Assessing Agri-Food Digitalization: Insights from Bibliometric and Survey Analysis in Andalusia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Agri-Food Digitalization studied in this paper has certain practical significance, and the following suggestions and opinions need to be modified.
1. For Abstract, the research period should be given
2.Materials and Methods: "This study adopted the methodological framework proposed by [40]", by who?
3. Now that it is 2025, it is suggested that the author update the year of the study, because many new perspectives have emerged in articles related to digital agriculture in 2024 and 2025
4.Results:The survey respondents expressed strong interest in tools that improve transparency across the agri-food  supply chain. There is specific demand for platforms that provide real-time insights into production volumes,  market prices,  and global trade dynamics to support strategic decision-making. Implementing such systems requires enhanced stake-holder  collaboration and policy frameworks that incentivize and regulate data sharing. A significant barrier that we  identified is the lack of motivation among industry participants and uncertainty regarding the benefits of sharing data.  Nearly half of the respondents indicated that they were not sufficiently familiar with practical data sharing  mechanisms due to limited previous opportunities. The author points out the shortcomings of many articles, especially this one. The author points out that many respondents are not very familiar with the content, and I am skeptical about the rationality of the design and the accuracy of the data in this article

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for your insightful comments and suggestions. They have been invaluable in helping us improve and enhance the analysis within our study, as well as refine the format and clarity of the information presented.

Below, we address each of your comments point-by-point:

Comments 1: “For Abstract, the research period should be given”
Response 1: We sincerely appreciate this valuable observation and fully agree that specifying the research period in the abstract is essential to contextualize the scope and timing of our analysis. Accordingly, we have revised the abstract. The updated version now includes the following sentence: “Drawing on bibliometric and survey data collected up to the end of 2023, this study examines global research trends and stakeholder perceptions in Andalusia (Spain) to identify challenges and opportunities in agricultural digitalization.” We believe that this addition enhances the clarity and consistency of the abstract and provides readers with the correct temporal context.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Comments 2:  “Materials and Methods: "This study adopted the methodological framework proposed by [40]", by who?”

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for their feedback, which have contributed to enhancing the clarity and consistency of our manuscript. In response to the comment, we have revised the sentence to explicitly include the author of the referenced publication, ensuring greater clarity and precision. The updated sentence now reads: "This study adopted the methodological framework proposed by Öztürk et al. [40]." Furthermore, we have taken this opportunity to thoroughly review and update the entire manuscript to improve its overall narrative consistency. Specifically, we have ensured that the authors of referenced works are explicitly mentioned in the text where appropriate, prior to the citation. This adjustment enhances the readability and coherence of the document, making it clearer for readers to identify the contributions of specific authors throughout the manuscript.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments 3: “Now that it is 2025, it is suggested that the author update the year of the study, because many new perspectives have emerged in articles related to digital agriculture in 2024 and 2025”

Response 3: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their insightful comment regarding the temporal scope of our study and the suggestion to incorporate more recent developments from 2024 and 2025. We fully acknowledge the importance of considering the latest advancements in the field of digital agriculture, as significant new perspectives have indeed emerged during this period.

To address this concern, we would like to clarify that the bibliometric analysis in our study was intentionally limited to data up to 2023. This decision was made to align the bibliometric analysis with the timeframe of the survey conducted, which was also completed in 2023. By maintaining consistency between the two components of our research, we aimed to minimize any temporal gaps and ensure the validity of our comparative analysis.

That said, we recognize the reviewer’s valid point regarding the relevance of recent developments in 2024 and 2025. To strengthen the manuscript and provide a more comprehensive perspective, we have incorporated updated references from 2024 and 2025 in several ways. First, we have added a new paragraph at the end of Section 3.1, emphasizing the period covered in the bibliometric review and including insights from significant developments and advances in research since then. Second, in the new Section 3.2.2, we have used recent references from 2024 and 2025 to contextualize our survey results with more current perspectives. Finally, this recent information has been utilized in the new Section 3.3.2 when establishing proposed strategies, as recent tools such as LLMs are highly useful for the objectives outlined in the actionable strategies. While these updates do not alter the bibliometric analysis itself, they provide valuable context and ensure that our findings remain relevant and applicable to the current state of the field.

We are confident that these additions enhance the robustness and timeliness of our study, and we are grateful to the reviewer for their suggestion, which has allowed us to improve the quality and relevance of the manuscript. Thank you once again for your thoughtful feedback.

We hope this clarification and the updates made to the manuscript meet the reviewer’s expectations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Comments 4:  “The survey respondents expressed strong interest in tools that improve transparency across the agri-food  supply chain. There is specific demand for platforms that provide real-time insights into production volumes,  market prices,  and global trade dynamics to support strategic decision-making. Implementing such systems requires enhanced stake-holder  collaboration and policy frameworks that incentivize and regulate data sharing. A significant barrier that we  identified is the lack of motivation among industry participants and uncertainty regarding the benefits of sharing data.  Nearly half of the respondents indicated that they were not sufficiently familiar with practical data sharing  mechanisms due to limited previous opportunities.”  The author points out the shortcomings of many articles, especially this one. The author points out that many respondents are not very familiar with the content, and I am skeptical about the rationality of the design and the accuracy of the data in this article.

Response 4: We appreciate the reviewer's observation and welcome the opportunity to clarify this point. The cited paragraph accurately reflects a specific reality within the Andalusian agri-food sector: many stakeholders possess limited familiarity with the practical mechanisms for sharing farm management data and the potential benefits derived from doing so.

This situation is not unique to our sample; it has been documented in recent studies by the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAPA). For instance, the report "Digital Transformation in Spanish Agriculture" (MAPA, 2023) identifies key barriers such as a lack of specific training, unawareness of available tools, and a low perception of immediate benefits within the sector. This finding is echoed in reports like "Unlocking data sharing in Agriculture" and the work of GAIA-X Spain, which emphasize the absence of clear incentives and the need for a better understanding of the tangible benefits of collaborative models and data-sharing tools for the success of these initiatives.

Our sample predominantly consists of young professionals with technical training. However, precisely because of this demographic, the finding that many are not actively engaging in data sharing, despite expressing demand for tools and platforms that would require it, becomes particularly significant. We argue this is not due to a lack of capability, but rather stems from the absence of clear incentives, established collaborative frameworks, and prior positive experiences to encourage such practices of sharing data.

We consider this apparent contradiction (possessing digital training and skills yet demonstrating limited practical implementation) to be a valuable finding in itself. Although participants may not be familiar with the specific implementation details of certain tools, their responses remain highly relevant. They enable us to identify the underlying structural factors that prevent existing technical capabilities and technological knowledge from translating into effective and sustained improvements within the agri-food sector. Therefore, we believe the data accurately reflects the current state and the rationality of the survey design lies in capturing this important nuance.

To further address this and strengthen the manuscript, we have incorporated two complementary sections. Section 3.4, focusing on future research directions, proposes methodological enhancements, particularly regarding sample design and data collection instruments. Section 3.3.2 develops strategic proposals based on our findings, aiming to facilitate the adoption of digital tools through more accessible models, sector-specific training programs, and mechanisms designed to make the practical benefits more visible.

Furthermore, we have updated the comparison between global research trends and Andalusian practices (section 3.2.2), incorporating additional regional studies and developments. This allows for a better understanding of potential direct actions that can help bridge the identified gap between technological potential and practical adoption.

We trust these clarifications and manuscript revisions adequately address the reviewer's concerns regarding the study's findings and their implications.

https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/desarrollo-rural/temas/innovacion-medio-rural/dtt-6-transformacion-digital-agricultura-espanola-ministerio_tcm30-699542.pdf

https://www.fundacionctic.org/en/news/know-more-about-event-fostering-construction-shared-data-spaces-agri-food-sector-gaia-x-spain

https://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/uploaded/2024/01/Unlocking-Data-Sharing-in-Agriculture-January-2024.pdf

---------------------------------------------

 

Thank you again for your time, and we wish you a very good weekend.

Kind regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. There are minor grammatical errors and inconsistent formatting issues. It is recommended to conduct language polishing and standardize the formats of charts/tables and references to comply with journal specifications.  
2. The term "digitalization" is repeatedly used. It is suggested to enhance language richness through synonym replacement. Additionally, terminology should be standardized by consistently using either "AI" or "artificial intelligence" to avoid mixed usage.  
3. Recent literature in key fields is insufficiently cited, and relevant studies from Southern Europe are not covered. It is recommended to update references and supplement regionally relevant citations.  
4. 87% of the sample consists of males, with a majority being young and highly educated groups, which significantly deviates from the actual demographic structure of Spanish agricultural practitioners. It is recommended to explicitly discuss the impact of sample bias on the conclusions in the "Results and discussions" section and adopt stratified sampling in future research.  
5. The comparison between global research trends and Andalusia's practices remains superficial, without in-depth exploration of regional specificities (e.g., smallholder economy, policy support disparities) that lead to differences in technology adoption. It is recommended to enhance the academic depth of analysis.  
6. The "Results and discussions" section does not clearly distinguish between result presentation and discussion analysis, causing mixed descriptions in some paragraphs. It is recommended to separate content with subheadings and add transition sentences to connect different subsections.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for your insightful comments and suggestions. They have been invaluable in helping us improve and enhance the analysis within our study, as well as refine the format and clarity of the information presented.

Below, we address each of your comments point-by-point:

 

Comments 1: “There are minor grammatical errors and inconsistent formatting issues. It is recommended to conduct language polishing and standardize the formats of charts/tables and references to comply with journal specifications.”
Response 1:  We sincerely thank you for your comment regarding the review of formatting, language, and adherence to journal specifications. In response, we have thoroughly revised the entire manuscript, implementing several changes:

• We have carefully reviewed the format, style, and font of all tables to ensure they align with the journal's specifications.
• Similarly, all figures have been updated to maintain a consistent format and font style, and to meet the image quality requirements established by the journal.
• The manuscript's references have been updated, ensuring author names precede the reference number where appropriate in the text, following standard citation practices.
• We have conducted a thorough language review throughout the manuscript, striving to eliminate redundancies and inconsistencies.

Thank you once again; we believe your suggestion has significantly improved the overall consistency and presentation of the article.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Comments 2:  “The term "digitalization" is repeatedly used. It is suggested to enhance language richness through synonym replacement. Additionally, terminology should be standardized by consistently using either "AI" or "artificial intelligence" to avoid mixed usage. “

Response 2:  Thank you very much for your valuable comment and suggestion. In response to your review, we have carefully revised the manuscript to enhance language richness. We have replaced frequently repeated terms such as 'digitalization,' 'technology,' and 'adoption' with suitable synonyms where appropriate to improve flow and avoid repetition.

Furthermore, we have standardized the use of terminology like 'AI' and 'IoT'. Throughout the text, the full term is now introduced first, followed by the acronym in parentheses (e.g., Artificial Intelligence (AI)), and only the acronym is used in subsequent mentions.

We appreciate you pointing this out, as we believe these changes improve the readability and professional consistency of the paper.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments 3: “Recent literature in key fields is insufficiently cited, and relevant studies from Southern Europe are not covered. It is recommended to update references and supplement regionally relevant citations. “

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for this helpful and constructive comment regarding the literature review. In response, we have substantially revised and restructured the section dedicated to the comparative discussion to enhance its clarity and ensure conceptual coherence. This section (3.2.2) is now presented separately from the core results, allowing for a more focused narrative.

Within this revised section, we have significantly updated the literature review to incorporate recent and relevant studies, paying particular attention to the Andalusian regional context, the broader Spanish landscape, and developments across Southern Europe. This involved integrating recent findings on digital transformation challenges and opportunities specific to these areas, which helps to better contextualize our own empirical results regarding stakeholder perceptions, adoption barriers, and the role of supporting institutions.

Finally, the global comparative perspective has been maintained, referencing international studies to position our findings within the wider discourse on agricultural digitalization, highlighting both common themes and context-specific differences.

We believe this comprehensive revision significantly strengthens the manuscript's conceptual rigor, regional relevance, and overall academic contribution by incorporating more current and geographically pertinent literature. We thank the reviewer again for this important and insightful suggestion, which has undoubtedly improved the paper.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Comments 4:  87% of the sample consists of males, with a majority being young and highly educated groups, which significantly deviates from the actual demographic structure of Spanish agricultural practitioners. It is recommended to explicitly discuss the impact of sample bias on the conclusions in the "Results and discussions" section and adopt stratified sampling in future research. 

Response 4: Thank you very much for this constructive comment. We agree that the sample characteristics warrant discussion regarding potential impacts on interpretation, and that suggestions for future sampling strategies are important.

In response to your feedback, we have created a new dedicated section in the manuscript (Section 3.4) titled "Limitations and Future Research." Within this section, we first explicitly acknowledge and describe the sample deviation. We then discuss potential reasons that may have contributed to this demographic profile and elaborate on the implications this has for the interpretation of our findings.

Finally, building on your suggestion, this section presents recommendations for future research. These include employing different sampling strategies, such as stratified sampling, utilizing alternative statistical techniques, and incorporating qualitative methods to gain deeper insights. We also mention the potential value of expanding the study's scope through longitudinal designs or cross-regional comparative analyses.

We are confident that addressing this point, prompted by your suggestion, has clarified the potential limitations of the current study and helped outline valuable future directions to advance the overall research on agricultural digitalization.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments 5:  The comparison between global research trends and Andalusia's practices remains superficial, without in-depth exploration of regional specificities (e.g., smallholder economy, policy support disparities) that lead to differences in technology adoption. It is recommended to enhance the academic depth of analysis. 

Response 5: Thank you very much for this insightful comment, which has significantly contributed to deepening the analysis of our results within the specific regional context of the Andalusian agricultural sector. In response, we have restructured the original section 3.3 ("Bridging Research and Practice: Challenges and Opportunities") into two distinct subsections to provide greater depth and clarity:

3.3.1. Alignments and Divergences: Research vs. Stakeholder Priorities: This subsection is an updated version of our original section 3.3. Here, we have substantially deepened the comparison between research trends and practical realities (stakeholder priorities), examining both points of alignment and divergence more thoroughly. Crucially, we now explicitly contextualize these findings by discussing the implications of the specific structure of the Andalusian agri-food sector (addressing your point about regional specificities).

3.3.2. Actionable Strategies for Enhancing Digital Adoption: This new subsection leverages the study's findings to propose a series of concrete, actionable strategies aimed at fostering digital adoption. These strategies are organized around four key pillars: the regulatory and public policy framework, the promotion of public-private collaboration, the improvement of usability in advanced digital tools, and the enhancement of interoperability within the digital ecosystem.

We genuinely believe that this restructuring and expansion significantly enhance the academic depth of the analysis. By explicitly addressing regional specificities and proposing tangible action points, we aim to more effectively bridge the existing gap between research insights and practical application in Andalusia. We appreciate you pushing us to strengthen this aspect of the paper.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments 6:  “The "Results and discussions" section does not clearly distinguish between result presentation and discussion analysis, causing mixed descriptions in some paragraphs. It is recommended to separate content with subheadings and add transition sentences to connect different subsections.”

Response 6:  Thank you again for your valuable comment. Following your suggestion, we have restructured the original section 3.2 to clearly distinguish between the presentation of results and the subsequent discussion. It has now been divided into two distinct subsections: 3.2.1. Survey findings, and 3.2.2. Comparison with National and Global Context.

We believe this separation effectively addresses the potential confusion that could arise from presenting results and discussion points together within the same paragraphs. Furthermore, we have taken this opportunity to enhance both sections individually.

Specifically, we have improved the narrative flow within section 3.2.1 (Survey findings), focusing particularly on better integrating the figures into the textual description of the results, as well as describing their importance for the analysis. Additionally, as mentioned in our response to Comment 3, we have significantly expanded the comparison section (3.2.2) to thoroughly contextualize our findings from regional, national, Southern European, and global perspectives.

We hope this revised structure provides much greater clarity, and we appreciate your guidance in improving the organization of this section.

---------------------------------------------

 

Thank you again for your time, and we wish you a very good weekend.

Kind regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: world-3558600
Title               : Assessing Agri-Food Digitalization: Insights from Bibliometric and Survey Analysis in Andalusia
Authors         : José Ramón Luque-Reyes * , Ali Zidi , Adolfo Peña-Acevedo , Rosa Gallardo-Cobos

The paper titled "Assessing Agri-Food Digitalization: Insights from Bibliometric and Survey Analysis in Andalusia" is a comprehensive study that combines bibliometric analysis and a stakeholder survey to explore the state of digital agriculture in Andalusia and the alignment (or mismatch) between global research trends and regional implementation. This article provides a valuable bridge between academic innovation and real-world needs in agricultural digitalization. It would be a useful reference for policymakers, technology developers, and researchers in agri-tech.

1. Clarify Stakeholder Representation Bias by Acknowledge more explicitly how online survey distribution may have skewed responses toward younger, more tech-savvy participants. Suggest future work using stratified or randomized sampling to capture older, less digitally fluent stakeholders.

2. Policy Implication Expansion. The paper could benefit from clearer recommendations for policymakers—what exact types of financial support or digital literacy programs are needed? Add more actionable strategies, such as tax incentives for small farmers adopting digital tools, or public-private partnerships for data interoperability.

3. Highlighting Local Innovations. Include examples of successful local digitalization initiatives in Andalusia to counterbalance the focus on challenges.

4. Some figures (e.g., keyword co-occurrence, stakeholder typologies) could be better integrated into the narrative. Add more discussion of what specific clusters mean for policy and practice. Simplify Data Visualization & Interpretation or offer reader-friendly legends.

5. Add more actionable strategies, such as tax incentives for small farmers adopting digital tools, or public-private partnerships for data interoperability.

6. The paper notes low adoption due to skepticism and complexity. Include a subsection outlining how AI and Predictive Tools could be simplified or modularized for real-world users (e.g., plug-and-play models, voice-command dashboards).

7. Interoperability Discussion. Provide more technical insight or references on how interoperability issues can be addressed, such as open data standards or government-mandated APIs.

8. Insert a synthesis table or diagram summarizing alignments and gaps between global research trends and local stakeholder views. The transition from global trends to regional survey findings is clear, but the comparison section could be expanded.

9. Future Work Section. Include a brief section suggesting areas for future research, such as longitudinal studies on adoption trends or cross-regional comparative analyses.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for your insightful comments and suggestions. They have been invaluable in helping us improve and enhance the analysis within our study, as well as refine the format and clarity of the information presented.

Below, we address each of your comments point-by-point:

 

Comments 1: “Clarify Stakeholder Representation Bias by Acknowledge more explicitly how online survey distribution may have skewed responses toward younger, more tech-savvy participants. Suggest future work using stratified or randomized sampling to capture older, less digitally fluent stakeholders.”
Response 1:  Thank you very much for this constructive comment. We agree that the sample characteristics and the methodology warrant discussion regarding potential impacts on interpretation, and that suggestions for future sampling strategies are important.

In response to your feedback, we have created a new dedicated section in the manuscript (Section 3.4) titled "Limitations and Future Research." Within this section, we first explicitly acknowledge and describe the sample deviation. We then discuss potential reasons (methodology and distribution) that may have contributed to this demographic profile and elaborate on the implications this has for the interpretation of our findings.

Finally, building on your suggestion, this section presents recommendations for future research. These include employing different sampling strategies, such as stratified sampling, utilizing alternative statistical techniques, and incorporating qualitative methods to gain deeper insights. We also mention the potential value of expanding the study's scope through longitudinal designs or cross-regional comparative analyses.

We are confident that addressing this point, prompted by your suggestion, has clarified the potential limitations of the current study and helped outline valuable future directions to advance the overall research on agricultural digitalization.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Comments 2:  “Policy Implication Expansion. The paper could benefit from clearer recommendations for policymakers—what exact types of financial support or digital literacy programs are needed? Add more actionable strategies, such as tax incentives for small farmers adopting digital tools, or public-private partnerships for data interoperability.”

Response 2:  We greatly appreciate this constructive comment, as it has prompted us to delve deeper into the policy implications and strategic actions that can stem from our findings.

Following your suggestion, we have created a new section in the manuscript titled 3.3.2. Actionable Strategies for Enhancing Digital Adoption. This new subsection leverages the study's findings to propose a series of concrete, actionable strategies aimed at fostering digital adoption within the Andalusian context. These strategies are organized around four key pillars: The regulatory and public policy framework, the promotion of public-private collaboration, the improvement of usability in advanced digital tools and the enhancement of interoperability within the digital ecosystem. For each of these pillars, we now describe specific recommendations and concrete strategies. These are designed to facilitate actions that bring digital tools, both basic and advanced, closer to end-users. This includes fostering the necessary ecosystems built on trust and providing the supportive environment required to achieve a sustainable and equitable digital transformation, directly addressing the need for clearer recommendations you highlighted.

Thank you again for your valuable suggestion; it was instrumental in enriching the practical outcomes of our article by prompting the development of these actionable strategies.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments 3:  “Highlighting Local Innovations. Include examples of successful local digitalization initiatives in Andalusia to counterbalance the focus on challenges.”

Response 3:  Thank you very much for this valuable comment. We agree that it is very important to balance the discussion of challenges with examples of successful initiatives that are already working and can serve as models to strengthen collaborations and new projects within the local ecosystem.

Therefore, within the newly created section on actionable strategies (Section 3.3.2), specifically in the part discussing the promotion of public-private collaborations, we have now included examples of local projects and initiatives in Andalusia. These examples are intended to serve as inspiration and demonstrate successful models for fostering the collaborative ecosystems needed to advance the digitalization of the Andalusian agri-food sector more effectively.

We believe highlighting these local successes provides a more balanced perspective and underscores the potential within the region, complementing the discussion of existing barriers.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Comments 4:  “Some figures (e.g., keyword co-occurrence, stakeholder typologies) could be better integrated into the narrative. Add more discussion of what specific clusters mean for policy and practice. Simplify Data Visualization & Interpretation or offer reader-friendly legends.”

Response 4: Thank you very much again for this helpful suggestion regarding the integration and presentation of our figures.

Responding to your recommendations, and taking advantage of the separation of the results and discussion sections (formerly combined in section 3.2), we have improved the integration of each figure into the study's narrative. We have enhanced the descriptions accompanying the figures and provided clearer explanations of their significance for interpreting the results, aiming to facilitate reader comprehension.

In addition, we have elaborated on the explanation of the keyword co-occurrence figure, placing greater emphasis on the meaning of the identified clusters and discussing how these insights can help in the following section of analysis and actionable strategies.

Furthermore, we have revised several figures to ensure consistent formatting across all visuals (e.g., bar colors, font styles) and to comply with the journal's specifications, addressing your point about data visualization clarity.

We believe these changes make the figures more accessible and their implications clearer within the context of the manuscript.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments 5:  “Add more actionable strategies, such as tax incentives for small farmers adopting digital tools, or public-private partnerships for data interoperability.”

Response 5:  Thank you for your comment and specific suggestions for actionable strategies.

As detailed in our response to Comment 2, we have addressed this by including a dedicated section (Section 3.3.2. Actionable Strategies for Enhancing Digital Adoption) in the manuscript. This section is specifically oriented towards offering concrete, actionable strategies organized within the four key pillars previously mentioned:  The regulatory and public policy framework, the promotion of public-private collaboration, the improvement of usability in advanced digital tools and the enhancement of interoperability within the digital ecosystem. Within this framework, we discuss various approaches, including those related to incentives and collaborative models, aimed at fostering digital tool adoption among different stakeholders, including farmers. We believe this new section directly incorporates the type of actionable recommendations you suggested.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments 6:  “The paper notes low adoption due to skepticism and complexity. Include a subsection outlining how AI and Predictive Tools could be simplified or modularized for real-world users (e.g., plug-and-play models, voice-command dashboards).”

Response 6:  Thank you very much for this insightful suggestion regarding the simplification of advanced tools.

In the new section we added on actionable strategies (Section 3.3.2. Actionable Strategies for Enhancing Digital Adoption), we have included a specific part that addresses the adaptation and usability of digital tools. Within this discussion, we directly tackle the point you raised about simplifying advanced tools like AI and predictive analytics for end-users. We explore several interesting possibilities and approaches for making these technologies more accessible and user-friendly, touching upon concepts such as the modular or simplified interfaces you mentioned.

Thank you again. Comments like these have been instrumental in enriching the article and shaping the revisions we've made to the manuscript, particularly in developing practical strategies to overcome adoption barriers.

---------------------------------------------

Comments 7:  “Interoperability Discussion. Provide more technical insight or references on how interoperability issues can be addressed, such as open data standards or government-mandated APIs.”

Response 7:  Thank you very much for your comment and this valuable suggestion. We agree that interoperability emerges as a critical barrier in the digital transformation of the agri-food sector.

Within the new created section 3.3.2 (Actionable Strategies for Enhancing Digital Adoption), we have included a specific part dedicated to addressing interoperability. This subsection outlines several strategic actions for tackling this challenge and incorporates references to relevant studies exploring potential solutions.

We recognize this is a crucial topic, as resolving interoperability issues holds significant potential for scaling digitalization efforts and accelerating progress within the sector. We appreciate you highlighting the need to elaborate on this point.

 

---------------------------------------------

Comments 8:  “Insert a synthesis table or diagram summarizing alignments and gaps between global research trends and local stakeholder views. The transition from global trends to regional survey findings is clear, but the comparison section could be expanded.”

Response 8:  Following your valuable suggestion, we have initiated the section dedicated to alignments and gaps (Section 3.3.1. Alignments and Divergences: Research vs. Stakeholder Priorities) with a comparative matrix. This matrix serves precisely the purpose you recommended: to clearly summarize and identify the key points of comparison between global research trends and local stakeholder views at the outset.

This visual synthesis facilitates the subsequent detailed description of the resulting alignments and divergences discussed within the section. By organizing the subsection around this matrix, we first highlight the areas of convergence and divergence, and then delve into the implications of the specific Andalusian agricultural context for these findings, thereby expanding the comparison as requested. We believe this addition significantly enhances the clarity and structure of this comparative analysis.

---------------------------------------------

Comments 9:  “Future Work Section. Include a brief section suggesting areas for future research, such as longitudinal studies on adoption trends or cross-regional comparative analyses.”

Response 9:  Thank you very much for this suggestion. Following up on our response to a previous comment regarding sample limitations (Comment 1), we have indeed added a new section to the manuscript titled 3.4. Limitations and Future Research.

As mentioned previously, this section addresses the sample deviation, discusses its implications, and provides recommendations for improving sampling and analytical techniques in subsequent studies. Importantly, and directly addressing your suggestion, we have also explicitly included recommendations within this section to expand the research scope through approaches such as longitudinal studies to track adoption trends over time and cross-regional comparative analyses.

We greatly appreciate your input here; we believe incorporating these specific future research directions significantly enriches this section and highlights valuable avenues for building upon this work.

---------------------------------------------

 

Thank you again for your time, and we wish you a very good weekend.

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author have solved all the quesetions

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has completed the revision.