Next Article in Journal
Best Crop Rotation Selection with GIS-AHP Technique Using Soil Nutrient Variability
Previous Article in Journal
Rapeseed Oil in New Application: Assessment of Structure of Oleogels Based on their Physicochemical Properties and Microscopic Observations
Article
Peer-Review Record

Do Farmers Adapt to Climate Change? A Macro Perspective

Agriculture 2020, 10(6), 212; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10060212
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Agriculture 2020, 10(6), 212; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10060212
Received: 7 March 2020 / Revised: 14 April 2020 / Accepted: 21 April 2020 / Published: 9 June 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, the current article needs some correction and addition.  This paper presents interesting case study about farming practices around the world and how farmers are changing with changing climate pattern. The quantitative and spatial nature of the paper make it relevant for both scientists and for informing environmental management processes. However, there are still some weakness in paper structure and literature review. Brief concerns are listed below:

The style, structure and writing

I still see some issues with the flow and structuring of the sentences in the paper. Specially, introduction and Literature review section. I have also found few spelling mistake in the paper. I  would highly recommend getting this paper proof read by native English speaker or edit.    

Introduction:

Introduction sections looks ok. However, there are still major issues with the references. For example, in line 74 to 77 author  made few arguments or tried to present example of developed nation but lacked key reference. That makes paper weak and shows that author have not paid attention to the key literature review

Literature Review:

I am really disappointed with the literature review. First of all, recent key literature is missing from the literature review linked to the argument made in the literature review ( e.g. line 271-279  and many more). I have also found that most of the literature review is not literature review but presented the view of few articles without making any reasoning. Some places it was hard to understand the flow and meaning of the paragraph ( e.g. line 280-286).

Method:

Still methodology has serious concerns, you failed to answer my earlier concerns related to method section in the paper ( not to me). I still can not see any reason why you have selected particular method, advantage and disadvantage in paper.

Results and discussion:

Results looks fine but in the section there is hardly any discussion. I am still wording how is your finding discuss your research question. That is still missing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We have the privilege to receive comments from you on our paper. The paper has been updated according to your recommendations. The point-wise response is as follows: -

Point 1: I still see some issues with the flow and structuring of the sentences in the paper. Specially, introduction and Literature review section. I have also found few spelling mistake in the paper. I  would highly recommend getting this paper proof read by native English speaker or edit
 

Response 1: This draft is proofread by native English speaker and it is also edited to correct the flow of the sentences in the paper. In this manuscript, English editing is done in track changes and highlighted in red color.

 

Point 2: Introduction sections looks ok. However, there are still major issues with the references. For example, in line 74 to 77 author  made few arguments or tried to present example of developed nation but lacked key reference. That makes paper weak and shows that author have not paid attention to the key literature review.

Response 2: The point is well taken. The introduction is improved and new references are added (Please see line 57 and 66)

 

Point 3: I am really disappointed with the literature review. First of all, recent key literature is missing from the literature review linked to the argument made in the literature review ( e.g. line 271-279  and many more). I have also found that most of the literature review is not a literature review but presented the view of few articles without making any reasoning. Some places it was hard to understand the flow and meaning of the paragraph ( e.g. line 280-286).

Response 3: The point is acknowledged. We have removed the previous literature review and rewrite all the literature review and the latest references are added related to climate change adaptation.

 

Point 4:  Still methodology has serious concerns, you failed to answer my earlier concerns related to method section in the paper ( not to me). I still can not see any reason why you have selected particular method, advantage and disadvantage in paper

Response 4: The point is noted. The methodology section is improved. The advantage of using the first difference method and introduction of lags to capture adaptation have mentioned in lines 164-167 and please see lines 171-181 respectively.

 

Point 4:  Results looks fine but in the section, there is hardly any discussion. I am still wording how is your finding discuss your research question. That is still missing.

Response 4: The point is acknowledged. The results and discussion section is improved. More lines are added which address our research question. Please see the lines 238-240, 245-256.

The discussion explains that developed and less vulnerable countries’ farmer are adapting to climate change while vulnerable and developing countries are failed to adapt climate change (Please see  lines 238-240, 245-256).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have considered the paper again in the light of the revisions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We have the privilege to receive comments from you on our paper. All sections of paper has been improved according to your recommendations. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised manuscript addresses my concerns about its first submission.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We have the privilege to receive comments from you on our paper. All sections of the paper have been improved. 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No Comments

Back to TopTop