Agricultural Water Security Under Water Scarcity: Structural Patterns, Systemic Blind Spots, and Research Frontiers in Semi-Arid Regions: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the global semi-arid regions, the water scaricity and the huge water demand in agriculture is the hot topic in the during past decades. This manuscript try to review the latest research and give the frontiers about the topics in the semi-arid world. The idea is great, but the manuscript still have some problems as following.

1. The number of papers (published between 2021 and 2026, as stated in Line 177) is only 74, which is quite limited. I suggest extending the search period back to 2016 or slightly earlier so that more relevant publications can be included. I do not believe these 74 papers are sufficient to represent the full research progress in this field.
2. The papers should be refined and reviewed detailed, such as the first paper in table 1, the paper titled by "Non-conventional water reuse in agriculture: A circular water economy" is a global review, not only for the semi-arid, the InO value of this paper was impacted by the citation times, not the importance for your research topic. The same issue also happened for other articles in this table. Table 1 could be attached as a supplementary material.
3. All figures in the manuscript should be revised. Text size within figures must be consistent with that in the main text.
4. The overall writing structure should be improved. Please avoid using only one sentence per paragraph, as this makes the manuscript appear fragmented...
5. α, the parameter in equation 1 should be explained by more details, i did not find the method for how to get the α value for each paper.
6. in the equation 1, the IF has very limited impact in the InO, there is a very small gap between the low IF journal(eg. 0.1) and the high IF jouran(eg. 50). BUT in fact, the papers published journal's IF is important.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

see above.

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer.

A point-by-point response is provided below.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research is scientifically sound and addresses a high-impact topic. By , The authors can significantly increase the manuscript's influence and readability by focusing on linguistic precision and better visual integration of their original conceptual model.

The following some other comments to improve the manuscript:

1. Standardize vocabulary (e.g., use "Methodi Ordinatio" consistently instead of "Metodi") and replace non-standard phrases like "misaligned titles" with standard academic terms like "exclusion criteria."
2. Improve the resolution of Figure 8 and explicitly link the specific "blind spots" found in the results to the components of this model in the Discussion section.
3. The authors should strengthen their "Future Research" section by proposing how the GET framework can be empirically tested in specific semi-arid contexts, rather than just identifying the lack of validation.
4. Ensure all variables in the equations are clearly defined immediately following the formula to assist readers unfamiliar with this specific ranking index.
5. Use the Discussion section to create a smoother narrative bridge between the quantitative data (the numbers) and the qualitative implications for global water policy.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• While the methodology is sound, the descriptions following mathematical formulas (such as the InOrdinatio Index) could be more precise to ensure that all variables are clearly defined and the logic is immediately accessible to a global audience
• There are instances of long, complex sentences that occasionally lack sufficient punctuation, which can disrupt the narrative flow. Breaking these into shorter, more concise statements would improve readability.  
• Minor errors in verb agreement and preposition use are present in some of the more technical descriptions, particularly in the discussion of structural gaps

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer.

A point-by-point response is provided below.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript titled "A systematic review on agricultural water security under water scarcity: structural patterns, systemic blind spots, and research frontiers in semi-arid regions", addresses a critically important and highly sensitive issue—agricultural water security in semi-arid regions under climate change. The topic is globally relevant, with ambitious methodology, and the proposed GET (Governance-Environment-Technology) framework offers a valuable conceptual contribution. Some slightly weaknesses identified primarily related to presentation, transparency, and depth—which are easily fixable- with careful revisions, this paper will make a significant contribution to the field of agricultural water security in semi-arid regions.

 

Comments to the authors

1. Although the title of the article is very interest, very academic and edgy but the abstract is written in a standard, descriptive tone based on a relatively small sample of 74 articles. Additionally, fails to address the "research frontiers" mentioned in the title. Also, it recommended to state the key strategy for the search period (e.g., 2021–2026), databases used (Web of Science, Scopus), or inclusion/exclusion criteria.
2. On page 1, line 18, correct " Metodi Ordinatio " to " Methodi Ordinatio"
3. Although the introduction addresses the main items mentioned in the title—such as water scarcity, governance, semi-arid regions, and fragmentation—it fails to cover the "research frontiers." Furthermore, the introduction appears somewhat brief for such complex and interesting topics. Key terms like the "Water-Energy-Food Nexus" are not deeply contextualized. Additionally, the introduction does not explain why this research gap matters for policy or practice.
4. The methodology includes some missing details. First, the Boolean queries required further details including research forum or database-specific search syntax. Second, the authors do not give a justified reason why they selecting the slightly narrow date range (2021–2026), and why they excluded the grey literature and non-English articles is noted but not justified despite their may have enormous benefit data. Third, the equation for InO index is presented, but the weighting coefficient α is not clearly justified, more details for its calculation are needed of. Fourth, the integrating between PRISMA protocol and Ordinatio need to validate through proper documentation. Finally, the authors used the term "still rarely seen" in Section 4.1, a validation or sensitivity analysis are required (e.g., are results change with different α values?).
5. Regrading Table 1, the same table is already found in the supplementary file with more detailed information (IF, Ci, α coefficient and publication year). Therefore, it is recommended that removed from the main text and kept only in suppl. file. Alternatively, the missing values (IF, Ci, α coefficient and year) should be included in the manuscript text. Also, the calculated value of α coefficient must be stated in the manuscript
6. Figure 3, The global geographic distribution of selected publications (2021–2026) uses counterintuitive color scheme style. where lighter shades always indicted the lower concertation, while the darker one is typically represent higher values. This current reverse color may cause confuse for reader
7. The font sizes in the network diagrams (Figures 5, 6) are too small to read author names or journal titles. These figures are not accessibleto readers
8. Figures 7(a) and 7(b) use the raw number of published articles (base N), while the discussion section reports percentages. To ensure consistency, it is recommended to unify the numerical format or clearly state the base N value alongside each percentage in the discussion.
9. Although the discussion successfully confirms the existing gaps in the literature, it requires more new insights. Additionally, the proposed Governance-Environment-Technology (GET) framework needs to be compared with existing models. Furthermore, it is important to consider whether language bias—specifically the exclusion of non-English articles—may have affected the results.

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer.

A point-by-point response is provided below.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Thank you for the response and your efforts in revising the manuscript, though the tracked revised version (not a clean copy) is rather difficult to read. I notice that the authors have extended the research period and expanded the number of reviewed literature from 74 to 136, which has partially remedied the deficiency in literature coverage. Revisions in other aspects have also improved the paper to a certain extent. However, there are major flaws in the research methodology of this study. The calculation method for InO requires thorough re-evaluation, as citation frequency exerts an excessively dominant impact within this framework.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

We also provide a copy with changes indicated as "Non-published Material".

Author Response File: Author Response.docx