Environmental Factors Influencing the Sustenance of the Camel Milk Value Chain in Isiolo County, Northern Kenya
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The title is suitable for the study.
The summary must be rewritten. The Abstract has information that is not necessary and another that is missing. The abstract must have the following logic: Purpose; Design/methodology/approach; Findings; Practical implications; originality/value
We should only put essential information in the Abstract.
The article is poorly structured. I recommend restructuring the study as follows:
- Introduction
- Literature review
- Methodology
- Results
- Discussion of results
- Conclusion
I recommend developing the introduction as follows:
1- Framing the reader
2- Problematics of the topic under analysis
3- Evidencing the GAP of the literature based on the literature
4- Purpose of the study
5- Originality of the study
6- What are the expected results (to captivate the reader)
7- The last paragraph should briefly describe what the reader can read in the following sections.
Does the study have no literature review?
The methodology has to be detailed. The methodology has to be justified. Should they justify the importance of using this method in this study? Advantages disadvantages? Support with literature. Why did you use this method and not another? I recommend attaching the applied semi-structured questionnaire.
I recommend making a schematic at the end of the methodology with all the steps taken.
The results are not robust. Most of the results are just descriptive statistics. Then they apply ANOVA, which seems too short for this journal. Expect to see something more robust.
I suggest the following order of ideas for the conclusion:
- Remember the purpose of the study
- Main findings
- Theoretical implications
- Practical implications
- Social implications
- Originality of the study
- Study Limitations
- Future lines of research
The bibliography is very incomplete. There are practically no articles published recently.
English needs to be revised.
Good luck to the authors for publishing!
Author Response
Abstract, introduction sections, research methodology and conclusion revised. All other recommended changes by the reviewer have been addressed.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article articulate the environmental factors for the camel milk value chain in northern Kenya. Article is well-written with appropriate methodology.
In my point of view, few grammatical issues to be resolved.
Author Response
Manuscript generally checked and grammatical errors corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors give some recommendations to establish a modernized camel milk value chain based on improved natural resources management for a resilient and a sustainable system in Isiolo County, Northern Kenya. The article is very simple with just an analysis based on a very simple descriptive statistics. Also the data referred to the Coefficient of variation for quantities of milk sold are related to a very short period (2014 -2017). Despite this, in its simplicity the article tries to give some policy suggestions. It can be considered a first stage for further studies on the same subject. So I suggest to accept this article.
Author Response
Introduction and research design revised.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
your manuscript provides an interesting study on environmental factors influencing the sustenance of Camel Milk Value Chain in a region of Northern Kenia. My main concerns are in M and M and Results chapters that I will expose to you below in detail. Moreover, I recommend to graphically standardize figures and tables. In the figures, the use of color must be aimed at a better understanding of the data when many parameters are reported at the same time. Fortunately, there is no need in your work. In any case, I would leave the background of the graphs blank.
Line
164 Percentages in Response rate are wrong (table 2)
253-258 Remove tables 4 and 5 (where is table 3?) and simply report the results in the text [e.g., interannual variations in milk production differed significantly (p<0.05)]
261-264 “The Means squares …… are significantly different at p< 0.05.” move phrase in Material and methods
264-268 “There was no …… indicating significance difference. “ Reshape phrase according to suggestions in lines 253-258 and/or 271-277. (and delete the phrase citing LSD and c.v. values,)
271-277 as in line 253-258, remove tables and rephrase period [e.g., quantity of milk sold in 2017 (89,620) was significantly higher (p<0.05) than that observed in 2016 (…..), in 2015 (…) and 2014 (…)].
312 330 move this phrase into Discussions
377-378 not clear, rephrase or delete
Author Response
All recommendations by the reviewer; research design, methodology, results and conclusion addressed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I acknowledge that the authors improved the study. But in my opinion they still need to improve some points.
They must make the reply letter to the reviewers in detail. For each suggestion they have to justify what was done.
When reviewing the literature, hypotheses should be formulated based on the literature. These hypotheses should be included in the results section.
They should make the investigation model with the hypotheses at the end of the literature review.
The methodology remains in doubt. It is not clear. How did you build the applied questionnaire?
Attach the questionnaire.
I recommend making a schematic at the end of the methodology with all the steps taken. (I had already recommended it before)
The subheadings of the results discussion are unnumbered.
In the conclusion, points previously suggested are still missing.
I suggest the following order of ideas for the conclusion:
1.Remember the purpose of the study
2. Main findings
3.Theoretical implications
4.Practical implications
5. Social implications
6.Originality of the study
7. Study Limitations
8.Future lines of investigation
Check your English better. There are some grammatical errors.
Good luck to the authors with the publication!
Author Response
- Remove unnecessary information from the abstract: We have revised the abstract, removed all the unnecessary information and included more relevant and essential information in the abstract. The abstract has been restructured based on the reviewer's advise.
- Restructure the Article: The article is now structured according to the format presented by the reviewer i.e. introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion of results, and conclusion.
- Does the introduction provide sufficient background and relevant references: We have revised the introduction and included more relevant and recent references. The problematics of the topic under analysis and the gaps identified from literature review have been included. Expected results were also added in introduction section.
- Are the methods adequately described: The research design has been appropriately included and methodology revised.
- Are the results clearly presented: We have rearranged the results and presented them according to research objectives.
- Are the conclusions supported by the results: We have drawn the conclusion based on the findings of the study. Conclusion has also been restructured as stated and advised by the reviewer. The study limitations and future lines of research have also been added.
- English grammar has been revised and more recently published articles included.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
after corrections the manuscript is clearer.
Kind regards
Author Response
We've completed correcting minor spell checks and English language grammar or style
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The study has greatly improved. However the authors still fail to make some recommendations which in my opinion are essential. Authors only state in the response to the reviewer what they do. What they don't do they omit. Past recommendations that still need to be reviewed:
-When reviewing the literature, they must formulate hypotheses based on the literature. They should include these hypotheses in the results section.
-Must make the investigation model with the hypotheses at the end of the literature review.
-The methodology continues to have doubts. It is not clear. How did they construct the applied questionnaire?
-Place questionnaire in attachment.
-I recommend making a diagram at the end of the methodology with all the steps taken.
The results discussion subheadings are not numbered.
In conclusion, points previously suggested are still missing. For example, what are the Theoretical implications or Practical implications? The conclusion in my opinion needs to be extensively reviewed. I suggest the following order of ideas for the conclusion:
1.Remember the purpose of the study
2. Main findings
3.Theoretical implications
4.Practical implications
5. Social implications
6.Originality of the study
7.Limitations of the study
8. Future lines of investigation
