Utilizing Biofertilizer for Achieving Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Strategy towards Vision 2040, Oman

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

comment is attached 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Review of an article on:

Utilizing Biofertilizer for Achieving Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Strategy Towards 2040

Muzaffar Asad and Saud Yousuf Ahmed

The topic is current and interesting. The advantages of natural fertilizers are widely known. The use of natural fertilizers contributes to environmental protection and is a cheap source of nutrients for plants. From this point of view, the topic discussed is important, it is compatibile with the concept of sustainable development, therefore the choice of the topic should be considered appropriate.

However, I have some critical comments. The most important of them are:

1. Introduction - no purpose of research. The purpose of the research should be clearly emphasized.

The objectives of the study have been added along with the purpose of conducting research in Oman.

2. Methodology - requires supplementation and explanation:
3. a) e.g. lines 135-136 "For a qualitative study the ideal sample size of 10 to 15, however even five interviews are enough" - how do we know this? Please provide literature.

The support of the writeup has been added from scholarly sources and also it has been explained further. The literature support has been added at the point where the questionnaire has been discussed.

1. b) line 145 “A total of 384 respondents were involved to finalize the findings of the study as this size is considered as most appropriate for social sciences – whose opinion is this? Literature must be provided, why 384??.

Supported the sample size with the sources.

1. c) community development, cost-benefit analysis, etc. - these are measurable indicators, so how were they measured? This is not mentioned in the article.

The variables are measured using questionnaire, the actual measurements have not been taken because of the inability of farmers to calculate.  

2. Results – line 179 – “Few respondents…” what does it mean? how many?

Rectified

4. Discussion –
5. a) line 221 – “…harm owners..” - ???

Rectified

1. b) lines 325-328 - "The findings have identified that attitude, cost-benefit analysis, perceived behavioral control, risk perception, and subjective norms have a significant impact over the use of biofertilizers and use of biofertilizers has a significant impact over community development in terms of earnings, employment creation, use of more land for agriculture, and increasing the agricultural activities” - this opinion is unjustified, it does not result from the presented research.

I am sorry, I am unable to understand, this comment, because the data has been collected and this argument is built on the basis of the findings. So how it is unjustified, Please help me in understanding your question, otherwise I believe that this argument is built on the basis of data results. Please have a look at table 5 which shows the direct effects of the variables used in the study.

1. c) The literature needs to be supplemented. I propose to expand the discussion to include the research results of other authors. Three items are definitely not enough.
2. The authors use a lot of mental shortcuts, e.g. lines 202-203 - "...original fertilizer is taking too much time."

Please have a look at the sentence, it is the quoted statement by the respondent.

6. Line 121 - "tha data will be collected... - it has already been done and therefore should be past tense

The sentence has been rectified.

7. Tables and figures - complete the source.

All the tables are made by the use of SMART PLS which has already been mentioned, Again I am unable to understand that which table needs to be sourced.  

To sum up, the work requires major improvement and refinement.

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback I have significantly transformed that Paper based on your valuable suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. There are no logical explanations about why did you focus on the situation of Oman.

2. I couldn't find any research needs or a potential of theoretical contribution from Introduction part. It is because there is no research purpose/research questions/hypothesis, therefore the goal of research is very vague.

3. The authors should explain what is TPB and EUT (its definition and so on) at the beginning of Literature Review section. Then, you should explain how those concepts can be adopted in the present study.

4. Although the research framework deal with "community development", the authors just say "will ultimately lead to community development as an outcome variable." Why did you come up with such a hypothesis?

5. Why could you argue 10 to 15 is the ideal sample size? If there is a reference, it should be clearly stated.

6. The authors must show a one-to-one correspondence as to which literature the items in the questionnaire are taken from. In addition, the actual questionnaire should be included in the appendix.

7. The numbering of line 220 is wrong.

8. I cannot find Quinlan et al. (2018) (lines 239-240) in the reference list.

9. Finally, I couldn't understand the significance and needs of interview (the qualitative study). Even discussion part (lines 322-330) did not show a particular significance of the results. The authors only discuss findings of the quantitative study.

10. In practical significance, the authors must show specify which findings are useful and how. In addition, what is "more innovative significance" (line 350).

11. Also, the authors must be specific about which findings contributed to what, individually and specifically in the theoretical significance. The topic of policy makers is a practical significance.

"Now the world is considering innovation and sustainability in innovation in almost all the fields [3] including agriculture sector." (lines 33-34)

"to maximize the utility in this research the researchers proposed to add EUT with the core constructs of TPB, it may theoretically explain behavioural intents, according to the arguments." (lines 88-90)

"The findings are also helpful in achieving the objective of eco-friendly considerations and expanding the TPB and EUT to biofertilizers which has already been done previously, however, to the behavior of utilizing biofertilizer, but this study extended the same model to community development including employment generation, and income growth through utilizing more land for agriculture." (lines 358-362)

I only pick up three typical example but the draft was totally difficult to read. The authors must receive proofreading.

Author Response

1. There are no logical explanations about why did you focus on the situation of Oman.

Well justification has been added because the study is conducted in Oman considering the vision 2040 of Oman. Secondly the minimum contribution in the GDP and employment have been added for conducting the study in Oman.

2. I couldn't find any research needs or a potential of theoretical contribution from Introduction part. It is because there is no research purpose/research questions/hypothesis, therefore the goal of research is very vague.

A brief writeup has been added at the end of the introduction section along with the objectives of the study.

3. The authors should explain what is TPB and EUT (its definition and so on) at the beginning of Literature Review section. Then, you should explain how those concepts can be adopted in the present study.

TPB and EUT have been addressed briefly in the start of the literature and then linked with the model developed.

4. Although the research framework deal with "community development", the authors just say "will ultimately lead to community development as an outcome variable." Why did you come up with such a hypothesis?

The elements of community developments have been added in the literature before the framework.

5. Why could you argue 10 to 15 is the ideal sample size? If there is a reference, it should be clearly stated.

The methodology has been improved catering this issue and others too.

6. The authors must show a one-to-one correspondence as to which literature the items in the questionnaire are taken from. In addition, the actual questionnaire should be included in the appendix.

The questionnaire and interview guide has been attached.

7. The numbering of line 220 is wrong.

The sentence has been rectified

8. I cannot find Quinlan et al. (2018) (lines 239-240) in the reference list.

The citation has been added in the reference list

9. Finally, I couldn't understand the significance and needs of interview (the qualitative study). Even discussion part (lines 322-330) did not show a particular significance of the results. The authors only discuss findings of the quantitative study.

The basic reason for conducting the interviews was to understand the behavior of farmers which shows that they are somehow aware of the advantages but are reluctant in using biofertilizers, because of their misunderstanding about the advantages. Still it has been explained as well.

10. In practical significance, the authors must show specify which findings are useful and how. In addition, what is "more innovative significance" (line 350).
11. Also, the authors must be specific about which findings contributed to what, individually and specifically in the theoretical significance. The topic of policy makers is a practical significance.

The practical significance has been enhanced with reference to business opportunities related to policymakers as well as perspective entrepreneurs.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

"Now the world is considering innovation and sustainability in innovation in almost all the fields [3] including agriculture sector." (lines 33-34)

"to maximize the utility in this research the researchers proposed to add EUT with the core constructs of TPB, it may theoretically explain behavioural intents, according to the arguments." (lines 88-90)

"The findings are also helpful in achieving the objective of eco-friendly considerations and expanding the TPB and EUT to biofertilizers which has already been done previously, however, to the behavior of utilizing biofertilizer, but this study extended the same model to community development including employment generation, and income growth through utilizing more land for agriculture." (lines 358-362)

I only pick up three typical example but the draft was totally difficult to read. The authors must receive proofreading.

The entire Paper has been proof read by a native language Schoolar.

Reviewer 3 Report

I congratulate the authors on an interesting article. My main comments are as follows:

1. Since the article is addressed to the international community, it should provide an overview of Omani agriculture in the introduction. What is the number of farms? What do the farms produce? What is the size of the agricultural farms?

2. Availability of restricted fertilisers on farms is a determining factor in the use of restricted fertilisers. How many farms in Oman keep animals? Do farms that keep animals sell manure? If they sell it in what form (is it processed and packaged?). What other organic fertilisers are on the market?

3. I think it would be useful to present the group of farmers involved in the research in greater detail. There is a lack of information on their production directions. How many of the 384 farms surveyed had animals?

4. A very important factor highlighted by the farmers in the study is the cost of fertilisers. What was the cost per kilogram of nitrogen contained in organic fertilisers and what was the price per kilogram of nitrogen contained in urea in Oman? Knowing these relationships makes it easier to understand farmers in the measures they take. They tend to look through the prism of their own benefit and are less concerned with the general welfare of society.

Author Response

1. Since the article is addressed to the international community, it should provide an overview of Omani agriculture in the introduction. What is the number of farms? What do the farms produce? What is the size of the agricultural farms?

The Available information showing importance of the sector has been added in the introduction section and highlighted.

2. Availability of restricted fertilisers on farms is a determining factor in the use of restricted fertilisers. How many farms in Oman keep animals? Do farms that keep animals sell manure? If they sell it in what form (is it processed and packaged?). What other organic fertilisers are on the market?

This information has been added in the methodology section. However, regarding selling of the manure is not the business there in any kind so it has not been added.

3. I think it would be useful to present the group of farmers involved in the research in greater detail. There is a lack of information on their production directions. How many of the 384 farms surveyed had animals?

The group of farmers were already informed that their information will not be disclosed due to cultural issues of the country.

4. A very important factor highlighted by the farmers in the study is the cost of fertilisers. What was the cost per kilogram of nitrogen contained in organic fertilisers and what was the price per kilogram of nitrogen contained in urea in Oman? Knowing these relationships makes it easier to understand farmers in the measures they take. They tend to look through the prism of their own benefit and are less concerned with the general welfare of society.

The comparison has not been made in the study because bio fertilizer referred in the study is free for the farm holders. However, in another scientific research the relationship between cost and benefit can be conducted, which has been suggested in the recommendations for the future research.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been supplemented and corrected and is more readable. I still have a comment:  data in tables and figures should include a source, e.g. Source: own research. 

Author Response

The paper has been supplemented and corrected and is more readable. I still have a comment:  data in tables and figures should include a source, e.g. Source: own research.

Answer

Thank you, The source has been added as instructed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The authors just list variables of the model. This is not the research purpose (lines 100-113).

2. The authors only explain about TPB, and how you applied EUT had not been explained (lines 115-125). In addition, I couldn't understand why the authors can extend the model to community development through combining TPB and EUT.

3. The interview do not relate to any research objectives, research framework, and questionnaire. You must delete this part.

4. Although the authors show the evidence of ideal sample size of interview survey (lines 182-188), their sample size did not satisfy that criteria.

5. I have to say again."The authors must show a one-to-one correspondence as to which literature the items in the questionnaire are taken from." How did you create these question items from which reference? At least, the authors must explain about items of community development.

6. The authors must explain why and how did you prepare those questions of interviews (lines 217-223).

7. The authors must explain what does it means of diagonal number of Table 3 (i.e., 0.826, 0.933, 0.863, etc.).

8. The present study just confirm TPB in the context of biofertilizer in Oman. Therefore, you have to explain significant of the context. Otherwise, this draft cannot be a research paper.

9. Finally, I cannot understand what is community development in this paper. The authors must show the definition and explain how the questionnaire items describe it is.

10. I strongly concern about the data of the paper. Why did you write "5 stands for strongly agree" while it was 7-point Likert scale?

There are too many typos, and still hard to read.

Author Response

1. The authors just list variables of the model. This is not the research purpose (lines 100-113).

Answer

The purpose was explained already in the last paragraph. In the last corrections, you guided that the objectives should be added so I added the specific research objectives.

2. The authors only explain about TPB, and how you applied EUT had not been explained (lines 115-125). In addition, I couldn't understand why the authors can extend the model to community development through combining TPB and EUT.

Answer

The two theories are combined because one is related to the behavior and other is related to the cost and benefit analysis. Both the theories are extended with the outcome variable which is community development.

3. The interview do not relate to any research objectives, research framework, and questionnaire. You must delete this part.

Answer

Well interviews are the part of the study to understand the basic behavioral motives of farmers based on which the quantitative questions were drafted.

4. Although the authors show the evidence of ideal sample size of interview survey (lines 182-188), their sample size did not satisfy that criteria.

Answer

This criterion is mentioned in several studies and several qualitative studies followed the same number of sample size for conducting a qualitative study. I am sorry to say that perhaps the reviewer has not sufficient knowledge about qualitative even quantitative analysis as I observed from the questioning.

5. I have to say again. "The authors must show a one-to-one correspondence as to which literature the items in the questionnaire are taken from." How did you create these question items from which reference? At least, the authors must explain about items of community development.

Answer

The items used in the measurement of community development are mentioned and explained in the questionnaire as well.

6. The authors must explain why and how did you prepare those questions of interviews (lines 217-223).

Answer

The questions for the qualitative study are based on the factors identified in the literature, regarding those factors the questions were developed and its already mentioned in the methodology portion.

7. The authors must explain what does it means of diagonal number of Table 3 (i.e., 0.826, 0.933, 0.863, etc.).

Answer

Again the same it has been further explained, but it is obvious from the title of the table that what it is for.

8. The present study just confirm TPB in the context of biofertilizer in Oman. Therefore, you have to explain significant of the context. Otherwise, this draft cannot be a research paper.

Answer

The context has been explained in the introduction section with a detailed paragraph about why the Country has been chosen.

9. Finally, I cannot understand what is community development in this paper. The authors must show the definition and explain how the questionnaire items describe it is.

Answer

The community development has been explained in the literature.

10. I strongly concern about the data of the paper. Why did you write "5 stands for strongly agree" while it was 7-point Likert scale?

Answer

Thank you for identifying the mistake rectified in the annexure.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf