Total Factor Productivity of Major Crops in Southern Ethiopia: A Dis-Aggregated Analysis of the Growth Components
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have deeply read the manuscript and there are some issues which should be addressed and revised. The topic of the manuscript is actual and it is worth to be investigated. As a general remark the first art of the manuscript is full with references, there are no personal considerations, juts reporting to literature, without being clear identified. This is not an acceptable practice in the field.
The author(s) should compared the proposed methodology to others approach in the field and specify the argues of choosing it!
The author(s) need to really argue clearly and specify the reasons why this research has been conducted and why it is important in the field. What are the implications? How they choose the sample? Are the data feely available?
The current form of discussions are just repeatedly displayed the results. Author(s) should simplify the current form and derive more remarkable conclusions. The implication of the results should be also stated very clearly and further explained.
The manuscript has major flows and in this form is not acceptable for publication. If the author revise it and improve it, it could be further reviewed.
Author Response
This is the Authors response for reviewer one.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper deals with the crop productivity in the Ethiopian economy. The authors make an attempt to identify the factors that affect the crop productivity. For this purpose, they apply the Cobb-Douglass stochastic production function. Its parameters are estimated using panel data. Unfortunately, the authors do not provide any arguments and theoretical reasoning for the choice of independent variables and their assumed impacts on the output variable. What is more, the source of Table 1 shows a laconic approach to the demonstration of an adequate understanding of the relevant literature.
The study contains many flaws in its methodological and empirical part. There appear numerous errors in formulas, e.g. formulas (6) and (7). The formulas are not sufficiently described, e.g. formula (6). Moreover, the results do not correspond with described methods, e.g. parameter eta (η) presented in Table 6, is not introduced in the “Method of Data Analysis and Model Specification”. The same variables in formulas are differently labeled, e.g. logarithm of land in the formula (4) is labeled “lnland”, whereas it is labeled “land” in the formula (8). The application of panel data SFA is not correctly performed. There is a number of inconsistencies or a lack of clarity in the methods and results sections. For example, it is not clear what kind of model is used (i.e. the Fixed-Effects Model or the Random-Effects Model?). Table 5 presents the results of “OLS Estimates of Cobb-Douglas Production Function”. There is an ambiguity in the estimation of the variance of v and u using OLS model and it may cast doubts on the reliability of results.
In my opinion, the paper cannot be accepted for the publication in the current form due to its methodological flaws and it should be thoroughly revised.
Author Response
This is the second review response
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
See attached comments and suggestions. Thank you.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
This one the third reviewer's response
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments in the file attached
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
This is the final revised version of the manuscript ID: sustainability-1110258.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have answered to my review requests.
Reviewer 2 Report
I do appreciate the authors’ effort to revise the manuscript. However, I’m not satisfied with the revised version of the paper. The revised version of the paper doesn't address any my concerns in particular those related to methodological issues.
Reviewer 3 Report
In general, the author(s) addressed the previous recommended comments. The crops names were added in the abstract, Keywords, Methodology, results and discussions. The author (s) quantified the productivity in Ethiopia and South Ethiopia for major crops, more details were given for each crop. The author (s) clarified and explained the model used in the research and Agronomic practices were included for the major crops. Results Table 4 and point 3.4 comments were addressed. Thus, the manuscript font must be standardized.
Reviewer 4 Report
I consider the article suitable for publication. Editorial spelling check could be considered
Enjoy your article
