Evaluation of Kartepe Village Production Patterns and Farmer Profiles
Erol Yildirim
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Below is my report on the research article titled "Evaluation of Kartepe Villages Production Pattern and Farmers Profile".
The aim of this study providing necessary agricultural extension support while carrying 20 out agricultural activities by revealing the production patterns and farmer profiles in the villages of 21 Kartepe district of Kocaeli province.
The farmers registered in the Farmers Registration System 22 (FRS) where taken in to account here, 260 farmers with 2 monthly study, a questionnaire was ap-23 plied face to face interviews and the data obtained were evaluating by making stastistical analyses.
24 The data are interpreted by applying frequency tables and Kruskal-Wallis test.
According to data 25 executed; %89,6 is male, %10,4 is female, %40,8 is 56 years old and over, %34,6 is within 45 to 55 26 ages.
According to education levels; %61,9 is the highest number of primary scholls graduated.
27 These are followed by secondary and high school graduates with %15,8 respectively.
The number 28 of university (Bachelor/Associate Degree), postgraduate students and literate and illiterate students 29 are in the minority.
69.2% of the participants in the research are farmers and 24.7% are retired and 30 workers.
The land of 68.8% of the respondents are their own property, the land of 11.9% of them is 31 common.
It is observed that 32.7% of them are 1-10 acres and 11-20 acres and 17.3% are 21-30 acres.
32 It has been determined that more than half of the participants (51.9%) produce 4 tons or more an-33 nually.
42.7% of their social security coverages are SSK, 21.2% are Bagkur, and 16.5% are Pension 34 Fund of the respondents.
As a result of the analyzes made in terms of occupations, land size, prop-35 erty status, number of workers and worker status, social security, fight against diseases and pests, 36 the differences between the variables and the relationship between them are determined as im-37 portant.
This manuscript is contain sufficient original and new scientific data.
Separately, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion and reference list (only source number 23 is not in the literature list) are sufficient. Separately, statistical analysis was made appropriately.
This manuscipt can be publish in this journal.
Best regards
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Entire Score sheet:
Reviewer: 1
Recommendation: This manuscript can be publish in this journal.
Editor's Comments:
Reviewer 1) Comments to Author:
Dear Authors,
Below is my report on the research article titled "Evaluation of Kartepe Villages Production Pattern and Farmers Profile".
The aim of this study providing necessary agricultural extension support while carrying 20 out agricultural activities by revealing the production patterns and farmer profiles in the villages of 21 Kartepe district of Kocaeli province.
The farmers registered in the Farmers Registration System 22 (FRS) where taken in to account here, 260 farmers with 2 monthly study, a questionnaire was ap-23 plied face to face interviews and the data obtained were evaluating by making statistical analyses.
24 The data are interpreted by applying frequency tables and Kruskal-Wallis test.
According to data 25 executed; %89,6 is male, %10,4 is female, %40,8 is 56 years old and over, %34,6 is within 45 to 55 26 ages.
According to education levels; %61,9 is the highest number of primary scholls graduated.
27 These are followed by secondary and high school graduates with %15,8 respectively.
The number 28 of university (Bachelor/Associate Degree), postgraduate students and literate and illiterate students 29 are in the minority.
69.2% of the participants in the research are farmers and 24.7% are retired and 30 workers.
The land of 68.8% of the respondents are their own property, the land of 11.9% of them is 31 common.
It is observed that 32.7% of them are 1-10 acres and 11-20 acres and 17.3% are 21-30 acres.
32 It has been determined that more than half of the participants (51.9%) produce 4 tons or more an-33 nually.
42.7% of their social security coverages are SSK, 21.2% are Bagkur, and 16.5% are Pension 34 Fund of the respondents.
As a result of the analyzes made in terms of occupations, land size, prop-35 erty status, number of workers and worker status, social security, fight against diseases and pests, 36 the differences between the variables and the relationship between them are determined as im-37 portant.
This manuscript is contain sufficient original and new scientific data.
Separately, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion and reference list (only source number 23 is not in the literature list) are sufficient. Separately, statistical analysis was made appropriately.
This manuscript can be publish in this journal.
Best regards
I revised the MS according to the comments of Reviewer 1.
Comments per Section of Manuscript
1- This manuscript is contain sufficient original and new scientific data.
Separately, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion and reference list (only source number 23 is not in the literature list) are sufficient.
Answer 1: Reference [23] was written to the Reference section.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
To The Authors,
Even though the subject is worth investigation, the current form of the manuscript has several issues that needed to be fixed. Therefore, we suggest a major revision
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Entire Score sheet:
Reviewer: 2
Recommendation: Major Revision
Editor's Comments:
Reviewer 2) Comments to Author:
Even though the manuscript investigates an important subject, it has several issues that need to be fixed.
I revised the MS according to the comments of Reviewer 2.
Comments per Section of Manuscript
1- Proofreading is a must.
Answer 1: Necessary proofreading were made according to the dear reviewer suggestions.
2- The Introduction section should be rewritten to cover the research problem based on available literature.
Answer 2: Significant revision was made in the introduction. Some parts have been removed. Some sections have been moved to the method section. The purpose sentence in the last paragraph has been changed.
3- Some part of the Introduction section is the study area and the data related to this study area. This part should be in a separate section and its title should be “Study area and Data”.
Answer 3: The statement "Kartepe as the study population was preferred, …… villages were transferred to the status of neighborhood" given in Line 75-84 was moved to the Materials and Methods section.
4- A paragraph should be added to the Introduction section to Express how the rest of the manuscript is organized.
Answer 4: “This paper analyses the equipment of agricultural mechanization vehicles, products sold, agricultural support, pests in agricultural lands and methods of struggling describes the distribution of farmers in Kartepe. It highlights the producer profile according to the product and income level that they provide after working and struggling in the field with the economic and social opportunities of the farmers” written.
5- Table 2 should be reorganized. There is an empty line just below “Affiliated Province”
Answer 5: Table 2 was reorganized.
6- The title of Section 2 should be checked
Answer 6: Spelling corrected for Section 2's title.
7- Some sentences are used several times. This is redundancy. For example, “The study was carried out in Kartepe district of Kocaeli province, which is an indus- 114 trial and agricultural city in the Marmara Region”. Those should be removed throughout the text.
Answer 7: In the sentence "The study was carried out in Kartepe district of Kocaeli province, which is an indus-114 trial and agricultural city in the Marmara Region", the "district of Kocaeli province" part has been removed.
8- Reference [13] is missing in the text
Answer 8: Reference [13] is written in the text.
9- The sampling process should be explained more clearly. What is the sampling ratio? 266/488 is not a sampling ratio. More than 50 percent of the population is taken. Why? Authors mention 10 villages. How village (clusters) have an impact on the results.
Answer 9: Line 137-138: “Thus, the main population of the research is the total number of producers registered in the FRS in Kartepe district (488 farmers)” was removed.
Line 140-143: “There are 10 villages/neighborhoods of Kartepe and the total number of farmers in these villages is 1638 according to the records of Kocaeli province Kartepe District Chamber of Agriculture. The number of those registered to the Farmer Registration System (FRS) among these farmers was determined as 488” was removed.
10- The Kruskal-Wallis is a well-known statistical test. The mathematical expression presented in the article is redundant. This part should be removed.
Answer 10: Line 150-152: “
The symbols defining here; Xij: i. group j. observation values for the process, μ: overall mean, αi: i. group effect, εij: Error term c: number of groups” was removed.
Line 152-156: “The test statistic proposed by Kruskal-Wallis (1952) is
The formula here, : i. is the square of the ordinal numbers belonging to the group” was removed.
11- Table 3 should be reorganized.
Answer 13: Table 3 was reorganized. Some parts of Table 3 have been removed and shortened a bit. There are already necessary explanations under Table 3. Tables 4 to 10 also describe the necessary details.
12- Hypothesis should be rewritten.
Answer 12: Hypothesis was rewritten. The following statement was written and the relevant numbered reference was changed and corrected in the reference section.
Hypothesis;
H0: F1=F2=…=Fk=F0 versus
H1: at least one Fi is not equal to F0 [27].
13- All tables should be well-organized.
Answer 13: All tables were well-organized. In particular, Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 have been rearranged. More descriptive information was presented regarding the Kruskal-Wallis test.
14- The Results section should be rewritten to better present the results.
Answer 14: Line-217-228: “In addition, the transformation … the organization for the farmers. Examining the differences of opinion of farmers according to various categories“ was removed. Tables were rearranged and expressions in the text were checked.
Line 411: “…since the p value was less than 0.05” was removed.
15- The results of this study should be supported with the results of internationally conducted research. The references section does not include any similar international study.
Answer 15: After Line 399 and before chi-square test results, the discussion was also added and supported by the results of international studies. A similar international study is included in the references section.
As the results of international studies were added, different sources were also added. New references added to the text and reference section are also marked. Reference numbers 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 were corrected to 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36, respectively.
16- Reference [23] is missing in the Reference section.
Answer 16: Reference [23] was written to the Reference section.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The reviewed article deals with issues that are important at the local level. In its present form, the study is not suitable for publication for many reasons. It requires a clear formulation of the goal that is understandable to readers who do not know the specificity of Turkish agriculture, and that the methodology and interpretation of the results obtained are refined in relation to the goal. The presentation of data in tables, which are placed on two pages, does not facilitate the study of the analyzed issues. There are repetitions. The problem is with formulating issues in English
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Entire Score sheet:
Reviewer: 3
Recommendation: This manuscript can be publish in this journal.
Editor's Comments:
Reviewer 3) Comments to Author:
Dear Authors,
The reviewed article deals with issues that are important at the local level. In its present form, the study is not suitable for publication for many reasons. It requires a clear formulation of the goal that is understandable to readers who do not know the specificity of Turkish agriculture, and that the methodology and interpretation of the results obtained are refined in relation to the goal. The presentation of data in tables, which are placed on two pages, does not facilitate the study of the analyzed issues. There are repetitions. The problem is with formulating issues in English.
I revised the MS according to the comments of Reviewer 3.
Comments per Section of Manuscript
The reviewed article deals with issues that are important at the local level. In its present form, the study is not suitable for publication for many reasons. It requires a clear formulation of the goal that is understandable to readers who do not know the specificity of Turkish agriculture, and that the methodology and interpretation of the results obtained are refined in relation to the goal. The presentation of data in tables, which are placed on two pages, does not facilitate the study of the analyzed issues. There are repetitions. The problem is with formulating issues in English.
Answer 1: We think that the study will be suitable for publication by being revised according to the recommendations of the reviewers. By examining the international literature, the originality of Turkish agriculture was evaluated in an understandable way for the readers, and the results obtained by statistical methods were evaluated. Tables have been rearranged and presented in a more descriptive way. Duplicate parts have been removed.
Reviewer 4 Report
The article contains a lot of weaknesses and defects that should be removed by the authors in order to improve its quality. Below are my comments and questions requiring answers from the Authors:
1) The title does not indicate what research problem is discussed in the article.
2) The research problem has not been clearly defined. As a result, the purpose of the study is not clear to me? What was the purpose of such research, what was to result from it and for whom?
3) Why was this and not another district examined?
4) The research area, Kocaeli province and Kartepe district are poorly described.
5) The literature review is weak. The research problem was not well defined, so the Authors did not properly address this problem on the basis of the literature.
6) The authors write:
"The study is carried out considering the food crisis that the world and our country will experience in the future and has importance in terms of determining the profiles of the farmers and the production pattern, revealing the current structure, and taking the necessary precautions in a timely manner".
I do not understand what the profiles of the farmers in Kartepe district have to do with the food crisis in the world and in Turkey?
7) The main material of this study consists of all the villages…. What this is about? Are villages the main material?
8) The profile results of the questionnaire surveys are presented in table 3. Below the table, instead of a comment and explaining to the reader what these results "tell" us, there is a simple description of them.
9) I do not understand the following sentence:
"The granting of agricultural areas in the villages, which were given the status of neighborhood by the law, did not provide the benefits expected by the farmers, or that the cooperatives could not be managed professionally and could not establish good relations with their members".
What this is about? What is this "status of neighborhood"?
10) The variables that are the subject of the analysis of the relationship with the characteristics of farmers and their farms, carried out using the Kruskal-Wallis test, are quite controversial. For example, the variable "Drug usage" and "Methods of struggling". Why are such variables adopted?
11) The description of the results of the Kruskal-Wallis test is quite “illegible”. What are the conclusions of these studies?
12) The weakness of the conducted analysis results in weak conclusions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Entire Score sheet:
Reviewer: 4
Recommendation
The article contains a lot of weaknesses and defects that should be removed by the authors in order to improve its quality. Below are my comments and questions requiring answers from the Authors:
Editor's Comments:
Reviewer 4) Comments to Author:
Comments per Section of Manuscript
I revised the MS according to the comments of Reviewer 4.
Comments per Section of Manuscript
1) The title does not indicate what research problem is discussed in the article.
Answer 1: In the last paragraph of the introduction, the research problem was defined more clearly in the purpose sentence and harmonized with the title.
2) The research problem has not been clearly defined. As a result, the purpose of the study is not clear to me? What was the purpose of such research, what was to result from it and for whom?
Answer 2: The research problem and purpose were clearly defined and the result to be obtained was expressed.
3) Why was this and not another district examined?
Answer 3: This region was chosen because the farmer profile and behavior were suitable for the purpose of the study.
4) The research area, Kocaeli province and Kartepe district are poorly described.
Answer 4: For the study, it was possible to work with so many samples that defined the farmer profile suitable for the agriculture and economy structure of the region. If there were more samples, of course there would be more. However, with these opportunities, necessary information about the profile of the farmer could be obtained with such a large sample.
5) The literature review is weak. The research problem was not well defined, so the Authors did not properly address this problem on the basis of the literature.
Answer 5: The research problem was defined and the literature was searched accordingly and the deficiency was corrected. Related literature has been added to the discussion section.
6) The authors write:
"The study is carried out considering the food crisis that the world and our country will experience in the future and has importance in terms of determining the profiles of the farmers and the production pattern, revealing the current structure, and taking the necessary precautions in a timely manner".
I do not understand what the profiles of the farmers in Kartepe district have to do with the food crisis in the world and in Turkey?
Answer 6: “"The study is carried out considering the food crisis that the world and our country will experience in the future and has importance in terms of determining the profiles of the farmers and the production pattern, revealing the current structure, and taking the necessary precautions in a timely manner" wad removed.
7) The main material of this study consists of all the villages…. What this is about? Are villages the main material?
Answer 7: A total of 260 people in 10 villages of Kartepe district were surveyed. The main material is information gathered from a total of 260 people in these 10 villages.
8) The profile results of the questionnaire surveys are presented in table 3. Below the table, instead of a comment and explaining to the reader what these results "tell" us, there is a simple description of them.
Answer 8: Below Table 3 there is general information about the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the farmers. The actual information consists of the Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-square test results in Table 4 to Table 11.
9) I do not understand the following sentence:
"The granting of agricultural areas in the villages, which were given the status of neighborhood by the law, did not provide the benefits expected by the farmers, or that the cooperatives could not be managed professionally and could not establish good relations with their members".
What this is about? What is this "status of neighborhood"?
Answer 9: "The granting of agricultural areas in the villages, which were given the status of neighborhood by the law, did not provide the benefits expected by the farmers, or that the cooperatives could not be managed professionally and could not establish good relations with their members" was removed Line 217-228.
10) The variables that are the subject of the analysis of the relationship with the characteristics of farmers and their farms, carried out using the Kruskal-Wallis test, are quite controversial. For example, the variable "Drug usage" and "Methods of struggling". Why are such variables adopted?
Answer 10: Farmers have applied pesticides and other control methods to prevent plant diseases and pests. For this reason, methods of combating the use of herbal medicine were discussed.
11) The description of the results of the Kruskal-Wallis test is quite “illegible”. What are the conclusions of these studies?
Answer 11: Tables were rearranged for the Kruskal-Wallis test, and the information in the table and the explanation of the results were made clear.
12) The weakness of the conducted analysis results in weak conclusions.
Answer 12: Tables related to analysis have been rearranged. More extensive and explanatory information was presented.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
To The Editor,
Another round of review is a must since some of the issues have been still untoched.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Many thanks for your valuable comments on improving the MS. We have effectively made the corrections point by point by Reviewer 2 and Reviewer 4. We have used blue (Reviewer 2) and red (Reviewer 4) color for all corrections on deletion or addition on the text.
Best Regards
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Şenol ÇELIK
Entire Score sheet:
Reviewer: 2
Recommendation: Major Revision
Editor's Comments:
Reviewer 2) Comments to Author:
Another round of review is a must since some of the issues have been still untoched.
I revised the MS according to the comments of Reviewer 2.
Replies to review comment
Significant revision was made in the introduction. Some parts have been removed. Some sections have been moved to the study area and data section. The introduction was rewritten to cover the research problem based on the available literature.
The statement "Kartepe as the study population was preferred, …… villages were transferred to the status of neighborhood" given in Line 75-84 and Table 1 were moved to the Study area and Data section. Table 2 was moved to the Study area and Data section.
Table 3 was reorganized. Some parts of Table 3 have been removed and shortened a bit. Demographic and socio-economic information was shown.
All tables have been rearranged. In particular, Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 have been rearranged. Kruskal-Wallis test results are shown more clearly.
As the results of international studies were added, different sources were also added. New references added to the text and reference section were also marked.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The changes that have been introduced by the Authors do not remove many of the flaws I indicated earlier. There are more research results (analyzes), but it is not very clear what the conclusions are?
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Many thanks for your valuable comments on improving the MS. We have effectively made the corrections point by point by Reviewer 2 and Reviewer 4. We have used blue (Reviewer 2), and red (Reviewer 4) color for all corrections on deletion or addition on the text.
Best Regards
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Şenol ÇELIK
Entire Score sheet:
Reviewer: 4
Recommendation
The changes that have been introduced by the Authors do not remove many of the flaws I indicated earlier. There are more research results (analyzes), but it is not very clear what the conclusions are?
Editor's Comments:
Reviewer 4) Comments to Author:
I revised the MS according to the comments of Reviewer 4.
Replies to review comment
The research problem was defined and the literature was searched accordingly and the deficiency was corrected. Related literature has been added to the discussion section.
Tables were rearranged for the Kruskal-Wallis test, and the information in the table and the explanation of the results were made clear. Made more understandable.
Tables related to analysis have been rearranged. More extensive and explanatory information was presented.
The results of the analyzes were more clearly stated. It is explained more clearly in the conclusion part.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has responded-well to all issues raised by the reviewers. It can be accepted as it is.
