Towards Sustainable Agricultural Development for Edible Beans in China: Evidence from 848 Households
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The overall rating of the article is very low due to its formal and content-related flaws. The comments indicated below result in low partial grades. Corrections should be made, appropriate elements should be added, and the structure should be changed.
The topic is important, interesting and up-to-date. This is due to, inter alia, with the predicted world famine. Regardless of negative comments, the article deserves to be published.
No literature review / description of the current state of knowledge. As it stands, the article does not meet the criteria of being considered a research paper. Part of the information contained in the "Introduction" should be transferred to the literature review.
There are no research hypotheses. They need to be formulated. They should then be addressed in the "Results and discussion".
Authors should clearly indicate what contribution their work makes to learning.
Doubts are raised by the description of the methodology - models with formulas and descriptions. The article is not of a methodological nature. The authors do not build their own models. The article is empirical. In this case, the model used should be described in general terms narrowly to the results presented in "Results and discussion". In section "2.3 Empirical Model" you should briefly describe the used analysis tool (model) and its interpretation. Detailed entries should be removed. Appropriate literature references should be inserted. There are errors in the patterns. In the pattern (1) is (eij). It should be (e0ij). Formula (3) is an elementary transformation of formulas (1) and (2). There is also redundant entry in formula (3) (at the beginning). The way of writing the patterns is poor. The math records are blurry. This content will not be understood by most readers and does not affect "Results and discussion".
Conclusions should be a combination of the state of scientific knowledge and your own results.
Author Response
We are very grateful for your valuable time, constructive comments, and suggestions to help improve the quality of the manuscript. We have revised the whole manuscript accordingly.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Good day, DEARS ! I recommended
The approach is good! Meets the requirements
pictures in the form of dynamics to the article and add volume, 11 pages are not enough, 7 more pages are needed.
Author Response
The approach is good! Meets the requirements
pictures in the form of dynamics to the article and add volume, 11 pages are not enough, 7 more pages are needed.
Answer: We greatly appreciate your valuable time, constructive comments, and suggestions to help improve the quality of the manuscript. We have revised the entire manuscript accordingly. To improve the manuscript, we have added a literature review section accordingly.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript number: Sustainability-1806673 entitled “Towards Agricultural Development in China: Does the Edible Bean Plantation Matter? Evidence from 848 Households” authored by Ma et al., is a survey based study on edible bean plantation in China. The authors found that the plantation behavior is influenced by climatic condition. The reviewer gone through the manuscript and found that the manuscript is presented as per journal guidelines, the contents of manuscript is in define format, and tables are presented appropriately. Followings are the query and suggestion for improving the quality of the manuscript-
1. Rewrite the sentenced for better clarity” Edible beans have a share in the Chinese security and nutrition..” Line no. 12-15
2. Delete “external” from line no. 19
3. For pleural ensure “edible beans” throughout the manuscript
4. Delete “through promotion” line no. 30
5. Replace “high-quality development” with eco-friendly development” line no. 35
6. Delete “plant” from line no. 45
7. Here “Eating the roots of legume crops adds nitrogen to the soil, reducing the need for chemical fertilizers while protecting the environment” what authors want to say. Please clarify
8. Delete “of soil” line no. 55
9. Authors should briefly describe the global production scenario and nutrition value of mung bean and broad bean
10. Mention the geographical location of the cities in table 1
11. Delete “see” in line no. 135
12. Dele “with producers” line no. 139
13. Replace “generation” with “earning” line no. 178
14. Table 2 is ok
15. Rewrite “The between-group residuals…… duction behavior” line no 193-195 for better clarity
16. Write the full form of “OLS” line no. 198
17. The method and material are nicely written.
18. Put a comma (,) in place of “and” in line no. 253
19. Delete “of farmers” line no. 273
20. Table 3 is ok
21. Table 4 is ok
22. The results and discussion section is written nicely and interpretation of results are good
23. The Conclusions and Implications are also good.
24. The author should prepare a figure (flow diagram type) of the research scheme and its finding, which will be better to understand in a bird eye.
Overall the manuscript is prepared nicely and very few reports available on edible beans for improving farmers socioeconomic status and sustainable agriculture. Therefore, the manuscript may be considered for publication in sustainability but only after addressing the above queries.
Thanks.
Author Response
We are very grateful for your valuable time, constructive comments, and suggestions to help improve the quality of the manuscript. We have revised the whole manuscript accordingly.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The work is well granted there are no problems in its design. The only question is the originality of the methodology, which is an analysis of a survey work. However the work is interesting and well built
Author Response
We are very grateful for your valuable time, constructive comments, and suggestions to help improve the quality of the manuscript. We have revised the whole manuscript accordingly.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Research hypotheses should be clearly formulated (H1: ..., H2: ...).
The purpose of the study is not a hypothesis (s).
Author Response
Respected Reviewer,
We are very grateful for your valuable time, constructive comments, and suggestions to help improve the quality of the manuscript.
We have already mentioned the main and clear objectives and variables of the study. So, there is no need to mention the hypothesis.
Thank you.
