Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to the Authors.

 

The section called “Spatial autoregressive regression panel model” is intended to describe the SAR model and its application in the considered investigation field. SAR is a well-known modelling approach designed to account for auto-correlation in the spatial dataset. This is an important feature because neglecting a significant spatial effect can bring to distorted models. The model is mathematically described by Authors by means of equation (5) as “basic” SAR, this is an inaccuracy. That equation represents the “simultaneous auto-regressive” model as is evident by noting that the response variable appears at both the sides of the equation. Authors are suggested to deepen the topic on the following reference:

Ver Hoef, J. M., Peterson, E. E., Hooten, M. B., Hanks, E. M., & Fortin, M. J. (2018). Spatial autoregressive models for statistical inference from ecological data. Ecological Monographs, 88(1), 36-59.

In addition, the explanation of the terms present in the equation contains other inaccuracies. There is told about “explained variable” and “explained variables”. Are they one or many? In the equation appears the term μ_it which is not explained. Finally, the sentence “u refers to individual effect in a regression model” is rather obscure Authors are suggested to improve it. In conclusion, Authors are warmly invited to fix all the inaccuracies and improve the text.

 

 

In addition, the title should be rewritten in a clearer form.

 

The English form is not fluent, it is hard to understand and contains many grammatical errors. For this reasons the manuscript requires a complete revision.

 

 

- It is recommended to accurately review the English form.

- In table 7: what is this symbol “数”?

- The complete manuscript needs to be revised according to Functional the instructions for authors

 

References:

 

- Please use the international abbreviation systems to cite the journals.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Article title: The Evolution and Influencing Factors of Total Factor Productivity of Grain Production Environment in Poyang Lake Basin, China

This paper describes an interesting topic on detailed analyses of the evolution and influencing factors of ETFP in the Poyang Lake basin from 2001 to 2017. The paper is very comprehensive, in my opinion it could be divided into several smaller, thematically related articles. The text of the paper is good, you can see that the topics were well thought out by the authors. In my opinion, a disadvantage of the work is that it does not maintain the typical layout: materials and methods, results, conclusions. Lack of such division makes the work difficult to read. Besides, the authors did not conduct a typical discussion of the results. They give a summary without supporting their thoughts with literature sources. Please consider the following comments, which will greatly improve the quality of your work.

Introduction part:

First sentence. I suggest you rebuild it. Grain is more of a basic production result, not part of production.

Why was grain production valued only by the government? probably more fitting here is the statement: generations and societies.

In the introduction, it is worth adding some information (statistical data) about the cereal species that are mainly plant in China.

Material and methods (2):

I suggest the research area section be presented as the first subsection of materials and methods.

Why doesn't the formula (6) also take into account pollution from natural fertilizers?  After all, they also provide sources of pollution?

Please try to give an accurate characterization of the study site. Include the predominant soil type, climatic conditions, major cereal species grown in the area, etc. A map showing the location of the study area would be a great asset.

Are the Statistical Yearbooks and Statistical Communiques of counties (cities and districts) used in this work available in digital or book form? If so, please provide links in the references.

Table 1. Please give under the table 1 an expansion of the abbreviations ML, MLEC, MLTC indexes.

Section 3 and others

Why did the authors not categorize the results section of the paper as "Results"?  I think this is a big mistake.

Part: Natural environment factors.

Please provide a literature source that supports the considerations described (first sentence).

References:

In references, I suggest (where possible) adding a DOI.

Additional:

Please, conduct a typical discussion of the results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article deals with the issue of Total Factor Productivity of Grain Production Environment and is focused on its Evolution and Influencing Factors in in Poyang Lake Basin in China. Generally a typical approach to factor productivity has been utilized, yet the factors outlined and evaluated provide interesting results and analysis.

Methods used seem to need more elaboration.

The background of the researched case study area would be beneficial to a foreign reader, as it would place the study results in particular perspective.

Discussion needs to be outlined and supplemented, as there are numerous articles on total factor productivity. Especially is would be beneficial in light of selected factors influencing productivity. This could also make the literature review broader.

Some non-English symbols (letters) are present in Table 7.

Overall the standard of English seems to be very good, only some spelling issues to be checked (the ones spotted are in Section 2).

No ethical issues have been identified based on the information provided in the article, self-citation is not overly used (only several publications of the authors are cited).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Mr. Todd Liu, M.Sc.

Assistant Editor, MDPI

 

 

 

I send the revision response concerning the Manuscript Land-1118559-peer-review-v2: The Evolution and Influencing Factors of Total Factor  Productivity of Grain Production Environment: Evidence from Poyang Lake Basin, China.

 

 

General comments

 

I examined the manuscript and all the suggested changes concerning the manuscript stile, including text formatting, citations and reference list and  figures, have been carried out correctly. The changes made by the authors to the manuscript are entirely satisfactory.

 

 

Sincerely

Dr. Giovanni Lacolla Ph.D

 

 

Response to the authors

 

The Authors have  answered in an exhaustive way in the cover letter where they reply to the referee comments in relation to some basic  problems.

 

The changes made by the authors to the manuscript are entirely satisfactory.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for making the changes and improving the article. I believe it is suitable for final approval.