Review Reports - The Role of Digital Literacy in Agricultural Technology Adoption and Efficiency: A Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper systematically analyzes multiple references, featuring rigorous research and clear logic. It proposes the "Eight-Dimensional Farmers' Digital Literacy Framework," examines the "driving-mechanism-obstacle" triple effects of digital literacy on agricultural technology adoption, and interprets efficiency impacts from the "social-economic-ecological" three-dimensional perspective. However, the paper still has some issues that need further optimization:

1.In the abstract, the abbreviation ICT appears for the first time without its full name mentioned earlier. Yet the full name is presented later, such as in the title of Section 3.3.2.1 and the main text. Once the acronym is confirmed, only the abbreviation can be used in subsequent parts.

2.Charts like Figure 2 and Figure 3 need complete titles and axis labels supplemented.

3.For the content analyzing the regional distribution within China, specific provincial names and the corresponding number of studies can be added. An appropriate analysis of the reasons for the imbalance in regional research in China can also be included.

4.A brief definition of Green Total Factor Productivity (GTFP) can be properly supplemented.

5.The reference format throughout the paper needs careful inspection and unified standardization.

6.Section 3.3.1 mentions Table 3.1, but Table 3.1 is not present in the paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our utmost gratitude for your invaluable suggestions. Our research team has engaged in in - depth discussions and reached a unanimous consensus that these suggestions will significantly contribute to enhancing the academic rigor and impact of this study. In response to your feedback, we have carefully addressed each of your suggestions. The detailed responses are outlined below:

Abstract

Recommendations: In the abstract, the abbreviation ICT appears for the first time without its full name mentioned earlier. Yet the full name is presented later, such as in the title of Section 3.3.2.1 and the main text. Once the acronym is confirmed, only the abbreviation can be used in subsequent parts.

Response: Thank you for pointing out the inconsistent introduction of the acronym “ICT” in the abstract. As suggested, we have revised the manuscript to ensure that the full term, “Digital Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs),” is introduced upon its first appearance in the abstract. The abbreviation is then used consistently throughout the rest of the paper. We appreciate your careful review and have incorporated this change to improve the clarity and academic rigor of the manuscript.

Results and Discussion

Recommendations: Charts like Figure 2 and Figure 3 need complete titles and axis labels supplemented.

Response:

Thank you for your valuable recommendation regarding the completeness and clarity of the figures. We agree that precise and informative titles and axis labels are essential for ensuring the interpretability and standalone value of all visual data.

In direct response to your feedback, we have carefully revised Figure 2 and Figure 3 to include: Complete and Descriptive Titles: Each figure now carries a full title that clearly summarizes the key message or relationship being presented. All axes have been supplemented with explicit labels.

Recommendations: For the content analyzing the regional distribution within China, specific provincial names and the corresponding number of studies can be added. An appropriate analysis of the reasons for the imbalance in regional research in China can also be included.

Response: Thank you for the constructive feedback. We have revised the section on regional distribution in accordance with your recommendations. The updated text now provides specific provincial names and the corresponding number of studies for each region, which clarifies the empirical basis of our analysis. Furthermore, we have integrated a dedicated analysis of the underlying causes for the observed regional research imbalance, focusing on the structural factors of academic resource allocation, data accessibility, and policy priorities. This addition strengthens the manuscript's critical depth and scholarly rigor. The specific modifications are reflected in the revised manuscript. We believe these enhancements address your suggestions fully.

Recommendations: A brief definition of Green Total Factor Productivity (GTFP) can be properly supplemented.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In response, we have supplemented a concise definition of Green Total Factor Productivity (GTFP) in Section 3.3.4.3. The definition clarifies GTFP as an efficiency metric that integrates economic outputs with resource consumption and environmental pollution, thereby reflecting the synergy between economic growth and ecological sustainability. This addition enhances the conceptual clarity and academic rigor of the relevant analysis.

Recommendations: The reference format throughout the paper needs careful inspection and unified standardization.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions for the reference formatting. We have conducted a thorough inspection and systematic revision of all references throughout the manuscript. This comprehensive standardization ensures the manuscript meets high academic publication standards.

Recommendations: Section 3.3.1 mentions Table 3.1, but Table 3.1 is not present in the paper.

Response: Thank you for your meticulous review and for bringing this inconsistency to our attention. We have corrected the in-text reference in Section 3.3.1, so it now correctly refers to Table 1 instead of the previously cited "Table 3.1." The manuscript has been updated accordingly to ensure consistency and accuracy in all cross-references. We appreciate your careful review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an important topic and compiles a substantial amount of literature. However, several areas require significant improvement. The research questions are broad and descriptive, and they need to be clarified and better aligned with the goals of a systematic review. The PRISMA process and search strategy should be reported more transparently, including clear inclusion/exclusion logic and a quality assessment of the selected studies. The narrative is lengthy and overly descriptive; a more concise synthesis supported by a coherent conceptual framework would strengthen the manuscript. Coding procedures should be clearly explained and reproducible. Table 5 is informative and provides a helpful integrated overview of the social, economic, and ecological effects. At the same time, the manuscript appears to focus heavily on methodological descriptions (especially in the research questions, and conclusions), which comes at the expense of discussing the substantive content and the actual core research question.

The clarity and readability of the English language should also be improved (for example, "Behavioral contrl"). Strengthening the overall structure and ensuring that conclusions directly follow from the evidence will enhance the paper’s contribution.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Research Background

Recommendations: The research questions are broad and descriptive, and they need to be clarified and better aligned with the goals of a systematic review.

Response: Thank you for the constructive feedback regarding our research questions. We have carefully revised and reframed them to align more precisely with the goals of a systematic review. The updated questions are now structured to clearly guide the bibliometric analysis, methodological examination, and thematic synthesis of the literature.

As presented in the revised manuscript, the research questions are now organized into three main clusters:

Bibliometric Trends & Research Gaps: This cluster now explicitly asks about key bibliometric trends, including the temporal evolution and geographical distribution of the literature, to identify the field's development and predominant research gaps.

Methodological Approaches: This section has been refined to probe the distribution of research designs, data sources, and sampling strategies, moving beyond mere description to analyze the rationale behind methodological choices.

Thematic Synthesis of Core Constructs & Relationships: The third set of questions has been significantly deepened to systematically identify and interrelate the key constructs—digital literacy, agricultural green technologies, and application efficiencies. The sub-questions now mandate a detailed analysis of their typologies, measurement indicators, and the nature of their interrelationships (e.g., driving effects, mechanisms, obstacles).

This restructuring ensures that each question directly contributes to a systematic synthesis of the evidence, effectively addresses the review's objectives, and provides a clear, logical framework for the subsequent analysis.

Research Methods

Recommendations: The PRISMA process and search strategy should be reported more transparently, including clear inclusion/exclusion logic and a quality assessment of the selected studies.

Response: We have further refined the PRISMA process and search strategy, as well as the inclusion/exclusion logic, and added quality descriptions of the selected studies. Among the 52 selected articles, 92% are from Q1 and Q2 in the JCR division, while the remaining 4 are from Q3 and Q4. The quality of the articles is thus guaranteed.

Recommendations: The narrative is lengthy and overly descriptive; a more concise synthesis supported by a coherent conceptual framework would strengthen the manuscript.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding the narrative's conciseness. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to address this point. Specifically, we have streamlined the descriptive content and strengthened the analysis. The revised narrative is now more concise, significantly enhancing the manuscript's analytical depth and clarity.

Recommendations: Coding procedures should be clearly explained and reproducible.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the clarity and reproducibility of the coding procedures. We fully agree with the importance of transparent and replicable methodological descriptions in systematic literature reviews.

In response to your suggestion, we have added Section 2.4 to provide a clear, structured, and reproducible account of the coding process. Specifically: we have introduced a replicable multi-dimensional coding system, systematically constructed from three distinct dimensions: bibliometric characteristics, methodological characteristics, and content characteristics. This structured approach ensures logical rigor and clarity throughout the review process.

III. Results and Discussion

Recommendations: Table 5 is informative and provides a helpful integrated overview of the social, economic, and ecological effects. At the same time, the manuscript appears to focus heavily on methodological descriptions (especially in the research questions, and conclusions), which comes at the expense of discussing the substantive content and the actual core research question.

Response: Thank you for your insightful observation regarding the balance between methodological description and substantive discussion in the manuscript. We acknowledge the previous over-emphasis on methodological details and have comprehensively revised the manuscript to address this.

The revision entails a significant refocusing of the narrative. While the methodological rigor underpinning Table 5 is preserved, the analysis has been strategically deepened to foreground the substantive insights derived from it. The discussion now directly and thoroughly engages with our core research questions, explicitly interpreting the integrated social, economic, and ecological effects presented in the table. This shift ensures that the methodological framework serves as a foundation for a more profound exploration of the thematic content, thereby strengthening the manuscript's conceptual contribution and analytical depth.

Recommendations: The clarity and readability of the English language should also be improved (for example, "Behavioral contrl"). Strengthening the overall structure and ensuring that conclusions directly follow from the evidence will enhance the paper’s contribution.

Response: Thank you for your constructive feedback regarding the manuscript's language clarity and overall structure. We have undertaken a comprehensive revision to address these points.

First, the English language throughout the manuscript has been carefully polished to enhance clarity, readability, and academic rigor. This includes improving sentence structure and ensuring precise terminology.

Second, we have substantially strengthened the logical structure of the paper. The narrative flow has been reorganized to ensure a clearer progression from the research questions and methodology to the presentation of evidence and, most importantly, to the interpretation and conclusions.

We believe these revisions have significantly improved the manuscript's coherence, argumentative strength, and overall scholarly contribution.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper provides a systematic literature review, aims to examine how farmers’ digital literacy affects the adoption and efficiency of agricultural green technologies. While the study identifies an important topic at the intersection of digital transformation and ag sustainability, its impact is constrained by several limitations:

In the abstract, the acronym 'ICT' is used without being defined. Please spell out the full term upon its first appearance.

The abstract could be more impactful by being more concise. I recommend streamlining it by reducing methodological details and focusing more sharply on the core findings and the original contributions of the review.

The content in table 1 and section 2.2 is overlapped. This repetition is unnecessary.

The sample size of 36 studies is limited for a systematic review aiming to draw global conclusions. This limitation is exacerbated by the severe geographical imbalance illustrated in Figure 3, where most world regions are represented by fewer than five studies. Such a small number of observations per region lack the sufficiency to support robust or representative findings about those specific contexts.

About the methodology: While using PRISMA is a best practice, it is a reporting standard, not a novel methodological contribution. The claim of establishing a "transparent and replicable literature retrieval and coding scheme" is weakened by the resultant small and biased sample.

My core critique is the lack of pragmatic solutions for the capacity gap. It excellently diagnoses the problem (the "capacity gap") but fails to prescribe actionable solutions. The "Future Research" section (Page 19) is a list of academic suggestions (e.g., "use structural equation models," "design longitudinal intervention experiments") but offers no concrete, pragmatic methodology for bridging the gap in the real world.

In sum, the manuscript in its current form’s contribution is limited. It provides a useful and important research field but falls short of delivering the critical insights or practical guidance needed to drive meaningful change.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Abstract

Recommendations: In the abstract, the acronym 'ICT' is used without being defined. Please spell out the full term upon its first appearance.

Recommendations: The abstract could be more impactful by being more concise. I recommend streamlining it by reducing methodological details and focusing more sharply on the core findings and the original contributions of the review.

Response: Thank you for your recommendation to enhance the abstract's impact. We have thoroughly revised it to be more concise and sharply focused. As demonstrated in the updated version, the background context has been streamlined. The methodology is now mentioned only briefly, with the primary emphasis shifted directly to the core findings: the triple role of digital literacy, the constraints of the "capacity gap," the stratification of technology adoption, and the mechanisms for enhancing agricultural efficiency. The conclusion succinctly states the review's principal contribution regarding targeted policies and future research directions.

This revision ensures the abstract highlights the most significant and original insights from our study, improving its clarity and scholarly impact.

Research Methods

Recommendations: The content in table 1 and section 2.2 is overlapped. This repetition is unnecessary.

Response: Thank you for your valuable observation regarding the overlap between Table 1 and Section 2.2. We agree that this repetition was unnecessary and have taken the recommended step to eliminate redundancy.

In the revised manuscript, Table 1 has been removed. The relevant methodological details regarding literature search sources, selection procedures, and inclusion/exclusion criteria are now presented solely and more clearly within Section 2.1 and 2.2.

This revision ensures a more concise and streamlined presentation of the systematic review methodology, improving the overall readability and logical flow of the article.

Thank you again for your insightful suggestion, which has enhanced the clarity of our manuscript.

Recommendations: The sample size of 36 studies is limited for a systematic review aiming to draw global conclusions. This limitation is exacerbated by the severe geographical imbalance illustrated in Figure 3, where most world regions are represented by fewer than five studies. Such a small number of observations per region lack the sufficiency to support robust or representative findings about those specific contexts.

Response: Thank you for raising a critical and well-founded concern regarding the limited sample size and significant geographical imbalance of the initial literature pool. We fully acknowledge that the original dataset of 36 studies could not support globally robust or regionally representative conclusions. This is an important limitation, and we have taken substantive steps to address it.

In direct response to your observation, we have conducted a further rigorous review of the literature, especially for our search and selection process, to ensure a more comprehensive and geographically balanced inclusion of studies related to digital literacy and agricultural technology adoption. This effort resulted in the addition of 16 newly identified and eligible studies from previously underrepresented world regions. The geographical distribution is now as follows:

China: 22 studies; The Americas: Increased from 2 to 5 studies; Africa: Increased from 5 to 8 studies; Europe: Increased from 3 to 8 studies; Other Asian countries: Increased from 4 to 9 studies.

This revision increases the total number of analyzed studies to N=52. While acknowledging that the sample remains centered on China, the enhanced representation of other continents meaningfully mitigates the severity of the geographical imbalance. The increase in observations per major world region now allows for more nuanced comparative analysis. We have updated all relevant sections—including the methodology, results, and the discussion of limitations—to reflect this expanded and more balanced dataset.

We believe this revision significantly strengthens the analytical foundation of our systematic review. The findings now draw upon a more diverse evidence base, enhancing the credibility of insights into regional variations and offering a more solid platform for discussing globally relevant implications. Thank you again for this essential feedback, which has substantially improved the scope and rigor of our work.

Recommendations: About the methodology: While using PRISMA is a best practice, it is a reporting standard, not a novel methodological contribution. The claim of establishing a "transparent and replicable literature retrieval and coding scheme" is weakened by the resultant small and biased sample.

Response: Thank you for your precise methodological critique. We agree that adhering to PRISMA represents a reporting standard, not a novel contribution in itself, and that the transparency and replicability of a review’s methodology must be judged by the robustness of its resulting sample.

In direct response to your feedback, we have undertaken two key revisions:

Methodology: The phrasing has been revised from “transparent and replicable literature retrieval and coding scheme” to “transparent and replicable multi-dimensional coding system.” The revise is to emphasis more accurately highlights the analytical framework (the coding system) as a core methodological component developed for this review, rather than overstating the procedural step of following PRISMA.

Sample: Recognizing that a sound methodology must yield a credible dataset, we conducted an additional rigorous literature search. This increased the total analyzed studies from 36 to N=52 and meaningfully improved the geographical distribution. The updated sample now includes:

China: 22 studies; The Americas: Increased from 2 to 5 studies; Africa: Increased from 5 to 8 studies; Europe: Increased from 3 to 8 studies; Other Asian countries: Increased from 4 to 9 studies.

While the sample retains a focus on China (22 studies), this expansion directly addresses the concern regarding a “small and biased sample.” The increased regional representation strengthens the foundation for comparative analysis and enhances the validity of the thematic findings derived through our coding system.

We believe these revisions strengthen the manuscript by more accurately framing the methodological contribution and, crucially, by supporting that framework with a more comprehensive and balanced evidence base. Thank you for prompting these essential improvements.

III. Results and Discussion

Recommendations: My core critique is the lack of pragmatic solutions for the capacity gap. It excellently diagnoses the problem (the "capacity gap") but fails to prescribe actionable solutions. The "Future Research" section (Page 19) is a list of academic suggestions (e.g., "use structural equation models," "design longitudinal intervention experiments") but offers no concrete, pragmatic methodology for bridging the gap in the real world.

Response:

Thank you for the critical and constructive feedback regarding the need for pragmatic, solution-oriented recommendations.

In direct response to your critique, we have substantially revised the relevant sections in the manuscript (particularly the discussion and future research directions). We have shifted the focus from suggesting general academic methods to proposing a multi-level implementation framework.

These revisions enhance the manuscript's practical relevance and contribution to bridging the identified gap between digital literacy and green technology adoption. We believe these changes address the core of your critique and significantly strengthen the paper's impact.