Effects of Aging on Labor-Intensive Crop Production from the Perspectives of Landform and Life Cycle Labor Supply: Evidence from Chinese Apple Growers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I am grateful for the opportunity to review this manuscript, which explores an interesting and timely subject - the relationship between the aging of the agricultural labor force and apple production. Despite its relevance, I have identified several critical points which need to be addressed in order to improve the manuscript’s clarity and academic rigor.
Abstract: The current abstract is merely a summary of findings and lacks crucial information about the methodology, data, and background of the study. I recommend that it be revised to provide a more comprehensive overview.
Introduction: The trend of an aging agricultural labor force is a global phenomenon, and this should be acknowledged in the introduction to provide better context and relevance to the study.
Figure 2: This figure is currently uninformative and under-utilized. It could be better integrated into the theoretical discussions to provide visual clarity and reinforcement of the points being made.
Data Collection: The manuscript lacks sufficient information about the data collection process. More details about the sources, methodologies (such as the design of questionnaires, if used), and the process of data gathering need to be included.
Estimation Results: Tables 2-4 primarily present statistically insignificant coefficients, indicating potential identification problems and instability of some variables. This is a critical issue and requires the authors to convincingly address and validate the reliability of their estimates.
Methodology: The use of ordinary least squares as the estimation method, particularly when efficiency scores from a stochastic frontier analysis are used as a dependent variable in the second stage, might lead to additional econometric problems due to truncation. The authors should justify their methodological choice or consider an alternative approach. Conclusion and
Discussion: The last two paragraphs diverge abruptly to a discussion on something else (e.g., apple production in the US), which seems unrelated to the core content of the paper. This needs to be clarified or reframed for coherence.
Suggestions: The proposed recommendations appear questionable considering the possible unreliability of the estimates. The authors should either justify these suggestions in the light of their findings or reconsider them.
The quality of English seems OK.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper represents a scientific contribution in the researched area.
The methodology used is adequate.
Data sources are related to the topic of the problem and are cited in teh correct way.
It is necessary to supplement the introductory part of the paper with more recent references related to the research problem.
Also, if possible, it is necessary to make a comparison with other countries in the environment and the world.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
About this submission my main concerns are related to the following points:
- Abstract must highlight motivations, gaps in the literature, objectives, methodologies and novelties.
- These aspects should be developed deeper in the introduction section. In addition, the literature review needs to be significantly improved.
- The methodologies used must be scientifically supported.
- The results obtained in the regressions need to be tested for multicollinearity, endogeneity, autocorrelation, linearity, normality, heteroscedasticity, ... Namely the multicollinearity is certainly a problem, considering the great number of independent variables.
- A discussion section must presented firstly and after a section for the conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
My comments are addressed by and large. I wish all the best for the impact of the article.
Author Response
We are indebted to the learned reviewer for appreciation, suggestions, and comments, which have helped improve the quality of the manuscript.
