Validating Technologies and Evaluating the Technological Level in Avocado Production Systems: A Value Chain Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Page 1 Line 36: What technologies have been used to improve food production? 

Page 2 Line 70-77: No references were cited to support these gaps. I am wondering these gaps are generated based on the author(s) knowledge, no based on the literature review section. 

(1）The motivation for doing this study should be strengthened. 

(2) Where is the literature review section? Based on the literature review, the author(s) should generate some research gaps. 

(2) Where is the limitation and future research direction? 

Author Response

Thank you for your advisors. We believe that each of the suggestions and questions enriches the manuscript and us as researchers. We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses are given in a point-by-point manner below. Changes to the manuscript are shown in red.

 

Response to Reviewer 1:

Page 1 Line 36: What technologies have been used to improve food production?

You are right, this statement was missing, some quotes were included and a sentence that mentions three technologies that we consider relevant for agriculture and intensification.

Page 2 Line 70-77: No references were cited to support these gaps. I am wondering these gaps are generated based on the author(s) knowledge, no based on the literature review section.

In the line 62 we included a paragraph with some references mentioned previously, related to the gaps identified for the sector. In the line 86, we also included a sentence that allows us to link the gaps identified in previous research with the knowledge gap that we intend to solve through the research and the methodology implemented.

• The motivation for doing this study should be strengthened.

A better description of the problem situation was made for greater clarity and the existing gaps.

• Where is the literature review section? Based on the literature review, the author(s) should generate some research gaps.

Elements that contribute to this suggestion were included

(3) Where is the limitation and future research direction?

With the expansion of the literature review in the introduction and the additional sentences included in the last paragraph of the introduction, we consider these suggestions to be resolved.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Introductory part needs improvement. The literature part needs to be detailed. The methods should be explained more clearly and their connection with the study should be examined. It is important that the results and recommendations section be developed in detail. The English level of the study should be developed. After all these corrections are made, I would like to examine the work again.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestion. We believe that each of the suggestions and questions enriches the manuscript and us as researchers. We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses are given in a point-by-point manner below. Changes to the manuscript are shown in red.

Response to Reviewer 2:

Introductory part needs improvement. The literature part needs to be detailed. The methods should be explained more clearly and their connection with the study should be examined. It is important that the results and recommendations section be developed in detail. The English level of the study should be developed. After all these corrections are made, I would like to examine the work again.

The introduction was improved and developed by expanding the literature review. An attempt was made to detail and connect the methodology where it was unlinked. Some recommendations for future research were made in the discussion and conclusions. The language was reviewed by an expert in the language. We hope on this occasion the language of the manuscript will allow us to communicate our research.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to thank the authors for the efforts made to carry out this research and produce this output. The paper does not really introduce any novelty to the literature, except that it deals with innovation and technology level for an important sector in Colombia, not adequately addressed in the literature.

The paper can be accepted for publication, but the authors are required to make a further effort to improve its quality and its readability. 

In the introduction, the authors talk about the importance of avocados worldwide, but there is no mention of the case study. I invite them to elaborate on this better. They also talk about the gap in the literature but in the tropics. Finally, the introduction should state clearly that the research objectives are set to address these specific gaps.  

In the materials and methods, the authors are asked to begin with a paragraph to set the perimeter of the study, so they have to describe a case study with all its agricultural and socio-economic characteristics for the reader to understand the importance of avocado for the case study's agriculture and how avocado producers are organised (the departments mentioned later in subsection 2.2.

The authors need to support the choice of this methodology to measure technology, why did they not adopt the method used by OECD or even WIPO?

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. We believe that each of the suggestions and questions enriches the manuscript and us as researchers. We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses are given in a point-by-point manner below. Changes to the manuscript are shown in red.

Response to Reviewer 3:

I would like to thank the authors for the efforts made to carry out this research and produce this output. The paper does not really introduce any novelty to the literature, except that it deals with innovation and technology level for an important sector in Colombia, not adequately addressed in the literature. The paper can be accepted for publication, but the authors are required to make a further effort to improve its quality and its readability.

In the introduction, the authors talk about the importance of avocados worldwide, but there is no mention of the case study. I invite them to elaborate on this better. They also talk about the gap in the literature but in the tropics. Finally, the introduction should state clearly that the research objectives are set to address these specific gaps.

Some data related to the subsector and its growth in Colombia were added. Published documents that have mentioned the gaps. A paragraph was added on line 62 that clarifies and expands on some of the gaps previously identified.

In the materials and methods, the authors are asked to begin with a paragraph to set the perimeter of the study, so they have to describe a case study with all its agricultural and socio-economic characteristics for the reader to understand the importance of avocado for the case study's agriculture and how avocado producers are organized (the departments mentioned later in subsection 2.2.

On line 102 a paragraph was added following the reviewer's recommendations. This recommendation is very pertinent if we want to place the reader in the regional context, we are very grateful for this contribution.

The authors need to support the choice of this methodology to measure technology, why did they not adopt the method used by OECD or even WIPO?

Line 179 specifies the methodology used and the reasons why the Ramirez-Gil et al., (2017) equation was used, which responds to local data, and not the WIPO method, which response to data on a larger scale.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The research is original with valuable contribution for theory and practice. Still, I have a couple of comments:

The English language proofreading is recommended. Sometimes, it is difficult to understand the meaning of the sentence. There are also some minor errors, for instance, tautology.

Introduction: This study (DOI: 10.2478/euco-2020-0014) investigates the factors affecting successful agriculture. Authors found put that number of circumstances matter for advancing the agricultural sector. Please, take into consideration all major factors in your background analysis.

Methods are explained in details and clearly.

Please expand the discussion part by making parallels with the results of previous studies, explain the similarities and differences with their results and discuss the reasons. Also, please, answer to your research questions/objectives posed in the introductions part point-by-point.

Conclusion needs to be enriched. Please, explain the implications of this study for theory and practice, as well as main limitations and future research directions.

Author Response

Thank you for the suggestion.  We believe that each of the suggestions and questions enriches the manuscript and us as researchers. We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses are given in a point-by-point manner below. Changes to the manuscript are shown in red.

Response to Reviewer 4:

The research is original with valuable contribution for theory and practice. Still, I have a couple of comments:

The English language proofreading is recommended. Sometimes, it is difficult to understand the meaning of the sentence. There are also some minor errors, for instance, tautology.

The language was reviewed by an expert in the language. We hope on this occasion the language of the manuscript will allow us to communicate our research.

Introduction: This study (DOI: 10.2478/euco-2020-0014) investigates the factors affecting successful agriculture. Authors found put that number of circumstances matter for advancing the agricultural sector. Please, take into consideration all major factors in your background analysis.

The recommended study undoubtedly contributes to the research conducted and is relevant to enrich the theoretical framework and discussion of this research. In addition, it is a research that contributes a lot to the analysis regarding the success of agriculture and its limitations.

Methods are explained in details and clearly.

Please expand the discussion part by making parallels with the results of previous studies, explain the similarities and differences with their results and discuss the reasons. Also, please, answer to your research questions/objectives posed in the introductions part point-by-point.

The discussion was enriched and parallels were made with other studies according to the recommendations. It was also enriched by responding to objectives and discussing the hypotheses initially put forward.

Conclusion needs to be enriched. Please, explain the implications of this study for theory and practice, as well as main limitations and future research directions.

The conclusion was enriched and included limitations and future opportunities for this research, for the methodology, and for the subsector.

 

We hope the revised version is now suitable for publication and look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I believe that authors successfully tackled my comments. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Necessary corrections have been made.

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to thank the authors once again for their efforts. The paper can now be accepted for publication.