The Validation–Deployment Gap in Agricultural Information Systems: A Systematic Technology Readiness Assessment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript aims to systematically analyze the academic studies published between 2019 and 2025, focusing on emerging digital technologies in agricultural marketing (Agriculture 4.0: Blockchain, Artificial Intelligence, IoT, and Recommendation Systems). 

While the topic is timely and relevant, the manuscript would benefit from substantial revisions for clarity, methodological transparency, and focus.

The abstract is overly long and should be condensed to present the essential information more concisely.

Additionally, the title should be revised to explicitly reflect the agricultural marketing focus of the study.

(Lines 168–176): The final paragraph of the introduction seems unrelated to the main topic. It includes general guidance on how to write an introduction or cite references, which is unnecessary for this manuscript. Please remove or revise.

The manuscript lacks clear explanation of how some matrices (e.g., multi-dimensional maturity assessment) were constructed or applied. This should be described in detail in the methodology.

Line 262–264: A short explanation is needed for exclusion criteria such as "lack of clear methodology." How was this assessed? This should also be linked more clearly to the following subsection.

Line 198 (Quality Dimensions): Each listed quality dimension may require different domain expertise. For example, it is unlikely that an evaluator qualified in items 2 or 3 can assess items 4 or 5 with equal proficiency. While a full panel of reviewers might be ideal in future work, the current manuscript should explain the evaluator’s domain expertise and scope of experience.

Line 178: Please fix “The This study...” and review the entire manuscript for similar typographic errors.

Line 327 and Line 354: Please bold these headings for consistency and readability.

Line 340 and Line 349: Add appropriate citations.

Line 347: Please clarify how this differs from the analysis in Line 324.

Line 328: Some studies may employ hybrid approaches (e.g., AI/ML + IoT). Was there a “combined” category? If not, please clarify how these studies were categorized.

Line 334: A clarification is needed on the inclusion of “latency” and “throughput” as performance metrics alongside traditional ML metrics (accuracy, F1-score, R², etc.).

Lines 337–338: The manuscript states that the NASA TRL scale was “adapted for agricultural contexts.” However, the manuscript lacks any explanation of how this adaptation was conducted. Please elaborate.

Line 438 (Figure 2): Please indicate the month/year format (e.g., “Feb 2025”) on the x-axis. The footnote should also be provided in text format for accessibility.

Line 457: In the figure, the main title and y-axis title overlap and are unreadable. Also, the figure caption should be more informative. The section mentions "Institutional Contributions," but this is missing. Please check.

Line 466: Clarify the difference between "Geographic" and "Regional" distributions.

Line 488: The relevance of “Journal Quality and Citation Impact” to the research question is unclear. Please justify its inclusion or consider removing this section.

Line 499: In Figure 4 (and other figures such as Figure 15), a bar plot alone may be sufficient. Also, please provide figure footnotes as plain text — current notes are not legible.

Line 504: Fix grammatical issues such as "...5.1%). n=99 studies." Similar phrasing appears throughout the manuscript and should be corrected.

Line 526: Several figures have text that is difficult to read — please improve figure resolution or font size.

Line 619 (Figure 9): What does the phrase “BUT LIMITED” in the top-left quadrant indicate?

Line 622: The methodology used to create and interpret this figure should be described in the Methods section, with appropriate citations.

Line 1070: A thorough English language revision is necessary throughout the manuscript.

The discussion should include comparisons with prior systematic reviews on similar topics particularly in AI, IoT, and Blockchain applications in agribusiness and marketing. This would situate the current findings within the broader scholarly context. Key recent reviews should be cited and critically discussed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

While it is good in general, as I have mentioned and listed in the box for Authors, there are some typos and grammatical errors in the text. 

Author Response

Response Letter to Reviewer 1

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. Your comments greatly contributed to improving the clarity, methodological transparency, and overall rigor of the manuscript. Below, we provide a point-by-point response addressing each observation. All modifications have been implemented in the revised manuscript, with changes tracked as requested.

 

Reviewer 1 Comments and Author Responses

1. The abstract is too long and should be condensed to present key findings more concisely.
   Response: We agree with this observation. The abstract has been condensed to focus on the research aim, methodological approach, key results, and main implications. Redundant background statements and extended metric ranges were removed to improve clarity.
2. The title should clarify the explicit focus on agricultural marketing.
   Response: The title has been revised to explicitly highlight the agricultural marketing context and digital technology focus.
   Revised Title: The Validation–Deployment Gap in Agricultural Marketing Information Systems: A Systematic Technology Readiness Assessment.
3. (Lines 168–176) The final paragraph of the Introduction is unrelated to the topic and should be removed.
   Response: This paragraph has been removed completely to ensure thematic alignment and improve narrative coherence in the introduction.
4. The manuscript should clarify the construction of the maturity evaluation matrices.
   Response: We added a dedicated subsection in the Methodology explaining the multi-dimensional assessment framework, variable weighting, scoring logic, and calculation steps to ensure replicability.
5. (Lines 262–264) The exclusion criterion “lack of clear methodology” requires clarification.
   Response: A brief explanation has been added to clarify how methodological clarity was evaluated during screening. This is now explicitly linked to the data extraction procedure.
6. (Line 198) Explanation needed regarding evaluator expertise for the quality dimensions.
   Response: We added a description of the evaluator's background and domain expertise to justify the appropriateness of the assessment.
7. (Line 178) Typographical errors such as “The This study...” should be corrected.
   Response: This error and others throughout the manuscript have been corrected.
8. (Lines 327 and 354) Headings should be in bold for consistency.
   Response: Both headings have been reformatted accordingly.
9. (Lines 340 and 349) Add missing citations.
   Response: Appropriate supporting citations have been added in both locations.
10. (Line 347) Clarify how this analysis differs from the one described in Line 324.
    Response: A clarifying sentence has been added to distinguish the analytical focus of the two steps.
11. (Line 328) Clarify how hybrid studies were categorized.
    Response: A “Hybrid/Combined Systems” category has now been explicitly added and described in the methodology.
12. (Line 334) Clarify the inclusion of latency and throughput as performance metrics.
    Response: A justification has been added noting their relevance to real-time deployment performance in agricultural markets.
13. (Lines 337–338) Explain how the NASA TRL scale was adapted for agriculture.
    Response: A detailed explanation of the contextual adaptation has been added to the methodology.
14. (Line 438) Update Figure 2 axis labels to month/year and provide accessible footnote text.
    Response: The figure axis labels and footnote have been revised accordingly.
15. (Line 457) Improve figure readability and add missing institutional contribution information.
    Response: The figure has been revised to increase clarity, spacing, and provide additional contextual notes.
16. (Line 466) Clarify the distinction between “geographic” and “regional” distributions.
    Response: The text has been revised to clearly define each term and avoid ambiguity
17. (Line 488) Justify or remove the section on journal quality and citation impact.
    Response: The section has been justified as relevant to assessing knowledge production patterns within the domain.
18. (Line 499, 526, 619, and others) Improve figure resolution, readability, and descriptive footnotes.
    Response: All affected figures have been reformatted for clarity and accessibility.
19. (Line 619) Clarify the phrase “BUT LIMITED” in the upper-left quadrant.
    Response: Revised to “High technical performance but limited economic feasibility (Efficiency Paradox Zone).”

 

20. The discussion should include comparisons to other systematic reviews.
    Response: A comparative synthesis paragraph has been added situating our findings alongside recent reviews in AI, IoT, Blockchain, and agri-food digitalization.

 

We appreciate your careful review and are confident that these revisions significantly strengthen the manuscript.

Sincerely,
The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an interesting and timely study with potential relevance to the field of informatics. The topic is well-chosen and the authors appear to have conducted a substantial amount of work. However, the current version has several areas that need improvement before it can be considered for publication. The paper would benefit from revisions in structure, clarity, and methodological rigor.

Major Comments

• The introduction needs a clearer articulation of the research gap. While the topic is relevant, the rationale for the study and its contribution to existing literature are not well distinguished.
• The objectives or research questions should be explicitly stated near the end of the introduction section. Currently, they are implied rather than directly declared.

• The methodological description lacks sufficient detail for replication. It is unclear what sampling techniques, software tools, or statistical methods were used.
• Specify data sources and inclusion/exclusion criteria.
• Include more detail about the analytical methods (e.g., regression, clustering, or machine learning models, if applicable).
• Figures and tables summarizing the dataset and variables (see pages 4–6) could be improved by adding clearer legends and units.

• The visualizations (Figures 2 and 3) could be improved with clearer labels, consistent color schemes, and captions that explain abbreviations.
• The discussion sometimes repeats results without deeper interpretation. Strengthen this section by highlighting how these findings advance current understanding in informatics.

• The paper is generally readable, but several grammatical and stylistic inconsistencies detract from clarity. Examples include long sentences and inconsistent tense usage.

• The literature review is somewhat outdated; the most recent references cited are from 2020. Include more recent studies (2021–2024) to demonstrate awareness of current trends.

Minor Comments

• Abstract: Too long and somewhat descriptive. Condense to focus on objective, method, key results, and implications.
• Figure numbering: Figures and tables should be sequential and referenced in the text.
• Formatting: Maintain consistency in font size, heading levels, and spacing.
• Check for typographical errors on pages 2, 5, and 8.

Author Response

Response Letter to Reviewer 2

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your constructive and insightful comments. Your feedback has been invaluable in strengthening the clarity, methodological transparency, and scholarly contribution of this manuscript. Below, we provide a point-by-point response describing the revisions made. All updates have been incorporated into the revised manuscript, using Track Changes as requested.

 

Reviewer 2 Comments and Author Responses

1. The introduction requires clearer articulation of the research gap and contribution.
   Response: We agree. The introduction has been rewritten to clearly define the existing gap in the literature regarding the commercialization stage of agricultural value chains in the context of Agriculture 4.0. The contribution of the study is now explicitly stated, emphasizing its novelty in evaluating marketing-oriented digital interventions rather than production-focused technologies.
2. Research objectives/questions should be explicitly stated at the end of the introduction.
   Response: Four research questions have been clearly listed at the end of the introduction to explicitly guide the scope and analytical direction of the study.
3. The methodology lacks sufficient detail for replication.
   Response: The methodology section has been expanded to describe the review protocol in greater detail, including data sources, search strings, screening steps, and coding procedures.
4. Specify data sources and inclusion/exclusion criteria.
   Response: The manuscript now identifies Scopus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore as the primary data sources. Inclusion and exclusion criteria have been described explicitly, including examples related to methodological clarity and contextual relevance.
5. Provide additional detail on analytical methods.
   Response: We have added clarification on bibliometric analysis procedures, TRL scoring logic, the synthesis matrix design, and thematic coding procedures used during qualitative synthesis. Where studies employed machine learning, their performance metrics were categorized and reported rather than re-estimated.
6. Improve clarity of figures and tables summarizing datasets (pp. 4–6).
   Response: Tables summarizing study characteristics and variable categories have been reformatted with clearer legends, consistent terminology, and improved readability.
7. Visualizations (Figures 2 and 3) require improved labels and legends.
   Response: Both figures have been revised with clearer axis labels, standardized color schemes, and complete legend explanations of abbreviations.
8. The discussion section sometimes repeats results rather than interpreting them.
   Response: The discussion has been revised to emphasize interpretation and theoretical implications, including how the findings advance understanding of digital transformation in agricultural marketing systems. A comparative synthesis with recent systematic reviews has also been added.
9. Several grammatical and stylistic inconsistencies reduce clarity.
   Response: The manuscript underwent full English language revision to correct tense consistency, sentence structure, and readability.
10. The literature review lacks recent sources (post-2020).
    Response: We have added relevant recent studies published between 2021 and 2024, particularly in areas of AI-assisted market forecasting, blockchain traceability platforms, and IoT-enabled supply chain monitoring.

 

Minor Comments

Reviewer Comment	Response
Abstract is too long and descriptive.	The abstract has been shortened and streamlined.
Figure and table numbering should be sequential.	All figure and table numbering has been standardized and cross-checked.
Formatting inconsistencies (font, headings, spacing).	Formatting has been corrected throughout the document.
Check for typographical errors on pages 2, 5, and 8.	All identified typographical errors have been corrected.

 

We thank you again for your valuable feedback. We believe that the revisions made in response to your recommendations have significantly strengthened the clarity, methodological rigor, and contribution of this work.

 

Sincerely,
The Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript provides a systematic literature review on the application of Agriculture 4.0 technologies (Blockchain, AI, IoT, Recommendation Systems) in agricultural marketing. The work is comprehensive, and the topic is of significant practical importance. The core finding of the paper—the "efficiency paradox" where these technologies perform well in theory and testing but face a huge gap in actual deployment and commercialization—is highly insightful. The findings of this study are valuable for understanding the current disconnect between digital agriculture research and practical industry needs.

However, the manuscript has several major flaws regarding methodological rigor, consistency in data presentation, and the logic of its core framework. These issues undermine the reliability of the study's conclusions. Therefore, a comprehensive major revision is required before the manuscript can be considered for acceptance.

1.Issues with Methodological Rigor and Reproducibility This is the most critical issue in this manuscript. The cornerstone of a systematic review is a transparent and reproducible process, but the current manuscript has serious deficiencies in two areas:

(1)Inconsistent Data in the Screening Process: The literature screening data described in the text (Section 2.5) (e.g., 347 initial records, 52 duplicates removed) are completely inconsistent with the data presented in the PRISMA flowchart (Fig. 1) (initial 364 records, 120 duplicates removed). This contradiction prevents readers from trusting and reproducing the authors' research process.

(2)Non-transparent Core Analytical Metrics: In key figures such as Fig. 9 and Fig. 14, the authors use composite scores (on a 0-100 scale), like "Technical Performance Score" and "Economic Viability Score," to support their central arguments. However, the paper does not explain how these scores were calculated from multiple underlying indicators (e.g., accuracy, TRL, cost), lacking a clear calculation method. As the analysis process is not transparent, its scientific validity and the reliability of the conclusions cannot be guaranteed.

2.Issues with the Logical Consistency of the Core Framework There is a clear break in the manuscript's logical framework. The introduction explicitly states four research questions (RQ1-RQ4), which should form the basis for the entire paper's argumentation. However, the methodology section (2.1) claims the study is structured around six research questions (RQ1-RQ6). As the research questions are the starting point and core of the study, this inconsistency makes the logical chain and argumentative structure of the paper appear disorganized and unreliable. The authors must clarify and unify the research questions throughout the manuscript.

Specific Comments

1.Quality of Figure Presentation: The presentation quality of several figures in the manuscript needs improvement. There are issues with overlapping, truncated, and obscured text, which severely hinder information retrieval. For example:

(1)Fig. 3: The title for panel B, "Publications," is truncated and not fully displayed.

(2)Fig. 6: In panel B, the text within the flowchart boxes is completely overlapping and unreadable.

(3)Fig. 13: An annotation box completely obscures the legend, making it impossible to identify the technologies represented by the curves.

2.Language Polishing: It is recommended that the authors have the manuscript polished by a native English speaker or a professional language editing service after revisions to improve its precision and fluency.

Author Response

Response Letter to Reviewer 3

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your detailed and rigorous comments. Your observations directly strengthen the methodological transparency, internal coherence, and scientific reliability of this study. Below, we provide a point-by-point response describing how each issue has been addressed. All corresponding corrections have been implemented in the revised manuscript using Track Changes.

 

Major Comments

1. Methodological Rigor and Reproducibility

(1) Inconsistent data in the selection process.
Response: Thank you for identifying this issue. The discrepancies between the numerical values reported in Section 2.5 and the PRISMA flow diagram were corrected. We recalculated all records, verified duplicates across databases, and updated both the textual description and the PRISMA diagram to ensure full consistency. The corrected values are now:

• Initial records identified: 364
• Duplicates removed: 120
• Records screened: 244
• Full-text articles assessed: 128
• Final articles included: 99
  This correction ensures transparency and reproducibility of the review process.

(2) Lack of transparency in composite metric calculations (Figures 9 and 14).
Response: We agree these metrics required methodological clarification. A new subsection (“2.9 Composite Scoring Calculation Framework”) has been added to explain how the Technical Performance Score and Economic Feasibility Score were derived. Each composite metric is now defined based on normalized sub-scores (e.g., accuracy, TRL level, latency, operational cost), using min-max normalization and equal weighting. The formula and scoring scale are now explicitly reported. Additionally, Figure captions were expanded to reference this new section for clarity.

 

2. Logical Coherence of the Analytical Framework

Response: You correctly noted the inconsistency between four research questions in the Introduction and six research questions in the Methodology section. We have resolved this inconsistency by standardizing the study around four research questions (RQ1–RQ4) throughout the manuscript. Section 2.1 has been rewritten accordingly, and all references to RQ5–RQ6 have been removed to maintain coherence.

Specific Comments

1. Figure quality and readability issues.
   Response: All affected figures (Figs. 3, 6, 13, and others noted) have been re-generated at higher resolution (minimum 300 DPI) and redesigned to ensure readability.

• Titles, labels, text spacing, and annotation placement have been adjusted.
• Overlapping elements were repositioned.
• Figure captions were revised for clearer interpretation.

2. Language polishing.
   Response: The manuscript has undergone full professional English editing, addressing clarity, fluency, sentence structure, and tense consistency. This includes corrections to long sentence constructions and terminology standardization.

Closing Statement

We are grateful for your thorough and constructive review. The revisions guided by your comments have significantly improved methodological robustness, internal consistency, figure readability, and overall clarity of the manuscript. We believe the revised version now meets the expectations of rigor appropriate for publication.

Sincerely,
The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although there are a few minor points to be polished in your paper that need clarification, I congratulate you for conducting one of the most comprehensive analyses on the subject.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors answered all my questions. I have no further comments. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript has been revised by the authors and I think it can be accepted.