The Symbiotic Mechanism of the Influence of Productive and Transactional Agricultural Social Services on the Use of Soil Testing and Formula Fertilization Technology by Tea Farmers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have reviewed the article "The symbiotic mechanism of the influence of productive and 2 transactional social services on the adoption of soil testing and 3 formula fertilization technology by farmers" The article need to improve tables for the clear understanding and also data analysis should be clearly written. see the pdf file for comments
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The English need minor correction for grammar
Author Response
- Data source, variable selection and descriptive statistics: The data analysis need clarification, What software has been used and at least write a paragraph by elaboration what analysis you have done write it stepwise categorically, You have explanation of every things but for reader it is not clear what statistical analysis has been done
Re: Thanks for your valuable suggestions, we have added the use of Stata17.0 software and what we do with it in the section of coefficient of variation method, correlation analysis and empirical analysis respectively. We have marked red in the article for your review.
- table 1:Please restructure the table with clarifications, it should be clear that what comes in Secondary index with respect to Transactional social service usage, you may separate sections with lines marking
Re: Thanks for your suggestion, we have added lines to the table to make it clearer for readers to see. We have marked red in the article for your review.
- Descriptive Statistics :Please clarify what exact analysis you have done, Descriptive statistic is very general please be specific
Re: Thanks for your suggestion, following your suggestion, we have added a specific description of the descriptive statistical results. We have marked red in the article for your review.
- table 4: same problem as in table 1; Sample size: mention it in table title once only
Re: Thanks for your suggestion, according to your suggestion, we have removed the sample size column in Table 4 and reflected the sample size in the header.
- table 5: it is better to use portrait page settings and make it easy for reader to understand what value belongs to what, it is very confusing
Re: For Table 5, we have added the lines of the table for readers to see, we have marked in red in the article, please review.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
I have carefully reviewed your research paper titled "The symbiotic mechanism of the influence of productive and transactional social services on the adoption of soil testing and formula fertilization technology by farmers" and would like to provide you with some comments and questions.
In the title I suggest that the word "tea" should be included before farmers; because the study was limited to tea farmers.
In the abstract also the authors should include the word "tea" before farmers. --> "... 929 tea farmers..."
The introduction section provide a comprehensive overview of the studied topic.
Figure 1: Price expectation is written twice. Is that correct?
Item 3.1.: Why did the authors select only tea farmers? The study only focuses on tea farmers in three provinces of China, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other regions or crops.
Line 293: The authors should provide the questionnaire as supplementary material.
Table 1:
- The authors should cite the table 1 in the body of the text for readers to understand the table use context.
- In my opinion, the authors should separate in this table the "Transactional social service usage" and "The use degree of productive..." in a clearer form. I cannot know if "Use fertilizer suply service" (secondary index) belongs to first or second primary index.
Table 2: Which correlation index was used? Spearman, Pearson, or other? This should be described here and in the material and methods section (statistical analysis).
Table 4:
The first line can be removed by substituting the above description "variable" to "dependent variable".
I understand that Mu and Li are traditional Chinese units of area and length. However, in general, the occidental readers did not know that. I think that the authors should write a short note explaining shortly that. Suggestion: Mu and Li are traditional Chinese units. The other possible solution is to use The International System of Units (hectare and meters or kilometers).
The authors should inform the meaning of "*"; "**" and "***". Please, revise it in all the tables.
Table 13: Translation the word in Chinese
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The English is understandable.
Only in table 13 there is a word in Chinese language that must be translated.
Author Response
1.In the title I suggest that the word "tea" should be included before farmers; because the study was limited to tea farmers.
Re: Thanks for your valuable advice, we have changed the wording in the article. We have marked red in the article for your review.
2.In the abstract also the authors should include the word "tea" before farmers. --> "... 929 tea farmers..."
Re: Thanks for your valuable advice, we have changed the wording in the article. We have marked red in the article for your review.
3.The introduction section provide a comprehensive overview of the studied topic. .Figure 1: Price expectation is written twice. Is that correct?
Re: Thanks for your valuable suggestions, we have modified the mechanism diagram in the article. We have marked red in the article for your review.
4.Item 3.1.: Why did the authors select only tea farmers? The study only focuses on tea farmers in three provinces of China, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other regions or crops.
Re: Thanks for your advice, we are concerned about tea farmers in Shaanxi, Sichuan and Anhui for several reasons:
The particularity of the research question: The research group's topic is specific to tea cultivation, as different crops may have different farming practices, difficulties and socio-economic dynamics. By narrowing it down to tea farmers, we can delve deeper into the details of the issues and challenges that tea farmers face.
Homogeneity of samples: Tea cultivation in the three provinces may have some similarities in terms of cultivation methods, sociocultural aspects, and challenges. By focusing on more homogeneous groups, studies can reach more accurate and consistent conclusions.
Relevance to study regions: Shaanxi, Sichuan, and Anhui may be important geographical indication tea production regions in China, and understanding soil testing and fertilization practices in these regions can provide valuable insights for the industry.
Data and resource constraints: Field research is often subject to budgetary constraints. By focusing on specific regions and specific crops, research can be more manageable and feasible.
In addition, tea, as a perennial crop, may have long-term soil health effects, which makes it necessary to study the soil testing and formula fertilization techniques mentioned in this paper.
Preliminary research: Our research group has explored some unique patterns, problems or potential solutions in the field of tea cultivation in these provinces in the preliminary research, which prompted us to further explore.
5.Line 293: The authors should provide the questionnaire as supplementary material.
Re: Thank you for your suggestion, but due to the excessive content and length of our questionnaire, and the related privacy, please forgive us for only adding the variables used in this paper in the appendix. If any readers need a complete questionnaire, they can contact us by email to learn. We have marked red in the article for your review.
- The authors should cite the table 1 in the body of the text for readers to understand the table use context.
Re: Thanks for your valuable suggestions, we have put forward Table 1 in the previous paragraph of Table 1 according to your suggestions, and led to Table 1 in descriptive statistics. We have marked red in the article for your review.
- In my opinion, the authors should separate in this table the "Transactional social service usage" and "The use degree of productive..." in a clearer form. I cannot know if "Use fertilizer suply service" (secondary index) belongs to first or second primary index.
Re: Thanks for your suggestion, we have added lines to the table to make it clearer for readers to see. We have marked red in the article for your review.
8.Table 2: Which correlation index was used? Spearman, Pearson, or other? This should be described here and in the material and methods section (statistical analysis).
Re: Thank you for your reminder, thank you for your valuable advice, we use the Pearson correlation coefficient, which we have added in the text before describing the statistics. We have marked red in the article for your review.
- Table 4:The first line can be removed by substituting the above description "variable" to "dependent variable".
Re: Thank you for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have deleted the first line.
10.I understand that Mu and Li are traditional Chinese units of area and length. However, in general, the occidental readers did not know that. I think that the authors should write a short note explaining shortly that. Suggestion: Mu and Li are traditional Chinese units. The other possible solution is to use The International System of Units (hectare and meters or kilometers).
Re: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added them to the variable definition part of descriptive statistics. According to your suggestions, we really learned a lot of details, thank you.
11.The authors should inform the meaning of "*"; "**" and "***". Please, revise it in all the tables.
Re: Thank you for your valuable advice, we have explained below all the forms that involve "*". We have marked red in the article for your review.
12.Table 13: Translation the word in Chinese
Re: Thank you for your valuable advice, and we are sorry for our carelessness. We have revised it in the paper. We have marked red in the article for your review.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is potentially worth publishing and interesting, but its current form does not allow for its acceptance. Here are some notes that should help improve it:
The title of the manuscript could be slightly changed, it is quite unclear and does not fully correspond to the key content of the manuscript.
The structure of the manuscript is not typical. Content appropriate for appropriate (from the point of view of the correct structure of a scientific manuscript) chapters are often mixed up. At the same time, I have no objections to the substantive content of the research itself, which is at a good level.
Some of the results were not included in the "Results" chapter (I will insist that, for example, correlation results are results, although they are preliminary).
There is no separate chapter on Methodology, with some possible division into subchapters for better organization of the content. In general, however, the content of the manuscript absolutely needs to be organized into a more readable structure of chapters and subsections.
Chapter names are non-standard. There is no separate Discussion, but there are two chapters numbered 5.
5. Mechanism analysis
5. Conclusions and policy recommendations
Even if the intention of the authors was to make the chapter called "Mechanism analysis" equivalent to the chapter "Discussion" Discussion, there are still a lot of formulas and calculation results. And the section with the results was already there, and the methodology (although named differently) even earlier.
The structure of the manuscript is unacceptable in its present form.
Introduction and discussion part - references used are mostly local, too few references to international research results.
Technical note: 2. theoretical analysis and research hypothesis (should be capitalized)
Author Response
1.The title of the manuscript could be slightly changed, it is quite unclear and does not fully correspond to the key content of the manuscript.
Re: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the title and marked it in red in the paper, please review it.
2.The structure of the manuscript is not typical. Content appropriate for appropriate (from the point of view of the correct structure of a scientific manuscript) chapters are often mixed up. At the same time, I have no objections to the substantive content of the research itself, which is at a good level.
Re: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted the structure of the article according to your suggestions and set the model as a separate section to make the structure of the article clear. Please review it.
3.Some of the results were not included in the "Results" chapter (I will insist that, for example, correlation results are results, although they are preliminary).
Re: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added a correlation analysis result to the conclusion of the paper for your review.
4.There is no separate chapter on Methodology, with some possible division into subchapters for better organization of the content. In general, however, the content of the manuscript absolutely needs to be organized into a more readable structure of chapters and subsections.
Re: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted the structure of the article according to your suggestions and set the model as a separate section to make the structure of the article clear. Please review it.
5.Chapter names are non-standard. There is no separate Discussion, but there are two chapters numbered 5.
- Mechanism analysis
- Conclusions and policy recommendations
Re: Thank you for your valuable suggestions, and we are sorry for our carelessness. We have revised the conclusions and policy suggestions in the paper as Part 6, please review.
6.Even if the intention of the authors was to make the chapter called "Mechanism analysis" equivalent to the chapter "Discussion" Discussion, there are still a lot of formulas and calculation results. And the section with the results was already there, and the methodology (although named differently) even earlier.
The structure of the manuscript is unacceptable in its present form.
Re: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted the structure of the article according to your suggestions and set the model as a separate section to make the structure of the article clear. Please review it.
7.Introduction and discussion part - references used are mostly local, too few references to international research results.
Re: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. According to your suggestions, we have enriched the relevant literature in the introduction, theoretical analysis, model setting and result analysis, please review.
8.Technical note: 2. theoretical analysis and research hypothesis (should be capitalized)
Re: Thank you for your valuable suggestions, we have corrected in the article, please review.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Journal : Agriculture (MDPI)
Title : The symbiotic mechanism of the influence of productive and transactional social services on the adoption of soil testing and formula fertilization technology by farmers
ID : Agriculture-2548318
Authors : Zhou et al.
Manuscript Type : Research Original Paper
Date Reviewed : July 2023
Dear Editor,
I am writing to express my gratitude for the opportunity to review the research paper currently under consideration for publication in Agriculture (MDPI). Having carefully examined the paper, I have assessed its scientific quality and language proficiency.
The paper presents a research study that employs theoretical and statistical methods to investigate data from 929 farmers across Shanxi, Sichuan, and Anhui provinces. Its focus is on elucidating the impact of productive and transactional agricultural social services on farmers' adoption of soil testing and formula fertilization technology. I concur that studying these issues is of paramount importance, and the topic aligns perfectly with the scope of this agricultural journal.
The main text effectively explains the research background, originality, contribution to science, major aim, methodology, discussion, and conclusion sections. The analysis methodology is well-established and presented in a clear manner, making the manuscript readily understandable.
However, based on the content of the research, I believe that implementing the following revisions will significantly enhance the overall quality and clarity of this paper:
1. The research paper currently cites only around 28 scientific references. It is essential to expand this list, particularly focusing on the methodologies and assumptions used in setting up the statistical analyses.
2. While the numerical results presented by the statistical analyses appear logical, I recommend including references to previous studies in the discussion paragraphs to provide a basis for comparison.
3. A reminder regarding the quality of graphs, schematics, and tables is warranted. Utilizing more professional graphic design approaches will ensure their visual clarity. Furthermore, ensuring consistency in the letters, characters, and units used in figures and tables compared to the main text will significantly enhance readability. Additionally, re-checking numerical values and units, accompanied by readable legends, would be highly beneficial.
In conclusion, once the suggested MINOR REVISIONS ARE MADE, I wholeheartedly RECOMMEND this paper FOR PUBLICATION in Agriculture (MDPI).
Author Response
1.The research paper currently cites only around 28 scientific references. It is essential to expand this list, particularly focusing on the methodologies and assumptions used in setting up the statistical analyses.
Re: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. According to your suggestions, we have enriched the literature in theoretical analysis and measurement methods of the paper. We have marked red in the paper for your review.
2.While the numerical results presented by the statistical analyses appear logical, I recommend including references to previous studies in the discussion paragraphs to provide a basis for comparison.
Re: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. According to your suggestions, we have quoted relevant literature in the empirical results analysis part to verify previous studies. Please review.
- A reminder regarding the quality of graphs, schematics, and tables is warranted. Utilizing more professional graphic design approaches will ensure their visual clarity. Furthermore, ensuring consistency in the letters, characters, and units used in figures and tables compared to the main text will significantly enhance readability. Additionally, re-checking numerical values and units, accompanied by readable legends, would be highly beneficial.
Re: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have corrected the unit error in the paper, and noted Mu and Li are traditional Chinese units in the description statistics. We have marked red in the article for your review.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have significantly improved the content of the Introduction chapter and introduced a few minor technical remarks. However, none of the key comments regarding the incorrect structure of the article were addressed (despite the fact that the authors wrote in their responses that this was done, which is not true).
The Methodology chapter, the Discussion chapter are still missing. Even, if necessary, divided into subchapters due to the content of the research.
Tables of results are present even at the end of the manuscript content, except for the last short chapter of the conclusion.
Two biggest problems:
1. Incorrect article structure
2. The authors' responses, which are on many points, are misleading (although a more serious statement could be made) because they have not corrected the manuscript where they claim to have corrected it.
Author Response
The authors have significantly improved the content of the Introduction chapter and introduced a few minor technical remarks. However, none of the key comments regarding the incorrect structure of the article were addressed (despite the fact that the authors wrote in their responses that this was done, which is not true).
Re: Thanks for your suggestion, we have separately added the section 4. Methodology, on line 421, for your review
The Methodology chapter, the Discussion chapter are still missing. Even, if necessary, divided into subchapters due to the content of the research.
Tables of results are present even at the end of the manuscript content, except for the last short chapter of the conclusion.
Re: Thanks for your suggestion, we have added an 8. Discussion section on line 813. In addition, please allow us to apologize to you that the table at the end of the manuscript is the original questionnaire that other reviewers asked us to add, which we have now removed for your review
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
