Exploring the Role of Agricultural Services in Production Efficiency in Chinese Agriculture: A Case of the Socialized Agricultural Service System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Let’s start from the end:
“The study results illustrated that the services level of agricultural socialization found continuously improved from 2008 to 2019. Moreover, agricultural mechanization and finance and insurance services levels among single service levels have increased rapidly. The agricultural production and scale efficiencies increased by time passing, and the growth rate tends to be consistent. The continuous increase of “scale efficiency” is due to the rise of agricultural production efficiency.”
My comment is: “It could be rare the opposite?” Did you described some critical stages during the development of the observed phenomena? In some way you explained that all has been gone, in the right way.
Maybe could be interesting to put on evidence some questions, and future problems that the stakeholder in the agricultural sector can deal. For instance: are there some rural regions that have been suffered due to expansion of urban-metropolitan areas? Do they change cultivations ? Is the rural activity contributing to preservation of countryside from urbanization of soils (about this you can read an article like “Saving soil for sustainable land use”)
Do you think useful a comparison with other great rural regions in the world (Africa, Mediterranean Bacins, USA)? There are some “historical” researches published in book like “Evaluating Theory-Practice and Urban-Rural Interplay in Planning” and so on. Or some recent papers “From Cost Benefit Analysis to Spatial Indicators: The Use of CO2 Segregation and Carbon Footprint for the Evaluation of Sustainable Land Use Transitions”
I think that you could read more about, and improve a bit, just about the question of rural-urban interplay, the phenomena that characterize the borderline between rural and urban tissues.
All the rest is very easy to understand and depict important aspect of the rural systems in China
Author Response
Dear Learned Reviewer, Please see the attached file with our response to your comments/suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In my opinion, this paper needs substantial revision to be reconsidered for potential publication in Land.
The paper must be refocused on land-related issues. The relevance of the study must be emphasized more thoroughly. Currently, the Introduction is too vague and ineffective. The author should clearly demonstrate how studying social services in agriculture could affect efficiency and, what is crucial for a paper submitted to Land, how it could improve land use practices. Land-related issues are very poorly addressed, which is one of the major drawbacks of the paper.
The author says that "services play a crucial role in improving agricultural production efficiency, promoting high-quality pastoral development, and ensuring food security" (lines 59-61). However, the Introduction fails to convince a reader of any of these statements. What is the impact on productivity? Only mechanization is referred to, but mechanization is hardly a result of services. Also, it does not necessarily mean a performance gain. This issue must be comprehensively discussed from a land angle. The same applies to food security and pastoral development. The latter term must the defined, I do not exactly understand what the author means by pastoral development.
The discussion-related component in the Introduction and the entire Discussion section must be revised radically. Discussions must be problem-oriented, the author must reveal gaps and problems and demonstrate how the paper aims to address those problems and bridge those gaps. There is no any problem statement and critically-oriented discussion in the Introduction. In lines 63-98, the author simply runs through several studies without outlining problem areas. Consequently, the aim is blurred, its reasoning is not convincing. Therefore, a more problem-oriented discussion and a more articulated aim are needed.
The above recommendations fully apply to the Discussion section. The author should emphasize the similarities and differences between their findings and those made by other scholars. The critical approach to the discussion of findings must aim at underscoring the novelty of the study and its contributions to the literature. None of them are visible now.
The manuscript needs radical revision by a native speaker of English to improve the quality of language and style
Author Response
Dear Learned Reviewer 2, Please see the attached file with our response to your comments/suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Remarks and recommendations:
- it is explained that the entropy method is applied to measure the extent of the adoption of agricultural socialized and individual services, while data envelopment analysis (DEA) was applied to measure the agriculture production efficiency. Please explain in detail why those particular methods were chosen?
- what reasons lie behind the selection of Hubei Province?
- why this paper is interesting for international readers? Please explain.
- it is assumed that the findings may support the policymakers and stakeholders to develop policies accordingly for better output and improvement of living standards. Which findings exactly?
- the list of references is rather poor and needs to be enriched with more international sources.
Author Response
Dear Learned Reviewer, Please see the attached file with our response to your comments/suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
(1) In the introduction, the author should highlight the differentiating points of this study with respect to the literature. In addition, authors should describe the research question of this study and at the same time emphasize the excellence of this study.
(2) Authors should describe in detail the research methodology of this study, including the data collection process. In addition, it seems necessary to separate the research methodology part into a separate section from the main text.
(3) Authors should provide a detailed description of the mathematical model presented in this study. There are very few explanations of mathematical expressions such as major formulas and equations, making it difficult for readers to understand smoothly.
(4) The discussion part in the conclusion is very lacking. Additionally, theoretical contributions and implications and insights should be presented specifically. It is the responsibility of the authors to justify the publication of this study. Also, please properly suggest the direction of further research in the future.
(5) Review of previous studies is also insufficient. It should be divided into a separate section to explain in detail the flow of related research in the preceding research and to prove the value of the research.
(6) The length of the abstract is too long. Please shorten its length about no more than 250 words.
(7) Please thoroughly proofread in English according to the journal editorial guideline, including citation method and reference writing.
Author Response
Dear Learned Reviewer , Please see the attached file with our response to your comments/suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The initial version of the manuscript has been improved substantially, my recommendations have been adequately addressed
Author Response
We are highly thankful to the learned reviewer for his/her critical evaluation of the paper and constructive feedback.
Reviewer 4 Report
(1) There is a lack of review of previous studies related to research methodology, including DEA and entropy.
(2) Please justify the research methodology more rigorously.
(3) There is very little explanation of formulas and mathematical expressions.
(4) In conclusion, please add about your theoretical contributions. It also lacks implications and insights for international readers. It is a good idea to include comparisons with examples from other countries.
(5) The length of the abstract is still too long. Please shorten it around 250 words. It is not desirable to include too much information about the research background in the abstract.
(6) Please edit and proofread the manuscript according to the journal editorial guideline.
Author Response
We are highly thankful to the learned reviewer for his/her critical evaluation of the paper and constructive feedback.
Here are point-by-point response to the reviewer comments:
(1) There is a lack of review of previous studies related to research methodology, including DEA and entropy.
Response: We have added review of previous studies related to research methodology. Please see lines 237-257 and 289-294, highlighted in yellow.
(2) Please justify the research methodology more rigorously.
Response: We have also justified the methodology in above-mentioned newly-added text along with giving historical application of the methods in previous studies. (See please lines 237-257 and 289-294). However, we have tried to avoid undue details to keep the length of the article acceptable and readable.
(3) There is very little explanation of formulas and mathematical expressions.
Response: All the formulas are now explained and marked in green for easy refrencing.
(4) In conclusion, please add about your theoretical contributions. It also lacks implications and insights for international readers. It is a good idea to include comparisons with examples from other countries.
Response: Done as suggested. Please refer to the lines: 562-579.
(5) The length of the abstract is still too long. Please shorten it around 250 words. It is not desirable to include too much information about the research background in the abstract.
Response: The abstract has been modified and now the word limit is less than 250.
(6) Please edit and proofread the manuscript according to the journal editorial guideline.
Response: WE have again looked carefully for english errors and omissions while it was already extensively proofready by MDPI professional English Service. However, we are sorry for any neglect and oversight.
