Next Article in Journal
The Economic Influence of Energy Storage Construction in the Context of New Power Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Improving Lithium-Ion Battery Supply Chain Information Security by User Behavior Monitoring Algorithm Incorporated in Cloud Enterprise Resource Planning
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Heat-Tolerant Maize Hybrids in the Mid-Western Terai Region of Nepal

Sustainability 2023, 15(4), 3068; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043068
by Atul P. Kulkarni 1,*, Mahendra P. Tripathi 2, Damodar Gautam 2, Keshab B. Koirala 2, Manoj Kandel 2, Dhruba Regmi 2, Sudha Sapkota 3 and Pervez H. Zaidi 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3:
Sustainability 2023, 15(4), 3068; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043068
Submission received: 28 November 2022 / Revised: 8 January 2023 / Accepted: 3 February 2023 / Published: 8 February 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript can be published if it is revised in accordance with the recommendations below and satisfactory answers to the criticism. This manuscript requires a revision with a correction for it to be publishable.

1. The language of the manuscript should be revised and corrected, professionally.


2. Was the sample size determined via a sampling process? It is representative of the study population? Explain better how the data was collected, and how the sample was selected. Was there a pre-test to apply the questionnaire? Have the questionnaire applicators been trained? These need to be explained in the method. Why was the research area chosen? Is this study conducted in the region important for both Nepal and the world economy? What are the contributions of the research to Nepal and to the world economy in terms of agricultural production?


3. The biggest weakness of the study is the explanation of how the questionnaire was structured. How did you determine what are the sources? I suggest that the authors present a table in which they identify the studies from which they selected the questions regarding hypotheses. Questionnaire form may be attached as an appendix in the end of manuscript.


4. The assumption of normality disregarded, which makes the results biased. The results may be affected due to the parameter estimates being biased. In this context, I suggest that the estimates be redone after control of normality.

See: Glewwe (1997) A test of the normality assumption in ordered probit model, Econometric Reviews, 16:1, 1-19, DOI: 10.1080/07474939708800369.

Is multicollinearity a problem or not for independent variables used in regression analysis.

See: (1) Belsley, D. A., E. Kuh, and R. E. Welsch. 1980. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons

(2) Surabhi Mittal & Mamta Mehar (2016) Socio-economic Factors Affecting Adoption of Modern Information and Communication Technology by Farmers in India: Analysis Using Multivariate Probit Model, The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 22:2, 199-212, DOI: 10.1080/1389224X.2014.997255

(3) Jing Guan & Yunfeng Zhao (2020) Parameter estimation approaches to tackling measurement error and multicollinearity in ordinal probit models, Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, 49:16, 3835-3859, DOI: 10.1080/03610926.2019.1592193


5. Also, marginal effects of estimation coefficient must be calculated and presented.


6. Please read the guidelines for authors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The manuscript modified as per your suggestions. The comments file is attached here.

Regards,

Author.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

See the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Manuscript modified as per your suggestions. The comments attached here.

Regards,

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors:

First of all, congratulation for your work, really in this time, with a serious climate change that our world is facing, we need more researches, like your manuscript.

I send you some comments.

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Manuscript modified as per your suggestions. The response are attached here.

Regards,

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

     Some sentences are too long to understand。For example, the first sentence of the abstract. It's better to adjust the sentence structure。Please  improve the English language and style,and made some more changes in the manuscript. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

English languages modified from the expert; other necessary changes made in references. 

Regards,

Atul.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop