Skip to Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Simon Maina 1,2,
  • Maryfrances Miller 2,* and
  • Njoki Kahiu 3
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Eyüp Şişman Reviewer 3: Yunyang Wang

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The MS provides a detailed description of index insurance in the United States and Canada, covering its historical background, implementation methods, and its impact on ranching operations. The content is clear and logically structured, but there is room for improvement:

  1. Provide more literature support: When describing the application of index insurance in the United States and Canada, more relevant literature support could be provided to enhance the authority and credibility of the article.

  2. Further explore the advantages and challenges of index insurance: In addition to describing the implementation of index insurance, further discussion on the advantages and challenges of index insurance compared to traditional insurance could be included, such as its role in addressing uncertainty and reducing information asymmetry.

  3. Strengthen the structure of the article: Clear headings and paragraphs could be used to organize the content more effectively, making it easier for readers to understand and follow the logical flow of the article.

Author Response

Thank you for the time you invested in our paper.  We sincerely appreciate your perspective and attention to detail.  Further response is included in the attached Response document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The paper delves into a compelling and crucial topic, providing insights into an area of interest. As a review paper, it holds great potential; however, to align with the principles of review articles, there is a need for further refinement. The fundamental attributes of an effective review, such as comprehensive coverage, critical analysis, and synthesis of existing literature, should be meticulously incorporated. Additionally, the paper's overall structure requires enhancements to adhere to the guidelines outlined by the Sustainability Journal. A thorough revision of references is essential to ensure alignment with the author's guidelines and maintain scholarly integrity. To enhance the paper's clarity and transparency, it is recommended to include a well-organized flow chart that explicitly outlines the number of articles reviewed and the systematic process undertaken. This visual aid will strengthen the paper's methodology and provide readers with a clear understanding of the review process. I believe it must be accepted with a major revision in its current form.

I list out some main concerns below, and then the comments for the lines.

Major comments:

·        The article appears to deviate from the main principles that the review articles depend on, including a robust theoretical framework, methodological framework, and structured presentation of the literature. Without these essential elements, the article's potential contribution to the field is limited.

·       The quality of the figure needs some improvement to be more readable.

·       The abstract should include quantified results as part of the main takeaways rather than just discussing the conclusions in qualitative terms.

·       The references must meet the MDPI guidelines. Reread it and modify it accordingly.

Minor comments:

Line 37: [1-3]. Do not use superscripts for the references.

Line 37: According to [1]: this is wrong; you must write the author's name. For example, According to Maina et al. [1]. Revise the whole article and correct them accordingly.

Line 62: [28], put the source in the caption of Figure 1.

Lines 56 – 60: needs more explanation.

Line 63: [23]. What is this?

Line 87: "we". Generally, use this research/article instead of "we".

Line 95: add a flowchart to explain this section.

Line 133 – 140: merge it to the former paragraph.

Line 172: 4.1.

Lines 289 – 295: put them in a table with their references.

Line 381: it must be 4.2.

Lines 435 – 438: it must be in a table or with numbers.

Lines 439 – 459: make them one paragraph.

Lines 474 – 477: "The insurance companies implement the marketing efforts of the product and distribute the insurance contracts through the local cooperative system, thereafter, insurance sales agents and the so-called village insurance promoters (VIP) pick up from there to sign-up and educate pastoralist on IBLI program." Needs a reference.

Table 2: the format of the table is wrong. Revise and modify it.

Figure 3: improve the quality of the figure.

Lines 547 – 557: Unlcear. Needs more revision and improvement.

Sincerely,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for the time you invested in our paper.  We sincerely appreciate your perspective and attention to detail.  Further response is included in the attached Response document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the present paper, operational index insurance for forage, pasture, and rangeland systems in developed (USA & Canada) and developing (Kenya & Ethiopia) countries have been reviewed. The prevailing characteristics of each region insurance vital for policy makers and agricultural insurance practitioners have been also reported. Some similar characteristics (huge subsidy payments, significant government role, low adoption, insufficient payouts, data challenges, etc.), of this product between the two regions have been founded. Technical variations such as the use of rainfall index and Normalized Difference Vegetative Index (NDVI) in developed and developing regions, respectively, have been revealed.

Generally, the topic is interesting, and the research is professionally carried out. This paper is therefore recommended for publication. However, the following issues should be addressed.

1 It is recommended to modify the abstract to highlight the novelty and important findings and conclusions of the paper.

2 The literature review is too short.

3 The results should be refined.

4 There are several typos and vague sentences in the manuscript, such as in line 460 page of 12, “According to [132],” should be revised as “According to reference [132]”. So the manuscript should be carefully checked and thoroughly modified.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for the time you invested in our paper.  We sincerely appreciate your perspective and attention to detail.  Further response is included in the attached Response document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Aıthors,

I would like to thank the authors for their efforts and work. They addressed most of my concerns and questions. The revisions made to the manuscript have significantly enhanced its quality and clarity. However, I have specific points that require further clarification or adjustment. I kindly request that you consider addressing these points in your final revisions.

·       Revise the references within the manuscript. For example, in line 782, it must be [153 - 155].

·       Generally, no need to mention any reference in the conclusion section. It must be as a summary of the main points in the research.

·       Revise equations 1 – 4.   

Sincerely,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your diligence.  Below we have explained the improvements based on your suggestions.

  • Revise the references within the manuscript. For example, in line 782, it must be [153 - 155].

      Thank you for this improvement.  We found 6 instances and corrected all of them.

  • Generally, no need to mention any reference in the conclusion section. It must be as a summary of the main points in the research.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have removed these references, with the exception of one single reference that would constitute plagairism if we had removed it.

  • Revise equations 1 – 4.

      The variable names were changed from italics and unbolded to regular font to improve readability. We also improved the alignment of the equations  

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx