Smallholder Farmers’ Perspectives on Advisory Extension Services: A Case Study of the Gamo Communities of Southern Ethiopia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper should be deeply reviewed. A theoretical framework as well as a deeper literature review is missing and should be introduced in order to define the state of the art on the topic and to clarify the added value offered by the article. The methodology should be introduced before the results and the discussion and not at the end. The methodology should be better presented as well as the result elaboration and the limits of the survey.
Tables are not so self-explaining and could be improved.
Comments in the discussion as well as in the results should be better linked to the data presented in the tables.
Chapter 3 is not well linked to the survey but more related to the literature, this part should be moved in a specific chapter at the beginning of the article while the chapter should be focused on the survey results.
Conclusions are weak and don't give value to the research done.
The focus of the article, as well as the overall organisation, should be deeply rethought and made sharper.
Author Response
Manuscript ID: 876750
14th August 2020
Re. Amendment of manuscript
Dear Editorial Team,
I am contacting you in regard to a revised manuscript submission.
Firstly, I would like to thank editorial team and reviewers’ time for this submission. I also apologise for delay in resubmitting the revised manuscript.
In response to reviewers’ comments received, authors revised the manuscript. Please find below an outline of revisions to the manuscript carried out by the authors. One of the reviewers highlighted passages requiring attention in yellow in the manuscript. All the changes made have been tracked as requested, and a list together with line numbers follows. The reviewer’s comments are in bold, followed by the authors’ notes.
Thank you very much once again for your time and consideration in advance.
Sincerely,
Miki Dowsing
Re. Amendment of manuscript in detail
Reviewers’ comment 1
1.1 The paper should be deeply reviewed.
-- The authors reviewed the entire manuscript and attempted to focus on adding value to the research conducted.
1.2 A theoretical framework as well as a deeper literature review is missing and should be introduced in order to define the state of the art on the topic and to clarify the added value offered by the article.
-- A theoretical framework for the research project has been included to better address and define the research topic. The relevant literature review in relation to the theoretical framework has also been included.
(see line 42~, line 80~, line 125~)
1.3 The methodology should be introduced before the results and the discussion and not at the end. The methodology should be better presented as well as the result elaboration and the limits of the survey.
-- The Materials and Methods section has been moved to the second section, after the introduction. The section includes discussion of the limitations of the research methodology.
(see line 137~, line 151~ )
1.4 Tables are not so self-explaining and could be improved.
-- Tables 1 and 2 especially have been changed so as to be more self-explanatory.
(see line 179~, line 187~)
1.5 Comments in the discussion as well as in the results should be better linked to the presented in the tables.
-- comments made in the discussion now address the survey results with reference to tables and figures.
(see line 369-)
1.6 Chapter 3 is not well linked to the survey but more related to the literature, this part should be moved in a specific chapter at the beginning of the article while the chapter should be focused on the survey results.
-- Discussion (previously in section 3) is now addressed in relation to the survey results, including references to tables and figures.
(see line 369~)
1.7 Conclusions are weak and don't give value to the research done.
-- The authors have worked to improve this section by focusing on adding value to the research conducted and results analysed.
(see line 552~)
1.8 The focus of the article, as well as the overall organisation, should be deeply rethought and made sharper.
-- The authors have worked to improve the overall structure and focus of the manuscript by elaborating the theoretical framework incorporated and better linking the discussion to the results analysed.
Tables
Table 1 – acronyms removed (see line 179)
Table 2 – title simplified, acronyms removed and table subdivided into 2a, 2b and 2c (see line 187)
Table 3 – title simplified, acronyms removed and amend the contents (see line 323)
Table 4 – title simplified and acronyms removed (see line 334)
Figures
Figure 1 – presentation of figure changed with subset figures 1a to 1d (see line 231)
Figure 2 – presentation of figure changed with subset figures 2a1. 2a2, 2b1 and 2b2 (see line 263)
Figure 3 – presentation of figure changed with subset figures 3a to 3d (see line 295)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. A general comment is that the table and figure titles need to be better presented.
2. While there is a list of acronyms at the end, these still need to be defined when they first appear in the paper.
3. Use (e.g., item 1, item 2..., etc.) where appropriate.
4. Figure 2 is a bit confusing. Consider presenting this important information in a table.
5. Perhaps it is better to label each figure separately. For example, there are two graphs in Figure 2. Consider separating them into two different figures.
5. Be consistent with the table headings. Acronyms are used in Table 1 but not in Table 2.
6. Line 104, the sentence started with a number. This needs to be spelled out.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Manuscript ID: 876750
14th August 2020
Re. Amendment of manuscript
Dear Editorial Team,
I am contacting you in regard to a revised manuscript submission.
Firstly, I would like to thank editorial team and reviewers’ time for this submission. I also apologise for delay in resubmitting the revised manuscript.
In response to reviewers’ comments received, authors revised the manuscript. Please find below an outline of revisions to the manuscript carried out by the authors. One of the reviewers highlighted passages requiring attention in yellow in the manuscript. All the changes made have been tracked as requested, and a list together with line numbers follows. The reviewer’s comments are in bold, followed by the authors’ notes.
Thank you very much once again for your time and consideration in advance.
Sincerely,
Miki Dowsing
Reviewers’ comment 2
2.1. A general comment is that the table and figure titles need to be better presented.
-- Table and figure titles have been changed and simplified.
(see each tables and figures)
2.2. While there is a list of acronyms at the end, these still need to be defined when they first appear in the paper.
-- The acronym in line 220, FGD&A has now been defined earlier in the article.
(see line 220)
2.3. Use (e.g., item 1, item 2..., etc.) where appropriate.
-- The authors have amended the use of numbering where appropriate. Also, numbering has replaced the asterisks in the notes for Tables and Figures. (e.g. Table 1, Community-/Farmer-based organisation 1, where 1 = excluding cultural and religious organisations).
(see line, 179 Table 1)
2.4. Figure 2 is a bit confusing. Consider presenting this important information in a table.
-- The presentation of Figure 2 has been changed.
(see line 263, Figure 2)
2.5. Perhaps it is better to label each figure separately. For example, there are two graphs in Figure 2. Consider separating them into two different figures.
-- Figure 2 has now been separated into four separately-labelled graphs.
(see line 263, Figure 2)
2.6. Be consistent with the table headings. Acronyms are used in Table 1 but not in Table 2.
-- The use of acronyms has been removed in all tables and figures.
(see line 179, Table 1)
2.7 Line 104, the sentence started with a number. This needs to be spelled out.
-- The authors have changed the sentence to read ‘The vast majority of respondents (90.5%) …’
(see line 175 )
Tables
Table 1 – acronyms removed (see line 179)
Table 2 – title simplified, acronyms removed and table subdivided into 2a, 2b and 2c (see line 187)
Table 3 – title simplified, acronyms removed and amend the contents (see line 323)
Table 4 – title simplified and acronyms removed (see line 334)
Figures
Figure 1 – presentation of figure changed with subset figures 1a to 1d (see line 231)
Figure 2 – presentation of figure changed with subset figures 2a1. 2a2, 2b1 and 2b2 (see line 263)
Figure 3 – presentation of figure changed with subset figures 3a to 3d (see line 295)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
