Evaluation of Agricultural Extension Service for Sustainable Agricultural Development Using a Hybrid Entropy and TOPSIS Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents an analysis of the agricultural extension service in agricultural sustainable development by means of the TOPSIS method.
Despite such an interesting goal, the paper presents several criticalities.
Firstly, in the introduction a clear definition and description of what is intended for “agricultural extension service” are not provided, as well as a scientifically sound motivation of the research.
In section 2, the Authors should provide information on how the sustainability indexes were selected and organized (Figure 1).
In section 3, a flow diagram summarizing the proposed procedure could help the reader in better understanding the different steps of the analysis, including the input/output of each one.
Additionally more detailed information about the case studies should be provided in order to make clearer how the results achieved were carried out. This also affects the relevance of the discussion of results and the related findings.
Language and style typos should be corrected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article „Evaluation of agricultural extension service for sustainable agricultural development using a hybrid entropy and TOPSIS method” proposes a framework based on the combination of technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) and entropy method to evaluate the performance of the evaluation and analysis of the agricultural extension service as a basis for agricultural sustainable development. A case study was performed for three national modern agriculture demonstration zones located in Suzhou, southern of Jiangsu province in China to illustrate and to verify the proposed method. The results show that, the main factors affecting agricultural sustainable development are discussed, and the improvement measures and management suggestions are put forward to reduce the obstacles to agricultural sustainable development and improve the sustainable agriculture practice.
The article is in accordance with current research trends and fits the subject of the Journal.
The article has been prepared correctly and contains all recommended parts. Literature analysis was carried out, the adopted methodology was described and justified, the results were presented, confirming the adopted assumptions and being the basis for determining and discussing final conclusions.
However, I have a few methodological comments to which I would like the Authors to refer:
- 2.1-2.5: The authors proposed a set of sub-criterias, based on literature analysis. However, I lack a more precise definition of why these and not others were chosen. It is not a big problem to propose another set of sub-criterias, also based on the literature. Please explain more precisely why these were chosen. Wouldn't it be better to collect more sub-criterias and make a statistical selection, for example reject correlated ones, those with too little variation, etc.?
- 2.1-2.5: There is also some concern about different number of sub-criterias in particular criteria. Please, explain why the same number of sub-criterias for each criteria is not chosen. Will the greater number of sub-criterias within the given criteria not influence the result, which will be more connected with this particular criteria?
- In the entropy method, shown in equation (5), the way of calculating weights is applicable when all sub-criterias are equally important. Is it really so? I ask the authors to refer to it in the article. In lines 193-196 the authors try partly indicate it. But shouldn't a different way of calculating weights for subcriteria with different influence be applied in this case?
- The methods chosen by the authors are correct, but I lack a more precise justification for their choice. Other methods described in the literature (e.g. Hellwig's method) can be used for such analyses. Please justify the superiority of the selected methods and results obtained with their use over alternative solutions.
- In the discussion, please add a paragraph, for which other purposes the described methodology can be used, indicate its universality, and give limitations in its application.
Other comments:
- Please add in the article an explanation of all symbols used in equations: 1-12
- Chapter 2 is number 2.2 - please correct.
The article is interesting and valuable. After minor additions and corrections it is suitable for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The Authors have improved the manuscript largely, solving most of the criticalities. However, in this reviewer’s opinion still a couple of main issues should be addressed:
- In section 3, the starting point of the proposed procedure should be explained in a clearer manner: i.e. the role played by the Index data matrix/Decision matrix is not so clear as per Figure 2. Additionally, line 240 should be before line 239. Then, additional information on the formulas (3), (4), and (5) could be helpful for the reader.
- In section 5, some parts are more related to the results than to their discussion (section 4). Hence, a further adjustment could be carried out. Moreover, in this section methodological implications of the proposed approach are addressed scarcely (lines 407-412). A further analysis of the benefits emerging by the proposed approach in comparison with other decision making tools in the provision of services/product-services for sustainability could augment the value of the proposed approach. As a reference you might consider for example the following studies: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11071952; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.10.042.
- Finally, it should stressed that the validity of the results achieved in this study is limited to the casa study context.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The Authors have improved the quality of the manuscript sufficiently. Hence, it can be considered for publication.
