Sustainable Agriculture Management: Environmental, Economic and Social Conjunctures for Coffee Sector in Guerrero, via Traditional Knowledge Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for your submission, and here are my comments: First, an introduction to the topic:

The opening sentence is extremely concise and directly addresses the current knowledge gap, specifically regarding traditional knowledge management in agriculture. Here sites need solid details about the background of conjunctures for the coffee sector. second Results  Clarity: The statistical results are well-presented but could be slightly more detailed to explain the context of the partial associations. third, Conclusion:  End with a weak concluding statement that reiterates the importance and potential application of your findings. Overall, your research is informative and covers the key aspects of your research. The suggested revisions aim to improve readability and clearly communicate the significance of your study.

 

#1 Introduction: The introduction fails to'sell’ the benefits to the reader of the study. Plus, the gaps found in past literature have not been identified, and it is necessary to explain how this research tries to fill these gaps. On the other hand, the introduction needs to establish the most relevant studies in the area, and at this moment, this is not done!

 

#2The literature review lacks depth and breadth. This section does not bring the readers to a clear statement of the art of the literature on this topic. A clear positioning of the conceptual background should be pointed out. Furthermore, the authors should explain what they do, why these approaches were selected, and why not another one. In the results, The originality and relevance of the research should be highlighted. as well, I suggest presenting this section in two parts: one for the theoretical background and the other for the hypothesis development.

 

#3 Results: These need profound alterations to clarify how the hypotheses were tested. I am afraid that the methods used are not sufficiently robust to test the hypotheses. Please split the sections Results and Discussion; they should be two autonomous sections. To answer clearly the research question, "Can tacit knowledge become explicit to create actions towards sustainability within the agricultural circuit of planting, harvesting, and first disposal of coffee production via KM? Specifically, the discussion should be developed with a more detailed conversation with the previous literature.

 

#4 Conclusions: "In conclusion, it is stated that the creation of actions in favour of social, economic, and environmental factors, combining tacit and explicit knowledge within the agricultural ecosystem, speaking of coffee production in Guerrero, Mexico, can lead to sustainable agriculture mnagement." What are the mechanisms? Please clarify. The conclusions are superficial. Here you discuss again the results rather than evidence of the contributions and managerial implications, and kindly mention the limitations and future research direction.

 

#5 specifies more deeply why this paper is important for future research (section “Conclusion”) and whether there are some limitations to the research. In general, please provide more detailed conclusions and implications of the results, because currently they are quite short.

 

#6 Based on research findings, give some specific recommendations for Sustainable Agriculture Management in Conjunctures for the Coffee Sector in Guerrero. In its current format,

 

 

Finally, the manuscript is appropriate for publication, but it requires considerable development. 

Author Response

Comment 1: 

The opening sentence is extremely concise and directly addresses the current knowledge gap, specifically regarding traditional knowledge management in agriculture. Here sites need solid details about the background of conjunctures for the coffee sector. second Results Clarity: The statistical results are well-presented but could be slightly more detailed to explain the context of the partial associations. third, Conclusion:  End with a weak concluding statement that reiterates the importance and potential application of your findings. Overall, your research is informative and covers the key aspects of your research. The suggested revisions aim to improve readability and clearly communicate the significance of your study.

Response 1: Thanks for your comments: studies on knowledge management and sustainability in the agricultural context have been integrated to clarify the benefits for the reader by explaining the background and the situation with the coffee sector through the lack of conjunction of traditional knowledge. Please see lines 57-62. Regarding the statistical results, the environmental and economic context was detailed based on the partial correlation between these dimensions. Please see lines 555-558. The conclusions were strengthened by detailing the importance and application of the findings. Please see lines 634-671.

Comment 2: Introduction: The introduction fails to'sell’ the benefits to the reader of the study. Plus, the gaps found in past literature have not been identified, and it is necessary to explain how this research tries to fill these gaps. On the other hand, the introduction needs to establish the most relevant studies in the area, and at this moment, this is not done!

Response 2: Thanks for your comments: to clarify the gaps in the current literature, industries replaced the word organizations to differentiate the agricultural sector. Studies on knowledge management and sustainability were integrated into the agricultural context to make the benefits more transparent for the reader by clarifying the background and situation with the coffee sector through the lack of conjunction of traditional knowledge. Please see the fourth line, page 1, and lines 57-62.

Comment 3: The literature review lacks depth and breadth. This section does not bring the readers to a clear statement of the art of the literature on this topic. A clear positioning of the conceptual background should be pointed out. Furthermore, the authors should explain what they do, why these approaches were selected, and why not another one. In the results, The originality and relevance of the research should be highlighted. as well, I suggest presenting this section in two parts: one for the theoretical background and the other for the hypothesis development.

Response 3: Thanks for your comments: throughout the sub-themes of art literature, a conceptual and practical positioning of the paradigms used is established, granting breadth from the review of the public and private sectors. From this, the ways in which how knowledge is managed with its tacit and explicit knowledge are delved into, establishing it from an international context. Please see lines 202-211 and 247-249. This provides the theoretical-practical support of the hypotheses, so we are inclined to leave the same approach in favour of a well-founded and sequential reading for the reader. The selected approaches begin with justification from the second paragraph, which begins to mention the interaction between people and their environment, combining their knowledge to achieve sustainability. This is interrelated with agriculture and its traditional knowledge, which is combined with tacit and explicit knowledge. Please see paragraph 2, first line, plus lines 49-65.

Comment 4: Results: These need profound alterations to clarify how the hypotheses were tested. I am afraid that the methods used are not sufficiently robust to test the hypotheses. Please split the sections Results and Discussion; they should be two autonomous sections. To answer clearly the research question, "Can tacit knowledge become explicit to create actions towards sustainability within the agricultural circuit of planting, harvesting, and first disposal of coffee production via KM? Specifically, the discussion should be developed with a more detailed conversation with the previous literature.

Response 4: Thanks for your comments: regarding the hypotheses, a paragraph was added to establish how they were tested, strengthening the discussion. Please see lines 344-350; 587, 596, 611-612. The results and discussion sections are found as autonomous sections in points 4 and 5; however, detail was added to the discussion with respect to the cited literature. Please see lines 587-591, 599-600, 625-629.

Comment 5: Conclusions: "In conclusion, it is stated that the creation of actions in favour of social, economic, and environmental factors, combining tacit and explicit knowledge within the agricultural ecosystem, speaking of coffee production in Guerrero, Mexico, can lead to sustainable agriculture mnagement." What are the mechanisms? Please clarify. The conclusions are superficial. Here you discuss again the results rather than evidence of the contributions and managerial implications, and kindly mention the limitations and future research direction.

Response 5: Thanks for your comments: the mechanisms were clarified, the results discussed, and limitations and future directions for further research recorded. Please see lines 625-671.

Comment 6: Specifies more deeply why this paper is important for future research (section “Conclusion”) and whether there are some limitations to the research. In general, please provide more detailed conclusions and implications of the results, because currently they are quite short.

Response 6: Thanks for your comments: this study's limitations and future research have been detailed. Please see lines 634-671.

Comment 7: Based on research findings, give some specific recommendations for Sustainable Agriculture Management in Conjunctures for the Coffee Sector in Guerrero. In its current format.

Response 7: 

Thank you for your comments. The recommendations for sustainable agricultural management were established in the conclusions section in the same order. Please see lines 625-629 and 662-665.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors! Thank you for the work you provided; it has a clear economic focus. The article is devoted to a set of environmental, economic and social actions for the stability of production and sale of coffee-containing products. The results may be of interest to economists and management workers. The article needs the following edits: 1) There is no dot in the title. 2) It is necessary to decipher abirivetarurs the first time they are understood in the text, for example, KM and AL. 3) In the Introduction it is necessary to more clearly outline the relevance, problem and purpose of the research. 4) Fig. 4 I consider unsuccessful, in the graph the labels on the X axis are unreadable 5) It is proposed in the “Discussion” section to extrapolate your data not only to Mexico, but also to the entire world experience of coffee cultivation. 6) In the “Conclusion” it is necessary to more clearly describe the most important results obtained in the work. 7) It is necessary to work on the design of the list of references, format it according to the rules of the journal. Add more links there in recent years (2020 – 2024). 8) The article is written in an obscure language and needs stylistic corrections in the English text. I believe that only after revision of the manuscript can the article be published in the journal. July 16, 2024 Respectfully Yours, reviewer

Comments on the Quality of English Language

General style editing of all text required.

Author Response

Comment 1: There is no dot in the title. 

Response 1: Thank you for your comment: a dot was added after the word management. Please see line 1.

Comment 2: It is necessary to decipher abirivetarurs the first time they are understood in the text, for example, KM and AL.

Response 2: Thank you for your comment: for better understanding, all abbreviations were eliminated, leaving the complete word. Only those accompanied by their respective meanings were left. Please see lines 322-324, 678-679, 684-685, and 695-698.

Comment 3: In the Introduction it is necessary to more clearly outline the relevance, problem and purpose of the research. 

Response 3: Thank you for your comment: the introduction was strengthened by clarifying the relevance and problems, enhancing the purpose of the research. Please see lines 49-89.

Comment 4: Fig. 4 I consider unsuccessful, in the graph the labels on the X axis are unreadable.

Response 4: Thanks for the comment: the x-axis labels in Figure 4 have been modified for readability. Please see page 14.

Comment 5: It is proposed in the “Discussion” section to extrapolate your data not only to Mexico, but also to the entire world experience of coffee cultivation. 

Response 5: Thank you for your comment: we have described how the data from this research can be extrapolated. Please see lines 625-629.

Comment 6: In the “Conclusion” it is necessary to more clearly describe the most important results obtained in the work.

Response 6: Thank you for your comment: the conclusions section was described more precisely and in detail. Please see lines 634-671.

Comment 7: It is necessary to work on the design of the list of references, format it according to the rules of the journal. Add more links there in recent years (2020 – 2024). 

Response 7: Thank you for your comment: the reference list was verified and modified according to the journal's rules, and more links from the 2020-2024 period were added. Please see lines 702-923.

Comment 8: The article is written in an obscure language and needs stylistic corrections in the English text. I believe that only after revision of the manuscript can the article be published in the journal. July 16, 2024 Respectfully Yours, reviewer.

Response 8: Thank you for your comment: style corrections were made in addition to language clarification throughout the body of the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx