cited. And minor English editing is needed because some sentences seem to be missing something and so, they are difficult to understand
Response:
We have updated the reference and added more references to further complete the article’s framework. You can find detailed revision in the revised articles. The article has also been proofread by MDPI English editing service. Below is the English editing certificate.
Reviewer 2 Report
This article discusses an interesting topic, namely sustainable agricultural practices with cases in Indonesia. However, the manuscript in its present form has several lacks, such as the following:
1. The urgency of research is still not strong in this manuscript, especially in abstract and introduction
2. This research has scant literature with old reference years
3. The method section has not yet determined the sampling technique used, nor has the hypothesis been found in this manuscript
4. There are still some typing errors found, one of which is in lines 358-359, where only brackets are found without the number of references.
5. The conclusion section has yet to discuss managerial implications. The stated research directions need to be more specific: environmental issues often become research limitations even though these indicators can be researched.
Therefore, I am refusing this article to proceed to the review section.
Please revise it so that this manuscript is better than the current condition.
Thank You.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your invaluable comments, which helped us a lot in improving our article. We have revised the article as per your suggestions. Below are our responses to your comments:
Comment:
The urgency of research is still not strong in this manuscript, especially in abstract and introduction
Response:
We have made major revision to the article as you suggested. These justifications are spread in the last part of introduction section and more detailed in the materials and method section starting from line 142 to 175.
Comment:
This research has scant literature with old reference years
Response:
We have updated the reference and added more references to further complete the article’s framework.
Comment:
The method section has not yet determined the sampling technique used, nor has the hypothesis been found in this manuscript
Response:
The sampling technique is explained in the line 127 – 141. The hypotheses are put in the materials and method section, line 164 – 174. We also put justification based on previous studies to the variables’ selection.
Comment:
There are still some typing errors found, one of which is in lines 358-359, where only brackets are found without the number of references.
Response:
The article has been proofread by MDPI English editing service. The English editing certificate is attached in this document.
Comment:
The conclusion section has yet to discuss managerial implications. The stated research directions need to be more specific: environmental issues often become research limitations even though these indicators can be researched
Response:
We have improved the conclusion based on your sugesstions.
Comment:
Therefore, I am refusing this article to proceed to the review section. Please revise it so that this manuscript is better than the current condition.
Response:
We have made major revisions to the article, improved the overall framework and quality of the manuscritpt. We thank you for your feedback.
Reviewer 3 Report
The advantage of the article is the compliance of its subject matter with the name of the journal. Survey research was carried out, the results were compiled using logit regression, correct, very obvious conclusions were drawn. The article is important in shaping the regional agricultural policy.
The quality of the research material is questionable. The authors do not explain the dependent variables: what doses of mineral fertilizers were considered too high?, what pro-environmental activities were asked about? what measures have been taken to improve soil fertility? Some independent variables are also not precisely defined.
It is worth discussing the survey questions and the method of conducting the survey in detail.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your invaluable comments, which helped us a lot in improving our article. We have revised the article as per your suggestions. Below are our responses to your comments:
Comment:
The advantage of the article Is the compliance of its subject matter with the name of the journal. Survey reseach was carried out, the results were compiled using logit regression, correct, very obvious conclusions were drawn. The article is important in shaping the regional agricultural policy.
Response:
Thank you for your insights.
Comment:
The quality of the research material is questionable. The authors do not explain the dependent variables: what doses of mineral ferstilizers were considered too high? What pro-environmental activities were asked about? What measures have been taken to improve soil fertility? Some independent variables are also not precisely defined. It is worth discussing the survey questions and the method of conducting the survey in detail.
Response:
We put justification based on previous studies to the variables’ selection. These justifications are spread in the last part of introduction section and more detailed in the materials and method section starting from line 142 to 175. The sampling technique is explained in the line 127 – 141. The hypotheses are put in the materials and method section, line 164 – 174. We also put justification based on previous studies to the variables’ selection. The survey questions were also discussed in the materials and methods section within those lines.
More detailed revisions can be found in the revised manuscript. We have also proofread the manuscript, attached is the proofreading certificate.
Reviewer 4 Report
This study investigates the socio-economic factors affecting farmers’ engagement in Sustainable Agricultural Practices.
Although the topic of the manuscript is interesting, the paper is written in a very weak way. In the introduction or the missed section related to framework, no explanation is given about the importance of socio-economic constructs. No special or attractive literature review has been written for it.
The language of the manuscript is colloquial and its weakness is evident. This manuscript does not seem to be able to expand the existing knowledge, so, this study is not suitable for publication at all.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your invaluable comments, which helped us a lot in improving our article. We have revised the article as per your suggestions. Below are our responses to your comments:
Comment:
This study investigates the socio-economic facrots affecting farmers’ engagement in Sustainable Agricultural Practices. Although the topic of the manuscript is interesting, the paper is written in a very weak way. In the introduction or the missed section related to framework, no explanation is given about the importance of socio-economic constructs. No special or attractive literarture review has been written for it.
Response:
Thank you for your comments. We realize that the manuscript is poorly written. Consequently, we have made major revisions to the manuscript as you suggested by reshaping the framework and adding more references to the introduction, and materials and methods sections.
Comment:
The language of the manuscript is colloquial and its weakness is evident. This manuscript does not seem to be able to expand the existing knowledge, so, this study is not suitable for publication at all.
Response:
More detailed revisions can be found in the revised manuscript. We have also proofread the manuscript, attached is the proofreading certificate.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript has been properly improved. But there are two points must be fixed as a follows:
1) Please add your managerial implication in your abstract.
2) please combine your table 4, table 5, table 6 and table 7 into one table due to independent variables are similar. Therefore, the comparison between effects can be seen.
Thank you, Goodluck.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your invaluable comments, which helped us a lot in improving our article. We have revised the article as per your suggestions. Below are our responses to your comments:
Comment:
Please add your managerial implication in your abstract
Response:
Thank you for your reminder, we have added it in the end of the abstract
Comment:
Please combine your table 4, table 5, table 6 and table 7 into one table due to independent variables are similar. Therefore, the comparison between effects can be seen.
Response:
We agree with your suggestion, and we really appreciate it, thank you very much. We have combined the mentioned tables into one table.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Its need correction in the production proof. For example numbering of formulas are wrong.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your invaluable comments, which helped us a lot in improving our article. We have revised the article as per your suggestions. Below are our responses to your comments:
Comment:
Its need correction in the production proof. For example, numbering of formulas is wrong.
Response:
Thank you for your reminder, we forgot to fix that in the previous version. We have fixed it in this version. We really appreciate for your suggestions and reviews, thank you very much.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for your revisions. In addition, please add two or three keywords in your abstract
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We have added 2 more keywords in the abstract (line 22-23). Thank you very much for your reminder.
