Agricultural Technology Innovation and Food Security in China: An Empirical Study on Coupling Coordination and Its Influencing Factors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, a very nice work has been presented. Please find below some recommendations that can improve the quality of your work.

Line 46 – please check the typo

The introduction presents the topic to the reader and the aim of the work is evident. The methodology is well presented, and data part includes all the necessary information to allow replicability. However, I would expect the limitations of those methods to be stated as well as to support the rationale for these methodologies by similar studies that have incorporated them in their analysis. The results part is well described and particularly section exploring the influencing factors. In the same vein, discussion explains and supports the main findings using literature and comparing and contrasting them through existing knowledge. Conclusion presents the main highlights of the work and valuable policy recommendations are offered. Limitations although acknowledged could be more specific and focus as well on the part of the selected methodology and the same applies to further research proposed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Coupling coordination of agricultural science and technology innovation and food security and its influencing factors in China

1- About the novelty, I found any published articles similar to the current MS like

Linqi Liu, Xinyue Wang, Xuanzhu Meng, Yingying Cai, The coupling and coordination between food production security and agricultural ecological protection in main food-producing areas of China, Ecological Indicators, Volume 154, 2023, 110785

2- The title is not accepted and should be improved, why simply it contains 3 “and”

3- This MS discusses the following theme:

Previous research indicates that China's agricultural science, technology and innovation and food security are challenged by limited original innovation capacity and inadequate industrialization of core agricultural science”

4- General comments:

Clarity and Coherence: Ensure that the language used is clear and concise.

Check for smooth transitions between paragraphs and sections.

Technical Accuracy: Confirm that terminology and concepts are accurate and appropriately used.

Verify the accuracy of data and results presented in the paper.

References: Check the references for accuracy and completeness.

Ensure that all cited sources are included in the bibliography and vice versa.

Figures and Tables: Review the figures and tables for clarity and accuracy.

Make sure that each figure/table is referenced in the text and vice versa.

Conclusion: Confirm that the conclusion summarizes the key findings and their implications.

Check if any recommendations or future directions are appropriately included.

Grammar and Style: Look for grammatical errors and inconsistencies in style.

Ensure that the writing style is appropriate for a scientific paper.

The paper needs major revision based on my previous comments

need more editing

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I enjoyed reading the article. The text contains all the necessary elements of a scientific publication. The presented research is comprehensive and has a utilitarian dimension. The only two minor comments concern the abstract and the main purpose. The abstract is too long. According to the publisher's guidelines, it should not exceed 200 words. The main purpose of the research should be clearly stated. The description shows that: 1. study explored the two-way role relationship between agricultural science, technology, and innovation and food security in China based on the coupled coordination perspective; 2. study utilized a grey correlation degree model to classify the correlation levels rank of their respective indicators; 3. study constructed a systematic comprehensive evaluation index system for the coupling of "agricultural science, technology, and innovation and food security.". And what was the main goal? Analysis is a tool, not a goal. “To study” sounds too general. Please consider removing some "and" from the title - I think the title will sound better without the first two.

Thank You and good luck!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf