Review Reports
by
- Mbalenhle Gwacela 1,2,*,
- Mjabuliseni Simon Cleopas Ngidi 1,2,* and
- Temitope Oluwaseun Ojo 3,4
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Qi He Reviewer 2: Amina Aly Reviewer 3: Anonymous Reviewer 4: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript may be reconsidered after major revisions.
1. The lack of line numbers causes inconvenience in the positioning of comments
2.Abstract: “South Africa is food secure as a nation.” Actually, the manuscript reveal some food secure problems in South Africa, on this base, Is this appropriate here? Is there an accurate definition of "food secure"?
3. “Although South Africa is food secure nationally...”. Similarly, is the claim of "food safety" appropriate here?
4. “Among some of the successful strategies, are home food gardens.” It is an incomplete sentence.
5. “Home food garden” belongs to “home garden”. It is unnecessary to be listed here.
6. “secondary collected data” Is it “twice collected data”?
7. “The province is comprised of a parliamentary and a strong traditional leadership system which has formed a dominant political backbone of the three former homelands that make up the province: namely Lobowa, Ganzankulu and Venda as shown in Fig 1.2.” This sentence should be rephrased.
8. Data collection: More necessary data should be provided in terms of the repeatability of the work,
9. The impact of COVID-19 on people's lives is enormous. Can investigations during this epidemic reveal the real problem in food secure?
10. 4. Data analysis: it does not need to be further divided into sections because there is only one subheading 4.1. Some necessary details are also missing.
11. “and 46.2% are male”.
12. “NTC 1/N1 - NTC III/N3 1.7; NTC4/ N4 - NTC 6” Abbreviations should be explained.
13. Why is there no age in Table 1, and it is mentioned later.
14. “The results were similar to those of Qaim (2017); Sibhatu & Qaim (2017) who found that most of the smallholder farmers in less developed countries were undernourished and food-insecure.” Please rephrase this sentence and provide the reference.
15. The serial numbers of figures are incorrect.
16. “On the contrary, study results from [47]...”
17. It is not a conclusion and should be rephrased.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
The current manuscript has been sent to the language editor; the attached files below are the responses to reviewer comments before the copy was sent to the language editor.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
Regarding to the Manuscript ID: sustainability-2857632
Title: A Comparative Analysis of the Contribution of Home Gardens to Household Food Security in the Limpopo province, South Africa
I regret to inform you that it is a very good point to study that, but the manuscript is not suitable for publication, in its current form, it does not meet the criteria for novelty and the impact expected. The results appear to be too preliminary and incomplete for publication at the present form.
Some specific comments should be taken in consideration to improve the quality of the manuscript:
- The methods are not adequate.
- The tables and figures are not sufficient.
- The sentences should not be started with abbreviation; it is better to start with complete form, please correct all over the manuscript.
- There are some writing mistakes, so the manuscript should be revised carefully.
- Several references need to be updated to add new statistics as some of them are old.
- Plagiarism is detected for Table 1: Demographic characteristics of Limpopo households and Figure 1: The food security/insecurity profile of home garden farmers in Limpopo in the article titled: Contribution of Fruits and Vegetables to the Household Food Security Situation of Rural Households in Limpopo, Nutrients 2023, 15, 2539. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/nu15112539.
- Please revise the references carefully in the text & in the references list and rewrite according the journal format as well as the title of the cited articles with an uppercase letter in the initial only for its first word.
- The conclusion need to be re-written with more result details.
- There are several comments in the attached manuscript should be taken in consideration.
Best regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
- There are several writing mistakes, so the manuscript should be revised carefully.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRefer to the uploaded file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Extensive editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see attachment.
The edited manuscript has is currently with the language editor. The corrections attached, as well as in the track changes are responses to the reviewers comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI must admit to not being a researcher engaged in such a field, although I am dedicated to horticulture. Still, I have learned a lot from this article.
This study aimed to assess the contribution of home gardens to household food security in one province， South African. A sample of 2043 farming households was taken. The results obtained are somewhat instructive.
I am supportive of this, but there are some issues:
1) In 3 Data collection, how did the authors conduct the sample collection? Household visits or roadside interviews or by distributing questionnaires? What time did it start and what time did it end? This information is very critical.
2) Table 1, ‘.8’ is 0.8？ please check. There are multiple such errors in the Table.
3) I think the authors need to perform a Principal Component Analysis, PCA, which will give which factor is the most dominant in determining the topic. The authors can ask the people who work in natural science research. This will give you an in-depth role in this article.
Author Response
Please see attachments
The current manuscript has been sent to the language editor; the attached files below are the responses to reviewer comments before the copy was sent to the language editor.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMost of the changes are roughly satisfactory. This manuscript is recommended to be accepted for publication.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Thank you for your comment. The manuscript was submitted to a professional editor for English proofreading and editing.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Regarding to the Manuscript ID: sustainability-2857632
Title: A Comparative Analysis of the Contribution of Home Gardens to Household Food Security in the Limpopo province, South Africa
As the authors have done most of the required comment, but still several comment need to be corrected.
to Household Food Security in the Limpopo province, South Africa
As the you have done most of the required comment, but still several comment need to be corrected.
Please revise the reference list carefully and correct it.
Also, there are come comments provided in the attached file.
Best regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your comment. The manuscript was submitted to a professional editor for English proofreading and editing.
Comments are also highlighted in the submitted manuscript. The entire reference list was re-done
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccording to the amendments made, it can be accepted.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you for your comment. The manuscript was submitted to a professional editor for English proofreading and editing.