Framing Concepts of Agriculture 5.0 via Bipartite Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes an approach to explore "Agriculture 5.0" by using bipartite network analysis to classify the relationships between scientific journals and authors' keywords retrieved from articles in the Web of Science database. The authors build a comprehensive framework for understanding the interaction among technology, economic efficiency, and socioenvironmental sustainability. The work is valuable but could be reorganized to better show its novelty. Here are some comments:

1. What’s the research gap? In the introduction section, the authors discuss the transition from Agriculture 4.0 to 5.0, but do not clearly state the specific limitations of Agriculture 4.0 and how Agriculture 5.0 addresses these issues. It should be clearer to show the research gap that this study aims to explore or improve.

2. In the introduction section, the literature review mostly focuses on technological advances and precision agriculture but lacks coverage of social and cultural factors. Adding references to show the impact of cultural and social dimensions on the adoption of agricultural technology could better support the paper’s aim.

3. The authors introduce a classification of material and immaterial assets, but there is no detailed description of the mechanisms of interaction between them.

4. In the methods section, the proposed method should be explained more thoroughly. For example, parameters of the bipartite network, criteria for selecting keywords, thresholds for clustering, and the choice of layout algorithms should all be explained. The lack of detail makes the analysis difficult to reproduce.

5. Several figures, especially the network graphs, are difficult to interpret. For instance, for the entire bipartite network, the authors could consider presenting two separate graphs, one focusing on economic aspects and the other on socioenvironmental aspects. More legends and explanatory notes should be added for many figures, and specific examples should be provided to better explain the results.

6. In the results and discussion sections, more detailed explanation and discussion should be added. For example, figure 3 shows the growth in citation rates but lacks an explanation of the driving factors; figure 5 shows a power-law distribution but lacks further discussion on the significance of supernodes and how they contribute to Agriculture 5.0; figure 6 shows the keyword network, but the discussion of different clusters and their connections is not detailed enough. Other figures also have similar issues. The discussion section lacks descriptions of the interactions between economic and socioenvironmental aspects, instead treating them generically.

 

7. What’s the limitation? The authors should include a clear discussion of the limitations of the study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is complex and technical. The authors should simplify their expressions and make the structure clearer to enhance readability. Here are some suggestions:

1. Many sentences are overly complex, making them difficult to follow.

2. Numerous technical terms are used without brief definitions or explanations.

 

3. The language lacks specificity and directness.

Author Response

<Please, see the marked pdf file in the attachment for checking the changes, thank you.>

1. What’s the research gap? In the introduction section, the authors discuss the transition from Agriculture 4.0 to 5.0, but do not clearly state the specific limitations of Agriculture 4.0 and how Agriculture 5.0 addresses these issues. It should be clearer to show the research gap that this study aims to explore or improve.

 

Thank you for your recommendation. We clearly stated the research gap in lines 69-81: "... Addressing these challenges is essential [15], especially as climate change and resource depletion threaten the sustainability of food systems [9,12,24]. Moving from Agriculture 4.0 to 5.0 calls for a comprehensive approach where data collection, analytics, and decision-making are integrated to enhance sustainable agriculture. This shift can support food security, environmental preservation, and economic prosperity in a world with complex socioenvironmental demands [16].

This study aims to identify knowledge gaps in Agriculture 5.0 through an analysis of current scientific data, using a bipartite network to associate scientific journals with key(words) terms from articles in the Clarivate Web of Science database. By establishing a framework that connects concepts within Agriculture 5.0, this study highlights the balance between technology and socioenvironmental sustainability, offering a value-oriented framework [12,50] to guide future research and policy toward sustainable agriculture [8,14,16,51]."

 

2. In the introduction section, the literature review mostly focuses on technological advances and precision agriculture but lacks coverage of social and cultural factors. Adding references to show the impact of cultural and social dimensions on the adoption of agricultural technology could better support the paper’s aim.

 

Thank you for the suggestion. We explored the knowledge already present in the cited literature and reorganized the introduction and the overall manuscript as requested.

 

3. The authors introduce a classification of material and immaterial assets, but there is no detailed description of the mechanisms of interaction between them.

 

Thank you for raising this point. In our understanding, intangible assets are linked to cultural aspects, heritage, fairness, etc. An equivalent terminology for this concept could be ‘intangible’ assets (https://ich.unesco.org/en/what-is-intangible-heritage-00003). We refer to this issue in lines 302-307: “Finally, clusters 20 [53] and 24 [72,73] address themes of gender, poverty, power, and emancipation, reinforcing the importance of fair representation and inclusivity in sustainable development. The inclusion of these socioenvironmental dimensions underscores the need for a value-oriented framework in Agriculture 5.0 that recognizes both material (tangible) and immaterial (intangible) factors influencing sustainability [53,72,73,77].”

 

4. In the methods section, the proposed method should be explained more thoroughly. For example, parameters of the bipartite network, criteria for selecting keywords, thresholds for clustering, and the choice of layout algorithms should all be explained. The lack of detail makes the analysis difficult to reproduce.

 

Thank you for your comment aiming to clarify some of the methodological aspects.

4.1 For the bipartite network there is no parameterization. It is an easily applicable Gephi plugin.

4.2 We improved clarity by completely revising the manuscript. The graphs are hardly reproduced exactly for visual representation, as they depend on the chosen algorithm, but also on the (random) initial position of the nodes. Clustering algorithms can also provide a variable number of clusters with repeated executions, so we made it clear in lines 135 and 136 that we used default settings. The most important is the configuration of the dataset, explained by PRISMA, and informing the layout algorithm with settings, as presented in lines 173-180. For the keyword selection criteria, see lines 213-218: “Conceptual assets were selected based on these clusters, representing high centrality (economic) and low centrality (socio-environmental) sustainability dimensions (Table 1). These assets were selected for their functions within Agriculture 5.0, allowing a preliminary framework that differentiates between technological (economic) and socio-environmental concepts. The selection was arbitrarily limited, so that it can be improved and expanded.”

 

5. Several figures, especially the network graphs, are difficult to interpret. For instance, for the entire bipartite network, the authors could consider presenting two separate graphs, one focusing on economic aspects and the other on socioenvironmental aspects. More legends and explanatory notes should be added for many figures, and specific examples should be provided to better explain the results.

 

Thank you for the suggestion. Figure 6 has been divided into Figure 6 (entire D set) and Figure 7 (D subset of underexplored keywords among journals). Earlier figures 7 and 8 have been renamed to figures 8 and 9, respectively. Figure captions have also been clarified.

 

6. In the results and discussion sections, more detailed explanation and discussion should be added. For example, figure 3 shows the growth in citation rates but lacks an explanation of the driving factors; figure 5 shows a power-law distribution but lacks further discussion on the significance of supernodes and how they contribute to Agriculture 5.0; figure 6 shows the keyword network, but the discussion of different clusters and their connections is not detailed enough. Other figures also have similar issues. The discussion section lacks descriptions of the interactions between economic and socioenvironmental aspects, instead treating them generically.

 

Thank you for the raised points.

 

Reformulation of explanation for Figure 3 in lines 163-169: “Figure 3 illustrates the growth in citations of the selected articles, showing an increase from 2004 to 2023. These 210 articles were cited a total of 3,466 times. The exponential trend in citations, with an annual increase rate of around 30%, highlights growing interest in the field. The uptick in citations starting around 2004 aligns with the release of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report (http://www.millenniumassessment.org), which examined the impact of ecosystem changes on human well-being and recommended policies to promote sustainable use of ecosystems.”

 

Figure 5 improved explanations in lines 187-192: “Figure 5 presents the distribution of weighted degrees (kw) in the network. This distribution follows a power-law decay, indicating that a few high-degree nodes serve as central hubs in the network while many others have lower connectivity [59]. Five key journal nodes (superhubs) were identified with a high k_w value (>64), attracting keywords across articles and establishing them as prominent sources in this knowledge domain [60].”

 

Regarding the last request, we believe that the reviewer’s suggestion to split Figure 6 improved overall clarity. In addition, we revised the entire manuscript so that it is now more concise and objective regarding the “interactions between economic and socioenvironmental aspects”, as requested.

 

7. What’s the limitation? The authors should include a clear discussion of the limitations of the study.

 

The limitations of the current research is the lack of an ontology formalism based on Web Semantics. These limitations are now clearly declared following the conclusion: “While technological advancements will continue to drive progress, establishing shared standards, semantic agreements, and protocols for socioenvironmental data is likely essential for long-term sustainability. This study’s approach provides an initial structure for such a framework, though further development and formalization, possibly through Web Semantics or ontology-based methods, will be needed to refine it.”

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

The language is complex and technical. The authors should simplify their expressions and make the structure clearer to enhance readability. Here are some suggestions:

 

1. Many sentences are overly complex, making them difficult to follow.

Answer: Sentences were revised and simplified, thank you.

 

2. Numerous technical terms are used without brief definitions or explanations.

Answer: Most of the technical terms have been replaced and/or explained.

 

3. The language lacks specificity and directness.

Answer: The current revision made the manuscript objective and clearer, thank you.

 

We believe that, by considering all feedback provided by reviewers, we have achieved high standards. In particular, by implementing a comprehensive review as requested by the reviewers, thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of Framing semantic assets of Agriculture 5.0 via bipartite analysis

1. MDPI Sustainability journal standards compliance

• Suitability: The topic of the manuscript is a strong fit for the journal, especially in exploring the environmental and social aspects of Agriculture 5.0. However, there are a few key areas that need attention:
• Data transparency and accessibility: The journal emphasizes the importance of open access to data. While the manuscript references data from Clarivate Web of Science, it lacks detailed metadata or information on how to access the data. This could hinder the reproducibility of the study.
• Structure and formatting: Overall, the manuscript adheres to the MDPI formatting requirements, but it needs a bit more attention to detail regarding section numbering, table formatting, and citation style.
• Open access and FAIR principles: o fully align with the journal’s commitment to data transparency, the manuscript should better integrate the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) principles, which are only briefly mentioned.

2. Scientific contribution and methodological review

• Scientific rigor: The manuscript presents valuable scientific insights, particularly through its network analysis and conceptual exploration. However, there are some methodological concerns that limit its impact:
• Bibliometric and network analysis methodology: While the bipartite network analysis technique is appropriate, the rationale behind choosing this method needs to be clearer. More detailed justifications for the choice of centrality metrics and their importance in identifying conceptual assets would be beneficial.
• Sample and data selection: The paper analyzes 210 publications, but the criteria for their selection should be more transparent. It would be helpful to clearly outline the parameters used, such as the types of journals included, keywords, or criteria for author selection, to reduce the risk of bias.
• Figure and data interpretation: Some graphical representations, like Figures 3 and 4, could use clearer interpretations. Adding legends or explanations for color choices and node sizes would significantly enhance understanding.

Suggested fixes for Methodology:

• Bipartite Network Analysis: Provide a stronger justification for using bipartite networks, considering alternative methods and their limitations. Explain how this analysis addresses the research questions more effectively, as the current manuscript does not articulate a clear hypothesis.
• Data selection criteria: Clearly define all inclusion criteria for the 210 articles being analyzed. This may include adding a table or appendix outlining each step in the selection process.
• Figures and graphs: Enhance all figures with comprehensive legends, including a breakdown of color schemes, node sizes, and centrality metrics. These additions can greatly enhance interpretability.

3. Identified weaknesses and suggested revisions

• Conceptual framework and theoretical basis: While the manuscript aims to frame Agriculture 5.0, it would benefit from a more cohesive theoretical model that connects socioenvironmental and technological factors.
• Suggestion: Consider developing a conceptual model as a visual element to support the bipartite network results. This would clarify the relationship between socioenvironmental and technological aspects and strengthen the argument.
• Lack of empirical validation: There is no validation of the proposed framework using case studies, field data, or empirical testing
• Suggestion: Integrate case studies or empirical data to validate the network model, or consider discussing how future research could empirically test this model..

4. Overall evaluation and recommendation

• Does it meet the journal requirements? es, but it requires significant revisions. The article aligns with the scope of Sustainability but needs to improve in terms of methodological transparency, empirical rigor, and adherence to FAIR data principles.
• Can it be considered a scientific work? Yes, though, it would greatly benefit from a more robust explanation of the methodological choices made and a clearer conceptual framework.
• Mistakes and how to fix them:
• Transparency in methodology: Improve transparency in network analysis and selection criteria.
• Conceptual cohesion: Develop a more precise theoretical foundation that integrates socioenvironmental and technological components.
• Empirical validation: Consider integrating or suggesting empirical validation to increase the practical relevance of the findings.

Recommendation: Reconsider after major revisions. The manuscript has potential but requires substantial methodological and conceptual improvements before publication in MDPI’s Sustainability journal.

 

Author Response

<Please, see the marked pdf file in the attachment for checking the changes, thank you.>

 

Reviewer #2

 

Review of Framing semantic assets of Agriculture 5.0 via bipartite analysis

 

1. MDPI Sustainability journal standards compliance

 

Suitability: The topic of the manuscript is a strong fit for the journal, especially in exploring the environmental and social aspects of Agriculture 5.0. However, there are a few key areas that need attention:

 

Thank you.

 

1a) Data transparency and accessibility: The journal emphasizes the importance of open access to data. While the manuscript references data from Clarivate Web of Science, it lacks detailed metadata or information on how to access the data. This could hinder the reproducibility of the study.

 

Answer: Thank you for your comment. We have adopted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), which has been endorsed by several scientific communities as a methodologically and reproducibly-conscious approach for systematic reviews. By following PRISMA, one can obtain the same dataset output except in cases of updates to the Clarivate database, which is likely for years that are more recent.

 

1b) Structure and formatting: Overall, the manuscript adheres to the MDPI formatting requirements, but it needs a bit more attention to detail regarding section numbering, table formatting, and citation style.

Open access and FAIR principles: o fully align with the journal’s commitment to data transparency, the manuscript should better integrate the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) principles, which are only briefly mentioned.

 

Thank you for the recommendation to improve manuscript formatting. The manuscript has been fully revised also considering your recommendation. Concerning FAIR, we reinforce that the methodology section provides enough information to generate the dataset from Web of Science.

 

2. Scientific contribution and methodological review

 

Scientific rigor: The manuscript presents valuable scientific insights, particularly through its network analysis and conceptual exploration. However, there are some methodological concerns that limit its impact:

 

Bibliometric and network analysis methodology: While the bipartite network analysis technique is appropriate, the rationale behind choosing this method needs to be clearer. More detailed justifications for the choice of centrality metrics and their importance in identifying conceptual assets would be beneficial.

 

Thank you for raising these aspects. Please refer to the revised 2.4 section.

 

Sample and data selection: The paper analyzes 210 publications, but the criteria for their selection should be more transparent. It would be helpful to clearly outline the parameters used, such as the types of journals included, keywords, or criteria for author selection, to reduce the risk of bias.

 

Please, refer to the PRISMA method in Fig. 1, thank you.

 

Figure and data interpretation: Some graphical representations, like Figures 3 and 4, could use clearer interpretations. Adding legends or explanations for color choices and node sizes would significantly enhance understanding.

 

Thank you for the suggestions. Explanations have been provided in the revised version, thank you.  Figure 3, lines 163-169, and Figure 4, lines 173-180. See also figure caption of Figure 4.

 

Suggested fixes for Methodology:

 

Bipartite Network Analysis: Provide a stronger justification for using bipartite networks, considering alternative methods and their limitations. Explain how this analysis addresses the research questions more effectively, as the current manuscript does not articulate a clear hypothesis.

 

Please, consider the answer for question #1 from reviewer #1.

 

Data selection criteria: Clearly define all inclusion criteria for the 210 articles being analyzed. This may include adding a table or appendix outlining each step in the selection process.

 

Please, consider the requested information as provided by Figure 1, thank you.

 

Figures and graphs: Enhance all figures with comprehensive legends, including a breakdown of color schemes, node sizes, and centrality metrics. These additions can greatly enhance interpretability.

 

The manuscript underwent a comprehensive revision, including a new figure (detailed D subset) and figure captions, that we believe greatly improved overall interpretability, thank you.

 

3. Identified weaknesses and suggested revisions

 

Conceptual framework and theoretical basis: While the manuscript aims to frame Agriculture 5.0, it would benefit from a more cohesive theoretical model that connects socioenvironmental and technological factors.

 

Suggestion: Consider developing a conceptual model as a visual element to support the bipartite network results. This would clarify the relationship between socioenvironmental and technological aspects and strengthen the argument.

 

Thank you. Indeed the conceptual model has already been provided, please see the last image (current Figure 9) in the main text. In addition, please consider the statement of our study limitation, as requested by the reviewer #1.

 

Lack of empirical validation: There is no validation of the proposed framework using case studies, field data, or empirical testing

 

Suggestion: Integrate case studies or empirical data to validate the network model, or consider discussing how future research could empirically test this model.

 

Validation of the framework is beyond the scope of this review. But it will certainly be among the next R&D targets, thank you.

 

4. Overall evaluation and recommendation

 

Does it meet the journal requirements? es, but it requires significant revisions. The article aligns with the scope of Sustainability but needs to improve in terms of methodological transparency, empirical rigor, and adherence to FAIR data principles.

 

Can it be considered a scientific work? Yes, though, it would greatly benefit from a more robust explanation of the methodological choices made and a clearer conceptual framework.

 

Mistakes and how to fix them:

 

Transparency in methodology: Improve transparency in network analysis and selection criteria.

Conceptual cohesion: Develop a more precise theoretical foundation that integrates socioenvironmental and technological components.

Empirical validation: Consider integrating or suggesting empirical validation to increase the practical relevance of the findings.

Recommendation: Reconsider after major revisions. The manuscript has potential but requires substantial methodological and conceptual improvements before publication in MDPI’s Sustainability journal.

 

We believe that, by considering all feedback provided by reviewers, we have achieved high standards. In particular, by implementing a comprehensive review as requested by the reviewers, thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The relevance of the research is due to obtaining relevant knowledge about digital agriculture, an analysis of scientific data is presented using an undirected two-way network that links journals and author keywords from articles obtained from the Clarivate Web of Science. The main goal of this research is to present a framework that combines various sustainability concepts, emphasizing both well-studied (economic) and insufficiently studied (socio-ecological) aspects of Agriculture 5.0.

The originality of this research is due to the presentation of a methodology for forming the sustainability concept of the value-oriented structure of Agriculture 5.0, which highlights both the most studied (economic) and the least studied (socio-ecological) dimensions of sustainability within Agriculture 5.0. This structure is built using a directed network of conceptual assets classified as tangible or intangible values ​​

Further wishes for research in terms of comments should include:

- it is necessary to provide a rationale for the choice of bipartite analysis for the formation of semantic assets of Agriculture 5.0 in the text of the manuscript; - in Table 1 it is advisable to present the rationale for the selection of the main preliminary assets, as well as the methodology for selecting the coefficients of their value; - in the graphical dependence presented in Figure 3 it is advisable to present the results of statistical processing of the obtained results, including these provisions it is advisable to present in Figure 5;

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for the points raised:

1) We have included a justification for the bibliometric analysis via bipartite network. Please see lines 127-136.

2) We have improved the justification for the screening of selected keywords, see lines 229-232.

3) We have replaced figures 3 and 5 with new figures showing the parameters of the statistical regressions.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your hard work, I accept the changes and corrections. 

Author Response

On behalf of the co-authors, I thank you for your valuable contributions to improve our manuscript.