Gendering the Political Economy of Smallholder Agriculture: A Scoping Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I would suggest a review of the English of the text. In abstract "in existing political economy of smallholder agriculture literature" is not clear.
Search strategy in 2.2 could be clearer.
What is the usefulness of table 3?
Paper well argumented. The research statement could be better stated.
The supplementary material is difficult to read.
I would agree with most discussion and conclusions.
I would suggest a table with the two types of papers or a table charaterizing the different papers, briefly.
It is not clear if all paper retained or selected are about rural areas.
Author Response
REVIEWER 1
I would suggest a review of the English of the text. In abstract "in existing political economy of smallholder agriculture literature" is not clear.
This has been changed to “in existing literature on the political economy of smallholder agriculture”.
Search strategy in 2.2 could be clearer.
After reviewing the search strategy presented in Section 2.2. we were unsure how to add clarity. We noted that there isn’t anything else to describe given that we list the terms used, the databases searched and the resulted yielded. We hope the minor edits made in this section will be sufficient.
What is the usefulness of table 3?
The table is meant to provide descriptive information on the papers that were included for review in an easier to read form than what was included in the text. This information is helpful for the reader. For example, the range of publication years can be helpful in demonstrating that there has been more work on this topic more recently. The locations of primary research site demonstrate that the majority of the papers included are based in lower and middle income countries.
Paper well argumented. The research statement could be better stated.
Thank you. We have edited the research statement. We hope this is clearer.
The supplementary material is difficult to read.
Thank you for the comment. We hope it is easier to read now.
I would agree with most discussion and conclusions.
Thank you for this comment, we are happy that the discussion and conclusions captures the findings.
I would suggest a table with the two types of papers or a table charaterizing the different papers, briefly.
Thank you for this suggestion, we have added a table summarizing the information presented in section 3.4.
It is not clear if all paper retained or selected are about rural areas.
Thank you for your question. Not all papers are necessarily about rural areas, as this was not a criteria for inclusion. Upon a review of the included literature, there are no papers about strictly urban farming, but the distinction of ‘rural’ was not clarified for all included studies. This classification does not make a difference in how papers were analyzed. To us, the more important distinction is regarding the scale of farming, as we sought to interrogate the farming household. As such, all papers are about smallholder farmers. As such, no changes have been made to the text, but we hope this clarifies the issue.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, thank you for the possibility to review this manuscript. The study aims of understand how scholars have at tended to gender in their political economy frameworks when exploring the political economy of agricultural production. Through a scoping review, the author tries to identify the extent to which gender is addressed as a unit of analysis in this body of literature and second, to identify when and how gender is incorporated in this body of literature. I particularly appreciated the work: i) from a methodological point of view, with attention to the correct application of the PRISMA guidelines which include both the flowchart and the relevance of the checklist; and ii) the relevance of the topic under discussion. I suggest only a few improvements that raise the level of the studio.
Introduction: In order to improve the introduction, an in-depth study of the themes of the agriculture asset of Industry 4.0 (10.1109/TEM.2022.3154841)
Methods: In this section the Prisma guidelines are applicated. But I suggest reviewing the flowchart incorporating the inclusion and exclusion criteria. One could take the PRISMA format and fill it with extreme precision.
Results: The suggestion for the results is to show as well as describe them through a graphical tool, such as tables that make them easier to read.
Discussion: In order to improve the study, I suggest dividing this section in a) discussion from result; and b) implications. (doi.org/10.3390/su11154019)
Conclusion: This section lacks future follow-ups, which make a study more interesting by not limiting its academic action. Furthermore, some limitations of the research are indicated in the abstract, which are not then explored in depth. It is recommended to use the formula of methodological biases related to scoping reviews.
I hope these suggestions help you to improve the overall quality of the manuscript.
Author Response
REVIEWER 2
Introduction: In order to improve the introduction, an in-depth study of the themes of the agriculture asset of Industry 4.0 (10.1109/TEM.2022.3154841)
Thank you for this suggestion. However, upon review, we had difficulty finding an appropriate place to reference the paper or the idea of Industry 4.0.
Methods: In this section the Prisma guidelines are applicated. But I suggest reviewing the flowchart incorporating the inclusion and exclusion criteria. One could take the PRISMA format and fill it with extreme precision.
Thank you for this suggestion. An updated PRISMA diagram with inclusion and exclusion criteria has been added.
Results: The suggestion for the results is to show as well as describe them through a graphical tool, such as tables that make them easier to read.
Thank you for this suggestion, we have added a table summarizing the information presented in section 3.4.
Discussion: In order to improve the study, I suggest dividing this section in a) discussion from result; and b) implications. (doi.org/10.3390/su11154019)
Thanks for this recommendation. We have reformatted the discussion in order to include two sections: 4.1. discussion of results and 4.2. implications and future directions.
Conclusion: This section lacks future follow-ups, which make a study more interesting by not limiting its academic action. Furthermore, some limitations of the research are indicated in the abstract, which are not then explored in depth. It is recommended to use the formula of methodological biases related to scoping reviews.
A section on future directions was added, which includes potential frameworks that might be used in addition to political economy in order to mainline gendered analyses. Text was also added which explains that frameworks within academic settings can shape institutional realities, which in turn can shape gendered experiences within a given setting. Political economic frameworks are utilized beyond academia as well. Policy and practice can also benefit from a change of thought around top down frameworks that do not take intersectionality and identity into account.
