Farmers’ Demand for Climate Information Services: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Farmers’ Demand for Climate Information Services in West Africa: A state of the Art

In this paper, the authors have done an important investigation on the demand for climate information in West Africa. The following are the comments that need the kind attention of the author(s) for improvement.

1.   The title needs a revision. The suggested title is, *Farmers’ Demand for Climate Information Services: Evidence from West Africa*

2.   There are several grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. For instance, in the abstract, *models of assessment by majority* should be *models of assessment by a majority*. Similarly, the first line of the introduction section: *By 2050, Africa’s population will reach the 2.5 billion* should be *By 2050, Africa’s population will reach 2.5 billion*. The author(s) are suggested to use software like Grammarly to fix such errors.

3.  The search strategy needs more clarity when using the SCOPUS database with the Boolean algorithm. How country or region-specific search was made?

4.   What is the timeline for search strategy in the year 2022, as it is ongoing?

5.  Table 3 shows the different methods used in identified records. It would be better if the authors provide additional information on the methods mentioned. This can be presented briefly in the appendix.

6.  In a majority of the tables, the authors have presented the proportion or percentage. There is not much information on how these parameters and the respective proportion were estimated? The authors should explain briefly in the methodology section.

7.     With respect to the CIS, the source of information is highly relevant as it can be related to credibility. No such information was presented in the manuscript.

8.  The results and conclusion sections are presented very well with in-depth discussion along with sufficient literature evidence.

 

9.   The recommendations (the section has some typos) should emerge from the study findings only and the authors should avoid giving generic recommendations like sustainable funding model. If there is any such model in other regions or newly proposed by the authors, it has to be explained briefly for better understanding. 

Author Response

Dear review 1. We are grateful for your comments and suggestions. They were very useful to improve the manuscript.  Here's attached our responses to your notes. 

We hope our responses 

Adama

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work done done by authors are commendable. But in the introduction part, authors can discuss about the scenario in world.

Author Response

Dear reviewer. Thank you for your precious time. Here's attached our response to your suggestions and comments. 

 

Best regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, this paper is writing up in a professional scientific way. It will be accepted after minor revision. The authors have a sound knowledge of theoretical science and choose a very hot topic that has significance. I appreciate the authors' contributions such as the community base paper. A review study is presented to Farmers’ Demand for Climate Information Services in West Africa: A state of the Art.  In the introduction, the section needs minor revision to add the significance of the paper.

Figure 3: PRISMA flow diagram for systematic reviews adapted (Page et al., 2021)

Initially, you select 91 papers but utilized 52, It is suggested to elaborate the process on which you select 52 papers for the current study. Figure 3 is not clear to readers.

Table 2: Theories used in identified records

Please explain which records have been utilized to develop this Table.

3.2. Characteristics of CIS demanded by farmers

 

 It is suggested to explain and conclude more significant indicators on the basis of table 6.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We want to thank you for your precious time and contributions. Its allows us to improve significantly the manuscript.

Here are attached our responses to your comments.

Best regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to read the text. The manuscript is well organized and the cited references are well selected.

However, in order to improve the manuscript, I propose>

1. detail the motivation for choosing only 52 articles out of the 91 selected

2. Table 2 is not very clear on the basis of which were developed

Best regards

Author Response

We are grateful for your comments. It allows us to improve the manuscript. 

Our responses are in the attached file.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf