Impact of New Rural Pension Insurance on Farmers’ Agricultural Mechanization Service Inputs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Notes on the review

General remarks:

In their research, the authors focused on a narrow range of issues related to the study of the impact of the "New Rural Pension Insurance" in China on the development of agricultural mechanization. Two groups of farms were subjected to the research: those where the farmers were people over 60 years of age (considered by the authors to be older) and those where the farmers were only young people. However, according to the reviewer, the method of presenting the problem, both in terms of the research methodology and the results obtained, is unclear, which prevents a positive assessment of the authors' achievements. I do not think that the article in its current form could interest the readers of the journal Sustainability and make a significant contribution to the scientific development of the journal.

If the Authors decide to correct the text, below are some main guidelines according to which this can be attempted.

 Detailed remarks:

1. The summary is too general, it does not imply much. The summary should include the main results of the research carried out, not just general statements.

2. In the Executive Summary (line 15) - the abbreviation NRPI needs to be expanded. The abstract is the "business card" of the article, it cannot contain a commonly incomprehensible abbreviation.

3. Although the reviewer is not a fluent specialist in the English language, the poor level of this language is clearly felt, the text is difficult to read. In the text, very complex sentences are constructed, many times complex, but nothing really comes out of them. It is difficult to understand the thought that the Authors wanted to present (as an example - a sentence in verses 103 - 108). It is necessary to proofread the text by the Authors, and after that - also the Native-Speaker proofreading.

4. In the article, the authors present the results of statistical research, but due to the repeated repetition of the same formulations, it is difficult to assess the correctness of these studies and the accuracy or irregularities in the conclusions drawn.

5. Assuming the correctness of the statistical analyzes performed by the Authors (it is necessary to correct the text), the results presented in the tables should be visualized on charts, diagrams and graphs. They are illegible in their present form.

6. Much space in the article is devoted to comparative analyzes conducted in many aspects. The presentation of the results of these analyzes should also be done graphically, as a visualization of the results presented in the tables.

7. In the Discussion, it is necessary to take into account the state of the discussed issues in other countries. It is unacceptable that in a global journal such as Sustainability, the authors limit themselves to only one country, both in the Discussion and in the cited literature!

8. The list of literature items in the Bibliography shows that the authors did not refer to any international studies. The literature needs to be explored.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers again for taking the time to review our manuscript. Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

- The paper evaluates the pension program of NRPI in Chinese farmers. It is interesting but no unique contribution at all! It needs to be enhanced totally.

- From the title, it is confusing and difficult. Make it more precisely, shortly and appropriately.

- The abstract should show three contributions "always". First, methodological contribution. It should show why the paper choose Tobit model and its merits. Second, it should show unique contents contribution. What are the differences with and without NRPI among farmers. It is really confusing without any critical "comparison" and unique suggestions. Don't repeat the common-sense type of conclusion such that NRPI improves the farmers family, because everybody can say this kind of common suggestion. Third, data should be unique, but in the paper there is no good explanation on the data collection, especially the example period(?). Especially, the abstract should show some "numeric" result with its implications and suggestions, because it is the only unique part of authors.

- In the paper, "heterogeniety" is very important, and thus it should clarify the implications and suggestions of this heterogeniety among the farmers. Especially, there are several variables are "not" accepted, which is important and thus need to explain why these variables are rejected.

- The conclusion should show more unique contribution in Chinese field-oriented suggestion.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers again for taking the time to review our manuscript. Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer Comments_v2

The authors largely took into account the comments from the reviews. Unfortunately, the visual side of the article is still poor. Despite this weakness of the article, I believe it could be published in the journal Sustainability.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

    Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. we really appreciate all your comments and suggestions!We will pay attention to improving the visibility of the article in the future

Reviewer 2 Report

- The revised paper reflects well the comments of the reviewers, and thus it is outstandingly enhanced its logical structure. I think it is acceptible for publication. 

- Just for the better quality, conclusion is a little confusing because it transfer too common sense. It could be more condensed, short, and clear.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers again for taking the time to review our manuscript. Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf