Developing and Prioritizing Strategies for Sustainable Greenhouse Agribusiness: A Case Study in Hamedan Province, Iran

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research topics in this paper are of practical significance, especially in the context of greenhouse agriculture development in resource-limited areas. The research results can provide references for policy makers and practitioners. The structure of the paper is clear, and the method is reasonable, which is of academic value, but some details need to be improved.

1. Literature citations mainly focus on the introduction and literature review sections, but there is a lack of literature citations in the result analysis and discussion sections. Appropriate literature should be cited to make the content more scientific.
2. It is necessary to compare the uniqueness of the study object area with other areas to reflect the uniqueness of this study.
3. Please consider whether it is necessary to combine specific cases in the discussion of the strategy to enhance the practical operability of the strategy. It is also necessary to analyze the feasibility such as the cost and time limit of the strategy implementation.
4. The 18 experts are distributed in different positions, but the number of experts in each position category should be provided to explain the distribution of experts in different positions, because it is necessary to prove whether only 18 experts can make the research conclusions universal.
5. The axis labels and legends in Figure 3-5 need to be clearer, and the overlap of some content affects the readability of the picture.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #1,

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have carefully considered all your comments and incorporated them into the revised manuscript to enhance its quality and clarity.

1. Literature citations mainly focus on the introduction and literature review sections, but there is a lack of literature citations in the result analysis and discussion sections. Appropriate literature should be cited to make the content more scientific.

We have taken this suggestion into consideration in the revised manuscript and added relevant literature citations in the result analysis and discussion sections to provide stronger scientific support for our findings and enhance the robustness of the arguments (please see the Discussion section, pages 19-21)

2. It is necessary to compare the uniqueness of the study object area with other areas to reflect the uniqueness of this study.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have included a comparison of the study area with other regions in the revised manuscript, emphasizing the unique characteristics of our study area and clarifying the distinct contribution of this research (please see the Introduction section, pages 1-3 and the Discussion section, pages19-21).

3. Please consider whether it is necessary to combine specific cases in the discussion of the strategy to enhance the practical operability of the strategy. It is also necessary to analyze the feasibility such as the cost and time limit of the strategy implementation.

We agree with the need for practical applicability. In the revised manuscript, we have incorporated specific case examples in the strategy discussion and added an analysis of feasibility, including considerations of cost and time constraints, to enhance the operability of the proposed strategies (please see the Discussion section, pages 20-21).

4. The 18 experts are distributed in different positions, but the number of experts in each position category should be provided to explain the distribution of experts in different positions, because it is necessary to prove whether only 18 experts can make the research conclusions universal.

Thank you for pointing this out. In the revised manuscript, we have included a detailed breakdown of the 18 experts by position category and provided a justification for selecting this number of experts (please see the Research Method section, page 6)

5. The axis labels and legends in Figure 3-5 need to be clearer, and the overlap of some content affects the readability of the picture.

We appreciate your feedback on the figures. In the revised manuscript, we have improved the clarity of axis labels and legends in Figures 3–8 and resolved any overlapping content to ensure better readability and presentation (please the Results section, pages 11-19)

Thank you again for your thoughtful and constructive suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editors,

The paper titled "Developing and Prioritizing Strategies for Enhancing Sustainability in Agribusinesses" aims to identify and prioritize actionable strategies to address internal and external challenges in sustainable greenhouse development in Iran and similar regions. By adopting a comprehensive approach that integrates literature reviews with expert interviews in sustainable agriculture and greenhouse practices, they conducted a SWOT analysis to assess internal strengths and weaknesses alongside external opportunities and threats, offering valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners. There are some modification suggestions before publication, as follows:

1.Abstract

The abstract should be more concise, highlighting the main findings and conclusions of the research. The current abstract is quite lengthy, it is recommended to reduce it to no more than300 words. Clearly identify the innovative points and practical application value of the research.

2.Introduction

The introduction section repeats a lot of background information, it is suggested to integrate and highlight the uniqueness and necessity of the research. Clearly state research questions and objectives to enable readers to quickly understand the core content of the article.

3.Theoretical framework and literature review

The literature review section is relatively comprehensive, but it is recommended to further focus and only review the literature directly related to this study. Add a literature review on the application of SWOT and TOWS matrix methods in the agricultural field to support the rationality of method selection.

4.Research Methods

Provide a detailed description of the specific application steps for SWOT and TOWS matrices, including how to collect data and determine key factors. Clearly explain the criteria and process for expert selection to enhance the credibility of the research. Provide a more detailed explanation of data analysis methods, including the construction process of internal and external factor evaluation matrices.

5.Result

The results section should be more structured and presented one by one according to the categories of SWOT and TOWS matrices. Using charts to visually display key results, such as Chart 3 and Chart 4, can further optimize and make them easier to understand. Increase discussion on the results and explain why certain factors are considered the most important.

6.Discussion

The discussion section should delve deeper into the significance of the research results and explore their impact on policy-making and practical operations. Increase analysis of potential challenges and limitations in implementing strategies. The discussion section can also consider comparisons with sustainability research on greenhouse agriculture in other regions or countries.

7.Conclusion

The conclusion should succinctly summarize the main findings and recommendations of the research. Emphasize the practical contribution of the research and its implications for future research. Avoid introducing new information or viewpoints in the conclusion.

8.References

Check the completeness and accuracy of the references to ensure that all cited literature has been correctly listed. Format the references according to the requirements of the journal.

 

This article has certain innovation and practical application value in the research of sustainable strategies for greenhouse agriculture. However, in order to improve the quality and readability of the article, the author needs to make a comprehensive revision based on the above revision suggestions. I hope these suggestions can be helpful to the author and look forward to seeing the revised version.

 

Author Response

- The paper titled "Developing and Prioritizing Strategies for Enhancing Sustainability in Agribusinesses" aims to identify and prioritize actionable strategies to address internal and external challenges in sustainable greenhouse development in Iran and similar regions. By adopting a comprehensive approach that integrates literature reviews with expert interviews in sustainable agriculture and greenhouse practices, they conducted a SWOT analysis to assess internal strengths and weaknesses alongside external opportunities and threats, offering valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners. There are some modification suggestions before publication, as follows:

Dear Reviewer #2, thank you for the compliments. As discussed in the following paragraphs, we have tried to address the reviewer’s issues of concern in the revised manuscript.

1. Abstract: The abstract should be more concise, highlighting the main findings and conclusions of the research. The current abstract is quite lengthy, it is recommended to reduce it to no more than300 words. Clearly identify the innovative points and practical application value of the research.

We have taken this suggestion into consideration in the revised manuscript and revised the abstract to be more concise, now lower than 300 words, with a clear focus on the main findings, conclusions, and practical application value of the research (please see the Abstract, page 1).

2. Introduction: The introduction section repeats a lot of background information; it is suggested to integrate and highlight the uniqueness and necessity of the research. Clearly state research questions and objectives to enable readers to quickly understand the core content of the article.

Thank you for this feedback. We have revised the introduction and emphasized the uniqueness and necessity of the study, and stated the research objectives for improved clarity (please see the Introduction section, pages 2-3).

3. Theoretical framework and literature review: The literature review section is relatively comprehensive, but it is recommended to further focus and only review the literature directly related to this study. Add a literature review on the application of SWOT and TOWS matrix methods in the agricultural field to support the rationality of method selection.

Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we have refined the literature review to focus on studies directly relevant to our research. Additionally, we have added some studies that have applied SWOT and TOWS matrix in the agricultural field and sustainability (please see the Theoretical framework and literature review, page 4).

4. Research Methods: Provide a detailed description of the specific application steps for SWOT and TOWS matrices, including how to collect data and determine key factors. Clearly explain the criteria and process for expert selection to enhance the credibility of the research. Provide a more detailed explanation of data analysis methods, including the construction process of internal and external factor evaluation matrices.

Thank you for these suggestions. The revised manuscript includes a detailed description of the SWOT and TOWS matrix application steps, data collection, and key factor determination. We have also clarified the expert selection criteria and process, and provided a more comprehensive explanation of the data analysis methods, including the construction of internal and external factor evaluation matrices (please the Research Methods section, page 6).

5. Result: The results section should be more structured and presented one by one according to the categories of SWOT and TOWS matrices. Using charts to visually display key results, such as Chart 3 and Chart 4, can further optimize and make them easier to understand. Increase discussion on the results and explain why certain factors are considered the most important (please see the result section, page?).

We have taken this suggestion into consideration in the revised manuscript and restructured the results section to present findings systematically by SWOT and TOWS matrix categories. Charts have been optimized for clarity, and we have added a discussion explaining the significance of key factors and why certain ones are prioritized (please see the Results section, pages 8-19).

6. Discussion: The discussion section should delve deeper into the significance of the research results and explore their impact on policy-making and practical operations. Increase analysis of potential challenges and limitations in implementing strategies. The discussion section can also consider comparisons with sustainability research on greenhouse agriculture in other regions or countries.

Following the reviewer suggestion, we have enhanced the discussion section by elaborating on the significance of the results for policy-making and practical operations. We have also included an analysis of potential challenges and limitations in strategy implementation, as well as comparisons with sustainability research in greenhouse agriculture from other regions (please see the Discussion section, pages 19-21)

7. Conclusion: The conclusion should succinctly summarize the main findings and recommendations of the research. Emphasize the practical contribution of the research and its implications for future research. Avoid introducing new information or viewpoints in the conclusion.

The conclusion has been revised to concisely summarize the main findings and recommendations, highlighting the practical contributions and implications for future research (please see the Conclusion section, page 22).

8. References: Check the completeness and accuracy of the references to ensure that all cited literature has been correctly listed. Format the references according to the requirements of the journal.

 We have thoroughly reviewed the references to ensure completeness and accuracy. All citations have been formatted according to the journal’s requirements (please see the References section, page 22-25).

9. This article has certain innovation and practical application value in the research of sustainable strategies for greenhouse agriculture. However, in order to improve the quality and readability of the article, the author needs to make a comprehensive revision based on the above revision suggestions. I hope these suggestions can be helpful to the author and look forward to seeing the revised version.

Thank you for your valuable feedback. As outlined above, we have tried to address the reviewer’s concerns in the revised manuscript. Your comments have significantly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article with the title ‘Developing and Prioritizing Strategies for Enhancing Sustainability in Agribusinesses (A Case Study of Greenhouses in Iran)’ is an evidence-based study identifies sustainable greenhouse strategies for Iranian greenhouses using SWOT and TOWS analyses. Although it provides meaningful recommendations based on local data, it could be improved by:

Introduction:

What are the main questions addressed by the research?

What is the research gap that this study aims to fill? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

Literature review:

There are references that seem repetitive and could be synthesized. Moreover, it would be useful to compare the study with other international case studies.

Study area:

Why did you choose this area? Have the local conditions effects on the choice of strategies?

Research methodology:

Why is the sample so small? Can this sample give reliable results?

Results:

 Examples of practical applications or policy applications could accompany each strategy.

Discussion: There is no critical reflection on methodological limitations.

Conclusion: The future directions of research are very briefly mentioned.

Author Response

• The article with the title ‘Developing and Prioritizing Strategies for Enhancing Sustainability in Agribusinesses (A Case Study of Greenhouses in Iran)’ is an evidence-based study identifies sustainable greenhouse strategies for Iranian greenhouses using SWOT and TOWS analyses. Although it provides meaningful recommendations based on local data, it could be improved by:

Dear Reviewer #3, Thank you for your insightful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered all your comments and incorporated them into the revised manuscript to enhance its quality and clarity. Below, we address each comment individually, presenting the comment alongside our response.

• Introduction: There is a need to elaborate on the research gap. Additionally, research objectives or questions could be clarified more directly.

We appreciate your suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have elaborated on the research gap to better highlight the study’s significance. Additionally, the research objectives have been stated more clearly and directly to improve reader understanding (please see the Introduction section, pages 2-3).

• Literature review: There are references that seem repetitive and could be synthesized. Moreover, it would be useful to compare the study with other international case studies.

Thank you for this comment. We have synthesized repetitive references to streamline the literature review. Furthermore, we have added comparisons with international case studies to contextualize our research and strengthen its relevance (please see the Literature review section, page 4).

• Study area: You can explain why you choose this area and if there are effects of local conditions on the choice of strategies.

We have included a detailed explanation in the revised manuscript justifying the selection of the study area and discussing how local conditions influenced the choice of strategies, enhancing the study’s context-specific relevance (please see the Introduction section, page 2-3).

• Research methodology: There is no justification for the size of the sample (18 experts).

Thank you for pointing this out. We have added a justification for the sample size of 18 experts in the revised manuscript, explaining the rationale behind this selection (please see the Research method section, page 6).

• Results: Examples of practical applications or policy applications could accompany each strategy.

We agree with this suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have included specific examples of practical and policy applications for each strategy in the results section to enhance their applicability and relevance for stakeholders (please see the Results section, page 8-12 and the Discussion section, pages 19-21).

• Discussion: There is no critical reflection on methodological limitations.

We have addressed this by adding a critical reflection on the methodological limitations in the discussion section of the revised manuscript, providing a more balanced and transparent evaluation of the study (please see the Discussion section, page 21).

• Conclusion: The future directions of research are very briefly mentioned.

Thank you for this comment. We have expanded the conclusion in the revised manuscript to provide a more detailed discussion of future research directions, emphasizing potential areas for further exploration (please see the Conclusion section, pages 21-22).

Thank you again for your thoughtful and constructive suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The artickle has been improved.

Author Response

Comment 1: The article has been improved.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. I’m pleased to know that the revisions have enhanced the article. I appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions.