Systematic Review of Integrating Technology for Sustainable Agricultural Transitions: Ecuador, a Country with Agroecological Potential

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript has some relevance, but I don't think it has enough theoretical depth to be publishable. I Humanities should at least make the following revisions:
First, the article emphasizes the value of digital technology for agro-ecological transformation, but does not adequately discuss the issue of power relations. For example, when mentioning the case of Ecuador, it simply says that “the government should strengthen its intervention” without analyzing why existing policies have failed.
Second, the most prominent problem is the loose framework. Section 3, “Digital Agriculture Methods”, is duplicated in the subsequent regional chapters, while section 7, “Benefits of Technology”, which should summarize the whole text, is placed after the case. It is recommended that the authors reorganize this into a logical chain of “concepts - tools - regional practices - policy recommendations”.
Third, section 6 states that “60% of farmers have a moderate interest in agroecology” and “more than 80% lack information about the transition” (section 8.2), but does not analyze the causes in depth.
Fourth, the number of sections in the manuscript is too high, at nine, and some consolidation of sections in the manuscript is needed.
Fifth, abbreviations and corresponding full names should be included at the end of the article.

Author Response

Comment: First, the article emphasizes the value of digital technology for agro-ecological transformation, but does not adequately discuss the issue of power relations. For example, when mentioning the case of Ecuador, it simply says that “the government should strengthen its intervention” without analyzing why existing policies have failed.

Reply: The case of Ecuador has been analyzed in the discussion section.

 

Comment: Second, the most prominent problem is the loose framework. Section 3, “Digital Agriculture Methods”, is duplicated in the subsequent regional chapters, while section 7, “Benefits of Technology”, which should summarize the whole text, is placed after the case. It is recommended that the authors reorganize this into a logical chain of “concepts - tools - regional practices - policy recommendations”.

Reply: The manuscript has been reorganized following the suggestions of the reviewer.

 

Comment: Third, section 6 states that “60% of farmers have a moderate interest in agroecology” and “more than 80% lack information about the transition” (section 8.2), but does not analyze the causes in depth.

Reply: The causes have been analyzed and mentioned in the section 3.3.3. that describes the Case of Ecuador.

 

Comment: Fourth, the number of sections in the manuscript is too high, at nine, and some consolidation of sections in the manuscript is needed.

Reply: The manuscript has been reorganized following the suggestions of the reviewer.

 

Comment: Fifth, abbreviations and corresponding full names should be included at the end of the article.

Reply: A list of abbreviations has been included at the end of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments

• The current manuscript lacks the depth and academic rigor expected from a publishable review article. The title does not reflect that this work is a literature review, nor does it convey the scope or limitations of the study.
• The journal’s formatting and template requirements are not fully followed, including structure, referencing, and sectioning.
• There is a lack of data visualization, such as summary tables, process diagrams, or comparative figures that typically support review-based insights and enhance clarity.

Abstract

• The main objective and the novelty of this review are not clearly articulated. A stronger focus on what this review contributes to the existing body of knowledge is needed.
• Consider including quantitative outcomes or key numerical findings from the literature to make the abstract more compelling.
• Keywords should be limited to five, as per academic standard conventions.

Introduction

• The introduction section is lengthy and unstructured. It is recommended to break it down into sub-sections for clarity.
• The structure and significance of the review should be clearly presented to guide the reader on what to expect.
• A stronger justification for conducting this review is necessary, backed with discussion of research gaps and supported novelty.
• No qualitative or quantitative synthesis from the literature is presented; neither were such insights generated by the authors.

Methodology

• There is no defined review type (e.g., systematic, scoping), nor is there reference to accepted frameworks like PRISMA. The methodology lacks transparency and reproducibility.
• The use of non-academic language (e.g., “intensive internet research”, “reliable evidences”) is inappropriate and weakens the scholarly tone.
• Search strategy details are completely missing—no Boolean logic, timeframe, inclusion/exclusion filters, or keyword combinations are described.
• There is no explanation of screening or selection criteria, nor is there any data extraction or analytical approach mentioned.
• The section lacks any citation, references, or evidence to validate the sources or approaches mentioned.
• There is no visualization of the methodology (e.g., flow diagram), and the writing is unstructured and redundant, resembling a student report.

Case Studies

• Instead of titling each case study as a standalone chapter, consider integrating them into a single dedicated chapter with a suitable title (e.g., “Case Studies on Digital Agriculture Adoption”).
• A scientific justification is required to explain why only the selected countries were included, as many other relevant cases exist globally.
• Suggest adding a new table summarizing the limitations, barriers, and challenges faced in each country.

Additional Structural & Content Issues

• Chapter number “8” appears twice—this needs correction for consistency.
• Enterprise risks such as cybersecurity, geopolitical risks, and health and safety constraints, etc are overlooked and should be integrated to strengthen the comprehensiveness of the review.
• The limitations of this review itself are not discussed; this section must be added for transparency and academic completeness.

 

Author Response

Comment: The journal’s formatting and template requirements are not fully followed, including structure, referencing, and sectioning.

Reply: The manuscript has been reorganized following the template requirements indicated in the journal´s web page.

 

There is a lack of data visualization, such as summary tables, process diagrams, or comparative figures that typically support review-based insights and enhance clarity.

Reply: Following the suggestions of the reviewer, figures and tables has been incorporated in the different sections (1., 2., 4.1., 4.2.) of the manuscript.

Abstract

Comment: The main objective and the novelty of this review are not clearly articulated. A stronger focus on what this review contributes to the existing body of knowledge is needed. Consider including quantitative outcomes or key numerical findings from the literature to make the abstract more compelling.

Reply: The abstract has been modified following the reviewer´s suggestion.

 

Comment: Keywords should be limited to five, as per academic standard conventions.

Reply: The keywords have been reduced to 5.

 

Introduction

Comment: The introduction section is lengthy and unstructured. It is recommended to break it down into sub-sections for clarity.

Reply: The introduction section has been reduced. Some information of this section has been moved to other sections of the manuscript such as section 3.4. and 4.1.

 

Comment: The structure and significance of the review should be clearly presented to guide the reader on what to expect. A stronger justification for conducting this review is necessary, backed with discussion of research gaps and supported novelty. No qualitative or quantitative synthesis from the literature is presented; neither were such insights generated by the authors.

Reply: The introduction section has been reduced, the information that was decreased has been moved to other sections of the manuscript. The justification of this review has been included in the last part of the introduction section. A figure has been included to explain the synergism between the digital technologies and the agroecological principles.

 

Methodology

Comment: There is no defined review type (e.g., systematic, scoping), nor is there reference to accepted frameworks like PRISMA. The methodology lacks transparency and reproducibility. The use of non-academic language (e.g., “intensive internet research”, “reliable evidences”) is inappropriate and weakens the scholarly tone. Search strategy details are completely missing—no Boolean logic, timeframe, inclusion/exclusion filters, or keyword combinations are described.

There is no explanation of screening or selection criteria, nor is there any data extraction or analytical approach mentioned. The section lacks any citation, references, or evidence to validate the sources or approaches mentioned. There is no visualization of the methodology (e.g., flow diagram), and the writing is unstructured and redundant, resembling a student report.

 

Reply: The methodology section has been described following the reviewer´s suggestions and given a more detailed explanation of the methods applied for searching the information in the literature.

Case Studies

Comment: Instead of titling each case study as a standalone chapter, consider integrating them into a single dedicated chapter with a suitable title (e.g., “Case Studies on Digital Agriculture Adoption”).

Reply: This modification was carried out in the section 3.3. following the suggestion of the reviewer.

 

Comment: A scientific justification is required to explain why only the selected countries were included, as many other relevant cases exist globally.

Reply: The justification has been mentioned in the last part of the introduction section.

 

Comment: Suggest adding a new table summarizing the limitations, barriers, and challenges faced in each country.

Reply: A table has been incorporated in the respective section (4.1.). This table shows these aspects in Europe, Latin America and Ecuador (which is the specific case).

Additional Structural & Content Issues

Comment: Chapter number “8” appears twice—this needs correction for consistency.

Reply: The sections of the manuscript have been reorganized.

 

Comment: Enterprise risks such as cybersecurity, geopolitical risks, and health and safety constraints, etc are overlooked and should be integrated to strengthen the comprehensiveness of the review.

Reply: These topics has been incorporated in the section 4.1.

 

Comment: The limitations of this review itself are not discussed; this section must be added for transparency and academic completeness.

Reply: The limitations of this review are mentioned in the section 4.4.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All in the MS

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Comment: and the current situation in Ecuador as a case of study ?

Reply: The title has been modified, mentioning that Ecuador is the specific case for this review.

 

Comment: Why is important to do that¡¡¡

Reply: The justification has been incorporated at the end of the introduction.

 

Comment: What were the Boolean connectors used? What was the time period evaluated for the search? How many scientific documents were obtained?

Reply: The methodology has been mentioned in detail in the section 2.

 

Comment: Could you cite the references for this compatibility?

Reply: the text of this sentence has been modifies to give a clearer comprehension. The reference for this “compaitibility issue” is only Ajena et al. (2022).

 

Comment: Which are they

Reply: A reference (Wezel et al., 2020) that contain the 13 principles of agroecology has been incorporated in the text.

 

Comment: A more thorough review of the regulations of Latin American countries should be carried out.

Reply: Policies, norms and laws initiatives has been incorporated for each country in the section 3.4.

 

Comment: Peruvian regulations on agroecology are centered on Law No. 29196, which promotes organic or ecological production, and its regulations. This law seeks to promote the sustainable and competitive development of organic agriculture, improving the quality of life of farming families and reducing rural poverty. In addition, other regulations and legal documents complement this regulatory framework, such as Supreme Decree No. 044-2006-AG and Supreme Decree No. 002-2020-MINAGRI.

Reply: The information provided by the reviewer has been incorporated in the section 3.4.

 

Comment: first time explain the meaning of the acronym

Reply: All acronyms have been explained in the text and a list of abbreviations has been placed at the end of the manuscript.

 

Comment: What are these policies specifically for the development of agroecology in Latin America?

Reply: It has been included the term “policies, norms and laws” in this sentence. These policies, norms and laws has been incorporated for each country in the section 3.4.

Comment: References here? Line 282

Reply: The references have been incorporated.

 

Comment: References here?  Line 292

Reply: the reference of Wezel et al. (2018) is mentioned in this text.

 

Comment: What are these experiences? Others?

Reply: Other experiences has been incorporated in the text.

 

Comment: what about digital agroecology in latinamerica??

Reply: Information about digital agrecology in Latin America has been incorporated in the section 3.3.2.

Comment: It would be good to point out that progress has been made in digital agroecology in every Latin American country, and what exactly needs to be done. This isn't clear in your work.

Reply: Information about the opportunities of the digital agroecology in Europe and Latin America has been incorporated in the section 3.2. To know the real progress in Latin America is complex and the consulted literature mentions that the transition process to digitalization remains unclear because there are not specific studies that measure the adoption of digital agroecology in each country.

 

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree to publish

Author Response

Comment: I agree to publish

Reply: The authors thank the reviewer for his/her suggestions to improve the paper for publication.

 

Comment: The English could be improved

Reply: The English language has been checked by Dr. Liliane Binego from Coventry University who is a native speaker to improve this issue.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The incorporation of the first-round revision comments has notably improved the manuscript. However, I recommend revisiting the revised title to make it more concise and engaging. Additionally, general formatting—such as text alignment and figure numbering—can be further refined in the next revision.

Author Response

Comment: The incorporation of the first-round revision comments has notably improved the manuscript. However, I recommend revisiting the revised title to make it more concise and engaging. Additionally, general formatting—such as text alignment and figure numbering—can be further refined in the next revision.

Reply: The authors thank the reviewer for his/her suggestions to improve the paper for publication. The title has been modified following the reviewer´s suggestion. The alignment of the text has been checked and the figures have been numbered correctly.