Differences in Local Rice Price Volatility, Climate, and Macroeconomic Determinants in the Indonesian Market
, Jatna Supriatna 3,4,5, Raldi Hendro Koestoer 6 and Tri Edhi Budhi Soesilo 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The abstract contains main required components and it forms coherent text with logical conclusions and interactions between its immanent parts. The title of the paper is well formulated and it covers the content. The introduction logically follows the aim of the paper and it provides valuable introspection into solved topic. Methodological part of the paper is suits current scientific standards. The appropriate statistical apparatus is described adequately. The results are presented clearly. The interpretation of tables and figures is acceptable. However, wider context of the presentation of the results should be applied to make the results really understandable for the audience. The level of the author’s knowledge is satisfying. The overall level of language is appropriate. Authors don´t use recent literature, I would suggest to updated most of the literature. It would be useful to enrich the literature and to include also references from journals indexed in reputable databases (WoS resp. Scopus) in last two years from agricultural economics filed. Furthermore, discussion of findings generalizability as well as whether findings may apply to other context should be discussed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is overall interesting and the topic is, without any doubt, of high concern still nowadays.
For sure I would try to make some changes in order to make it more readable and understandable:
First of all, introduction barely gives information about the whole study and the methodology applied. I would appreciate, maybe, to separate the theoretical background from the very introduction.
Moreover, the materials section is composed more by a theoretical perspective, and it is not located in the right part of the paper, it should be matched with a literature review.
Methodology, analitically speaking, is well explained, but there is no description about data collection.
Finally, I think that literature must be enlarged and improved, it is a hot topic and there is a lot to say about it, but a better support should give authoritativeness to the manuscript. This must be done, otherwise someone would think it is not a core field.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
This is an interesting study. The paper was interesting to read. I found it thoughtful and reflective. Lots of broad considerations for the future. The team did well producing so much content. I attach a copy of the manuscript with some edits and comments or queries for more information or clarification.
Sincerely
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I appreciate that the authors accomplished to all the recommendations suggested, and I find that now the manuscript is highly readable and complete. I would probably still add some referrals about a remainder of the work at the end of introduction, and to be more precise about sampling strategy, i.e, you reported the source of data but no items about variable detection, please make it clear in the methods.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
