Analysis of the Dynamics of Productive Performance of Organic Farming in the European Union
, Costinela Fortea 3, Stefan Mihai Petrea 5 and Dragos Sebastian Cristea 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The current research provides detailed and comprehensive information on organic farming's potential in the European Union. Even though the study uses a novel approach and has an appropriate experimental design, the manuscript lacks clarity in its presentation. The findings are not sufficiently supported by comparable studies, and the discussion section could be improved. More citations should be used to back up the study's claims and assertions. Overall, linguistic quality must be improved. As a result, the manuscript requires MAJOR REVISIONS.
Author Response
Open Review
( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The current research provides detailed and comprehensive information on organic farming's potential in the European Union. Even though the study uses a novel approach and has an appropriate experimental design, the manuscript lacks clarity in its presentation.
Authors: We introduced new elements in the paper in order to support a better clarity.
The findings are not sufficiently supported by comparable studies, and the discussion section could be improved.
Authors: We have introduced new representative works. We have also cited them in the separate Discussion section.
More citations should be used to back up the study's claims and assertions.
Authors: We did it.
Overall, linguistic quality must be improved.
Authors: We did it.
As a result, the manuscript requires MAJOR REVISIONS.
Submission Date
05 March 2022
Date of this review
30 Mar 2022 16:23:41
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript has included the interesting results of the organic farming trend in the Euro recently, however, the authors need to revise the following issue.
The definition of “Green agriculture performance function” in this manuscript could not agree with the authors. This calculation was only taken into account by production and labor in organic farming. This calculation also can be adapted to conventional farming. This calculation does not include any special effects of “Green”. I strongly recommend “Green agriculture performance function” change to just “organic agriculture performance function” in this manuscript, M&M, results, Conclusion, and abstract. If the authors change this, much easier to understand the farming trends in Euro recently.
Need to revise the following sentences.
Eliminate line 195.
Eliminate “we can see that” in 206,253,278,
Please define; OCrop, OAGProduce, DEPVER.
Make the figure that μtrended in each year.
Make one summarized table using Table 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19.
Make one summarized table using Table 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20.
Author Response
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This manuscript has included the interesting results of the organic farming trend in the Euro recently, however, the authors need to revise the following issue.
The definition of “Green agriculture performance function” in this manuscript could not agree with the authors. This calculation was only taken into account by production and labor in organic farming. This calculation also can be adapted to conventional farming. This calculation does not include any special effects of “Green”. I strongly recommend “Green agriculture performance function” change to just “organic agriculture performance function” in this manuscript, M&M, results, Conclusion, and abstract. If the authors change this, much easier to understand the farming trends in Euro recently.
Authors: We made the change using organic function.
Need to revise the following sentences.
Eliminate line 195.
Authors: We have divided this section into Results and another section as Discussion.
Eliminate “we can see that” in 206,253,278,
Authors: We did it.
Please define; OCrop, OAGProduce, DEPVER.
Authors: We introduced the explanations for each indicator.
Make the figure that μtrended in each year.
Authors: We did this in the Discussion section. Furthermore, we made Figure 1.
Make one summarized table using Table 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19.
Authors: We did it. See Table 1, please.
Make one summarized table using Table 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20.
Authors: We did it. See Table 2, please.
Submission Date
05 March 2022
Date of this review
12 Apr 2022 14:53:18
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors implemented all the required changes and suggestions made by the reviewer. The manuscript may be accepted in its present form.
Author Response
The authors implemented all the required changes and suggestions made by the reviewer. The manuscript may be accepted in its present form.
Authors: Dear Reviewer 1, thank you for your support and your pertinent suggestions in publishing this article.
Reviewer 2 Report
Look improved, however, what is "organic function" ? need to eliminate. see attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Look improved, however, what is "organic function" ? need to eliminate. see attached file.
Authors: We have eliminated the organic function from the text. On the other hand, we want to thank you for your support and your pertinent suggestion in publishing this article.
