The Opportunities and Barriers in Developing Interactive Digital Extension Services for Smallholder Farmers as a Pathway to Sustainable Agriculture: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Could you check the spelling of the authors' affiliations (e.g., Philippines)?

Could you clarify the research gap more explicitly? The term “database” is quite confusing concerning the gap the article aims to address.

Strengthen the concluding statement by demonstrating practical implications and illustrating how the insights gained from this systematic review can contribute to developing interactive digital extension services tailored for smallholder farmers.

Enhance Figures 2a-d for better data presentation.

Please let me know the systematic process used to identify opportunities and barriers. What kind of analysis was used to check these emerging themes?

Check the usage of acronyms. The acronym “DESs” is repeatedly spelled out in full name and reintroduced in the subsequent sections of the articles.

The ideas presented in the discussion section should align with the chronology of the results. Additionally, employing transition words is crucial to facilitate a smooth flow of the discussion.

Ensure the in-text citations are consistent with the journal’s citation requirements.

The citations (e.g., 9-13) should be placed after each cited text rather than all at once.

Improve the presentation of Figure 2, as shapes cover some words. Check misspelled words as well. 

Strengthen the conclusion by indicating future research and direction.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article's tone is inconsistent, as other parts used the first person while other sections used the third person in writing. Correct the tone and ensure consistency.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers and Editors,

                On behalf of the co-authors, I would like to express my gratitude for the positive and constructive comments and suggestions offered as well as the opportunity given to revise the paper.

               Based on the main comments of the reviewers, our team has answered, explained, and revised all the comments point-by-point. Please see the detailed responses to reviewers in the table as presented below. Detailed track changes are found in the manuscript.

               Once again, thank you so much for your support and we are looking forward to receiving good news from you.

               On behalf of the co-authors,

               Le Thi Hong Phuong

 

Comment 1:

Could you check the spelling of the authors' affiliations (e.g., Philippines)?

Response 1:

Thank you for your comment. The name of university is: “The University of the Philippines Visayas”

Comment 2:

Could you clarify the research gap more explicitly? The term “database” is quite confusing concerning the gap the article aims to address.

Response 2:

Thank you. We agreed with reviewer’s comment. The term “database” has been revised and replaced by the term “less researches on the availability and quality of digital advisory information….”

Please see the detail in the manuscript.

Comment 3:

Strengthen the concluding statement by demonstrating practical implications and illustrating how the insights gained from this systematic review can contribute to developing interactive digital extension services tailored for smallholder farmers.

Response 3:

Thank you. We have revised according the suggestion of reviewer.

Please see the detail in the manuscript.

Comment 4:

Enhance Figures 2a-d for better data presentation.

Response 4:

Thank you. We agreed with this comment and have revisions to enhance the better data presentation.

Please see the detail in the manuscript.

Comment 5

Please let me know the systematic process used to identify opportunities and barriers. What kind of analysis was used to check these emerging themes?

Response 5:

Thank you. To determine the opportunities and barriers of interactive DESs in this research, we relied on the process of selecting 141 articles (see the research methods section) and on the definition of barriers and opportunities described in SM4. These definitions were based on the studies in the process of identifying keywords for searching and the general discussion of the research team.

Comment 6:

Check the usage of acronyms. The acronym “DESs” is repeatedly spelled out in full name and reintroduced in the subsequent sections of the articles.

Response 6:

Thank you. We have carefully checked and used the term “DESs” for the next writing.

Comment 7:

The ideas presented in the discussion section should align with the chronology of the results. Additionally, employing transition words is crucial to facilitate a smooth flow of the discussion.

Response 7:

Thank you. We have revised the discussion section following the chronology of the results and revision some paragraphs to facilitate a smooth flow of the discussion.

Please see the detail in the manuscript.

Comment 8:

Ensure the in-text citations are consistent with the journal’s citation requirements.

Response 8:

Thank you. We have carefully checked the citation requirements of the journal.

Please see the detail in the manuscript.

Comment 9:

The citations (e.g., 9-13) should be placed after each cited text rather than all at once.

Response 9:

Thank you. We have revised according the suggestion of reviewer.

Please see the detail in the manuscript.

Comment 10:

Improve the presentation of Figure 2, as shapes cover some words. Check misspelled words as well. 

Response 10:

Thank you. We have revised according the suggestion of reviewer.

Please see the detail in the manuscript.

Comment 11:

Strengthen the conclusion by indicating future research and direction.

Comment 12:

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Response 12:

Thank you. We sent to native English speaker to improve the quality of English language.

Please see the detail in the manuscript.

Comment 13:

The article's tone is inconsistent, as other parts used the first person while other sections used the third person in writing. Correct the tone and ensure consistency.

Response 13:

Thank you. We have revised according the suggestion of reviewer.

Please see the detail in the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is written on a relevant topic. The tasks are correct. The methods were chosen appropriately in order to reveal the topic of the work, complete the tasks and achieve the goal. The author set out to collect a database on the availability and quality of digital advisory information, which is the basis for further steps to ensure that the benefits of science-based extension and innovation are accessible and timely to smallholder farmers. The paper used a systematic review method to explore opportunities and barriers to the development of interactive DES in developing countries. The authors analysed 141 articles and identified 13 opportunities and 21 barriers. The findings of the review confirmed the thesis that interactive DESs were the best source of learning and exchange of information/ideas/experiences useful for increasing agricultural productivity and profitability, creating networking among farmers and stakeholders, and providing cost-effective extension services. The researchers also noted that barriers to interactive DES include a lack of information on two-way interaction, lack of a centralised information network between farmers and service providers, lack of technical knowledge of ICT, poor internet connectivity, and lack of effective ICT training. It is worth noting that in several countries, farmers' awareness, motivation and willingness to use interactive DES has increased. This study provides insights into the possibilities of investing in digital platforms as a long-term intervention to increase agricultural productivity.

However, the article needs to be improved:

1) The authors of the article explained in detail the period of the study from 2005. However, they did not say anything about why the research ended in 2021 and not in 2023. They should also explain their position in more detail.

2) In the consultation, the authors assume that ‘Presumably, the most significant challenge for interactive DESs is the lack of two-way interaction between providers and recipients (smallholder farmers) and the absence of a centralised information network for farmers and service providers’. However, such an assumption should be supported by the authors' own research, on the basis of which they made it (what data from their research indicate this directly or indirectly).

The manuscript is clear, relevant to the field and presented in a well-structured manner. It has a sufficiently sound mathematical basis.

Citations are relevant.

Conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers and Editors,

On behalf of the co-authors, I would like to express my gratitude for the positive and constructive comments and suggestions offered as well as the opportunity given to revise the paper.

               Based on the main comments of the reviewers, our team has answered, explained, and revised all the comments point-by-point. Please see the detailed responses to reviewers in the table as presented below. Detailed track changes are found in the manuscript.

               Once again, thank you so much for your support and we are looking forward to receiving good news from you.

               On behalf of the co-authors,

               Le Thi Hong Phuong

 

Comment 1:

The article is written on a relevant topic. The tasks are correct. The methods were chosen appropriately in order to reveal the topic of the work, complete the tasks and achieve the goal. The author set out to collect a database on the availability and quality of digital advisory information, which is the basis for further steps to ensure that the benefits of science-based extension and innovation are accessible and timely to smallholder farmers. The paper used a systematic review method to explore opportunities and barriers to the development of interactive DES in developing countries. The authors analysed 141 articles and identified 13 opportunities and 21 barriers. The findings of the review confirmed the thesis that interactive DESs were the best source of learning and exchange of information/ideas/experiences useful for increasing agricultural productivity and profitability, creating networking among farmers and stakeholders, and providing cost-effective extension services. The researchers also noted that barriers to interactive DES include a lack of information on two-way interaction, lack of a centralised information network between farmers and service providers, lack of technical knowledge of ICT, poor internet connectivity, and lack of effective ICT training. It is worth noting that in several countries, farmers' awareness, motivation and willingness to use interactive DES has increased. This study provides insights into the possibilities of investing in digital platforms as a long-term intervention to increase agricultural productivity.

Response 1:

Thank you for positive comments.

Comment 2:

The authors of the article explained in detail the period of the study from 2005. However, they did not say anything about why the research ended in 2021 and not in 2023. They should also explain their position in more detail.

Response 2:

Thank you for this comment. We agreed with this comment and including the reasons for including papers only up to 2021 in the systematic literature review in the limitation section.

Please see detail in the limitation section in the manuscript.

 

Comment 3:

In the consultation, the authors assume that ‘Presumably, the most significant challenge for interactive DESs is the lack of two-way interaction between providers and recipients (smallholder farmers) and the absence of a centralised information network for farmers and service providers’. However, such an assumption should be supported by the authors' own research, on the basis of which they made it (what data from their research indicate this directly or indirectly).

Response 3:

Thank you for this comment. We agreed with reviewer’s comment and added the references to support this statement.

Please see detail in the manuscript.

Comment 4:

The manuscript is clear, relevant to the field and presented in a well-structured manner. It has a sufficiently sound mathematical basis. Citations are relevant. Conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.

Response 4:

Thank you for positive comments.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article systematically reviewed 141 studies to summarize the potential of DESs in promoting knowledge sharing, improving productivity, and reducing costs, while revealing critical challenges such as inadequate infrastructure and lack of interaction. The topic holds significant importance for enhancing agricultural productivity and sustainability in developing countries, particularly in the context of digital transformation. However, several problems in content quality and depth require attention:  

[1] The quality of Figure 1 needs improvement.  

[2] How was the conclusion "Particularly in developing countries in Asia (e.g., [112]) and Africa (e.g., [39])..." (subsection 3.4) derived? Should data scarcity be considered, given the limited scope of data from other regions mentioned in the descriptive results (Section 3.1)?  

[3] How does this paper distinguish itself from existing review papers? Please elaborate on the unique contributions of this study compared to prior review works.  

[4] The review of 141 articles identified 13 opportunities and 21 barriers. How did the authors prioritize their significance? For instance, are all 21 barriers equally critical? Highlighting key indicators through evaluation would help readers focus on priorities.  

[5] The paper contains inconsistent abbreviation definitions (e.g., DES). Additionally, some abbreviations like IVR and FAO are underutilized after their initial definition.  

[6] Beyond identifying opportunities and barriers, what specific solutions already exist? This includes technical approaches, strategic frameworks, tools, and other actionable measures.  

[7] References lack formatting consistency (e.g., entries 15, 22, 31... have irregular line breaks).

Author Response

Dear Reviewers and Editors,

On behalf of the co-authors, I would like to express my gratitude for the positive and constructive comments and suggestions offered as well as the opportunity given to revise the paper.

               Based on the main comments of the reviewers, our team has answered, explained, and revised all the comments point-by-point. Please see the detailed responses to reviewers in the table as presented below. Detailed track changes are found in the manuscript.

               Once again, thank you so much for your support and we are looking forward to receiving good news from you.

               On behalf of the co-authors,

               Le Thi Hong Phuong

 

Comment 1:

The article systematically reviewed 141 studies to summarize the potential of DESs in promoting knowledge sharing, improving productivity, and reducing costs, while revealing critical challenges such as inadequate infrastructure and lack of interaction. The topic holds significant importance for enhancing agricultural productivity and sustainability in developing countries, particularly in the context of digital transformation. 

Response 1:

Thank you for positive comment.

Comment 2:

The quality of Figure 1 needs improvement.  

Response 2:

Thank you for this comment. We have improved the figure 1, please see detail in the manuscript.

Comment 3:

How was the conclusion "Particularly in developing countries in Asia (e.g., [112]) and Africa (e.g., [39])..." (subsection 3.4) derived? Should data scarcity be considered, given the limited scope of data from other regions mentioned in the descriptive results (Section 3.1)?  

Response 3:

Thank you for this comment. We agree with this suggestion. We have emphasized in the manuscript that this finding is based on a review of 111 articles selected in this study from Asia and Africa.

Please see detail in the manuscript

Comment 4:

How does this paper distinguish itself from existing review papers? Please elaborate on the unique contributions of this study compared to prior review works.  

Response 4:

Thank you for this comment. We have elaborated the contributions of this study in the discussion section, and we also added some information during revision the manuscript based on the comments of reviewers.

Please see detail in the manuscript.

Comment 5:

The review of 141 articles identified 13 opportunities and 21 barriers. How did the authors prioritize their significance? For instance, are all 21 barriers equally critical? Highlighting key indicators through evaluation would help readers focus on priorities.  

Response 5:

Thank you for your comment. Based on the analysis of 141 selected articles, the study identified 13 opportunities and 21 barriers related to interactive DESs. These findings were derived from the process of determining research indicators, as outlined in SM4. However, the study did not prioritize or emphasize specific evaluation indicators. Instead, it focused on the frequency or percentage of occurrences of opportunities and barriers in the reviewed articles, using this analysis as a foundation for proposing solutions.

Comment 6:

 The paper contains inconsistent abbreviation definitions (e.g., DES). Additionally, some abbreviations like IVR and FAO are underutilized after their initial definition.  

Response 6:

Thank you for this comment. We have carefully checked the abbreviation of all terms in the manuscript and revised. Please see detail in the manuscript.

Comment 7:

Beyond identifying opportunities and barriers, what specific solutions already exist? This includes technical approaches, strategic frameworks, tools, and other actionable measures.  

Response 7:

Thank you for this comment. In the finding section, we did not focus deeply on specific solutions because the objectives of this study focused on opportunities and barriers in interactive DESs. However, in the discussion section, we have discussed some arguments that related to solutions. We also added some information during revision the manuscript based on the comments of reviewers.

Please see detail in the manuscript.

Comment 8:

References lack formatting consistency (e.g., entries 15, 22, 31... have irregular line breaks).

Response 8:

Thank you. We have revised, please see the detail in the manuscript

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract is written clearly. I would suggest including the period reviewed in the systematic literature review (2005-2021)

Detailed and well-written introduction with the relevant problem explanation and up-to-date relevant literature. Good explanation of the chosen method.

The methodology is well explained, and all the main segments of the systematic literature review are encompassed: selection of items and databases, graphical representation of the systematic review process, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. Authors should clarify the reasons for including papers only up to 2021 in the systematic literature review, as the study will not provide the most recent trends because it does not include almost four recent years.

Research limitations are mostly clearly stated aside from the following sentence: “Firstly, the focus was exclusively on published peer-reviewed articles in the English language, thus excluding valuable insights from grey literature, books, and book chapters.”. How does the language of publication impact the type of sources reviewed? This is unclear.

The graphic representation of the results needs formatting corrections for clarity. All graphs are stacked on top of each other with very large labeling—this should be corrected. It would improve the readability of the manuscript if graphs were presented one by one and discussed accordingly.

In section 3.2, the authors refer to meta-analysis results; however, no meta-analysis results are presented, and they refer to a bar chart with types of digital extension service devices. This should be correctly presented.

Opportunities and barriers are well discussed, and the discussion section provides a detailed synthesis of findings. However, I would suggest a more thorough discussion of the underlying reasons for the barriers.

Overall, with minor revisions the manuscript will contribute to both scholars and practitioners.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers and Editors,

On behalf of the co-authors, I would like to express my gratitude for the positive and constructive comments and suggestions offered as well as the opportunity given to revise the paper.

               Based on the main comments of the reviewers, our team has answered, explained, and revised all the comments point-by-point. Please see the detailed responses to reviewers in the table as presented below. Detailed track changes are found in the manuscript.

               Once again, thank you so much for your support and we are looking forward to receiving good news from you.

               On behalf of the co-authors,

               Le Thi Hong Phuong

 

Comment 1

Abstract is written clearly. I would suggest including the period reviewed in the systematic literature review (2005-2021)

Response 1:

Thank you for this comment. We have added the timeline of systematic literature review 2025-2021, please see detail in the manuscript.

Comment 2:

Detailed and well-written introduction with the relevant problem explanation and up-to-date relevant literature. Good explanation of the chosen method. The methodology is well explained, and all the main segments of the systematic literature review are encompassed: selection of items and databases, graphical representation of the systematic review process, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. Authors should clarify the reasons for including papers only up to 2021 in the systematic literature review, as the study will not provide the most recent trends because it does not include almost four recent years.

Response 2:

Thank you for positive comment. We agreed with this comment and including the reasons for including papers only up to 2021 in the systematic literature review in the limitation section.

Please see detail in the manuscript.

Comment 3:

Research limitations are mostly clearly stated aside from the following sentence: “Firstly, the focus was exclusively on published peer-reviewed articles in the English language, thus excluding valuable insights from grey literature, books, and book chapters.”. How does the language of publication impact the type of sources reviewed? This is unclear.

Response 3:

Thank you for this comment. We agreed with this comment and We have added the explanation for this argument.

Please see detail in the manuscript

Comment 4:

The graphic representation of the results needs formatting corrections for clarity. All graphs are stacked on top of each other with very large labeling—this should be corrected. It would improve the readability of the manuscript if graphs were presented one by one and discussed accordingly.

Response 4:

Thank you for this comment. We have carefully checked and revised.

Please see detail in the manuscript.

Comment 5:

In section 3.2, the authors refer to meta-analysis results; however, no meta-analysis results are presented, and they refer to a bar chart with types of digital extension service devices. This should be correctly presented.

Response 5:

Thank you for this comment. We agreed with this comment and have correctly presented.

Please see detail in the manuscript.

Comment 6:

Opportunities and barriers are well discussed, and the discussion section provides a detailed synthesis of findings. However, I would suggest a more thorough discussion of the underlying reasons for the barriers.

Response 6:

Thank you for this comment. In the discussion section, we have discussed arguments the reasons for the barriers. We also added some information during revision the manuscript based on the comments of reviewers.

Please see detail in the manuscript

Comment 7:

Overall, with minor revisions the manuscript will contribute to both scholars and practitioners.

Response 7:

Thank you so much for positive comment.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In Figure 1, "WoS" looks in a different format on my computer.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have already carefully revised the manuscript, I have no other concern.