Economic Impact of Organic Agriculture: Evidence from a Pan-India Survey

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work describes the research into the implementation of organic farming in India. Notes: the readability of tables should be improved (e.g. tab.10 etc). The text indirectly shows that the rules for classifying a farm as organic in India differ from other countries. It would be advisable to include these criteria.

Author Response

Reveiwer-1

The work describes the research into the implementation of organic farming in India. Notes: the readability of tables should be improved (e.g. tab.10 etc). The text indirectly shows that the rules for classifying a farm as organic in India differ from other countries. It would be advisable to include these criteria.

Reply: Done

Reviewer 2 Report

1. ABSTRACT. The abstract was somewhat long and exceeded the requirements of the journal. The core problems to be solved in this paper should be condensed and summarized.

 

2.INTRODUCTION.

The introduction should highlight the comment on the progress of organic agriculture research.

If others have done a similar survey and analysis at other regional or global scales? What was the innovative about the methods chosen by the authors?

Figure 1 should be redrawn.

Part 1 and 2 should be combined.

 

3.MATERIALS. In the materials and methods, the rationality of the criteria for screening the survey objects was the basis for the reliability of this analysis. How to determine whether a farmer belongs to organic agriculture or traditional agriculture? How to prove the normality, independence and authenticity of the data?

Table 1 should be present as graphical, and indicated the rationality of the sampling distribution.

 

4. RESULTS. In the result analysis, there was a phenomenon that the charts did not correspond to each other, and a large number of tables were used. I think that the data presentation was too single and various forms should be used to display the results. Meanwhile, the description of charts was not clear, and could not clarify its meaning.

 

5. DISCUSSION. There were not enough suggestions, analysis and discussion on the relevant results. The explanation and analysis of the reasons were not enough. This paper should be more than a presentation of statistics and data results, and should make suggestions for the next development

 

6. REFERENCE. The format of references should be modified according to the requirements of journals.

Author Response

Reveiwer-2

1. ABSTRACT. The abstract was somewhat long and exceeded the requirements of the journal. The core problems to be solved in this paper should be condensed and summarized.

 Reply: modified

2.INTRODUCTION.

The introduction should highlight the comment on the progress of organic agriculture research.

If others have done a similar survey and analysis at other regional or global scales? What was the innovative about the methods chosen by the authors?

Figure 1 should be redrawn.

Part 1 and 2 should be combined.

Reply: Yes done.

 

3.MATERIALS. In the materials and methods, the rationality of the criteria for screening the survey objects was the basis for the reliability of this analysis. How to determine whether a farmer belongs to organic agriculture or traditional agriculture? How to prove the normality, independence and authenticity of the data?

Table 1 should be present as graphical, and indicated the rationality of the sampling distribution.

 Reply: Yes, done

4. RESULTS. In the result analysis, there was a phenomenon that the charts did not correspond to each other, and a large number of tables were used. I think that the data presentation was too single and various forms should be used to display the results. Meanwhile, the description of charts was not clear, and could not clarify its meaning.

Reply: corrected, converted some tables in to graphs

 

5. DISCUSSION. There were not enough suggestions, analysis and discussion on the relevant results. The explanation and analysis of the reasons were not enough. This paper should be more than a presentation of statistics and data results, and should make suggestions for the next development

 Reply: expanded

6. REFERENCE. The format of references should be modified according to the requirements of journals.

Reply: yes done

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors report the economic impact of organic agriculture from a Pan-India survey. The paper should be interesting and provide useful information, the result may provide the basis for increasing the understanding of the behavior of organic agriculture. The whole manuscript needs minor revisions before publication.
The manuscript is recommended publication after the following revisions are made.
(1) The title of the manuscript should be “Economic impact of organic agriculture from a Pan-India survey: a sustainable pattern”.
(2)  More relative references should be cited and reviewed, and the contribution of the manuscript should be explicitly pointed out. 
(3)  The most important, at least the sustainable pattern of organic agriculture from the Pan-India survey should be added.

(4) Although the reviewer is not English native, I recommend the whole manuscript language improvement.

Author Response

Reveiwer-3

Authors report the economic impact of organic agriculture from a Pan-India survey. The paper should be interesting and provide useful information, the result may provide the basis for increasing the understanding of the behavior of organic agriculture. The whole manuscript needs minor revisions before publication.
The manuscript is recommended publication after the following revisions are made.
(1) The title of the manuscript should be “Economic impact of organic agriculture from a Pan-India survey: a sustainable pattern”.

Reply: We understand the referee comments, to keep the title short, we little changes to title.
(2)  More relative references should be cited and reviewed, and the contribution of the manuscript should be explicitly pointed out. 

Reply: Done
(3)  The most important, at least the sustainable pattern of organic agriculture from the Pan-India survey should be added.

Reply: sustainability concept is added with references

(4) Although the reviewer is not English native, I recommend the whole manuscript language improvement.

Reply: corrected English

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has made some modifications on the basis of the original manuscript, but there are still some problems, mainly (1) the figures and tables in the paper are too rough; (2) The depth of analysis is not enough. For example, the paper does not make an in-depth analysis on the results that organic agriculture is more suitable for hilly areas, or clarify the significance of this paper through comparative analysis with relevant literature.

 

1.     Line 4. There were ten related authors, but their contributions to this paper were not described in this paper.

2.     Line 27. As far as I know, I don't think this paper fills in the relevant gaps. There are articles related to organic farming on a global scale or a regional scale, as well as parts of India.

3.     Line 110. The schematic of Figure 1 needs further beautification and logicalization; it was not publishable at present.

4.     Line 164. The framework was not clear and need to be redrawn.

5.     Line 270. The drawing was not normal. What does the y-coordinate mean?

6.     Line 390. For irrigated agriculture, what was the reason for the decline in organic farming? I think it has something to do with the nutrient status of the native soil. At the same time, the conclusion should be limited to short-term organic farming.

7.     Line 490. Figure 8 needs to be redrawn.

8.     Line 544. This section should be divided into acknowledgements and funds

Author Response

Thank you for the comments for the improvement of the paper. We have incorporated all the suggestions made by the reviewer in the paper.

The paper has made some modifications on the basis of the original manuscript, but there are still some problems, mainly (1) the figures and tables in the paper are too rough; (2) The depth of analysis is not enough. For example, the paper does not make an in-depth analysis on the results that organic agriculture is more suitable for hilly areas, or clarify the significance of this paper through comparative analysis with relevant literature.

Reply

• We have improved the tables and figures.
• Yes, we have highlighted importance of ranifed, hilly areas for organic farming expansion.

.  

1. Line 4. There were ten related authors, but their contributions to this paper were not described in this paper.

R: Yes listed

2. Line 27. As far as I know, I don't think this paper fills in the relevant gaps. There are articles related to organic farming on a global scale or a regional scale, as well as parts of India.

R:In India this is the first pan-India impact study of organic agricultural (PKVY) scheme by using large representative dataset.

3. Line 110. The schematic of Figure 1 needs further beautification and logicalization; it was not publishable at present.

R: changed.

4. Line 164. The framework was not clear and need to be redrawn.

R: improved

5. Line 270. The drawing was not normal. What does the y-coordinate mean?

R: included

6. Line 390. For irrigated agriculture, what was the reason for the decline in organic farming? I think it has something to do with the nutrient status of the native soil. At the same time, the conclusion should be limited to short-term organic farming.

R: yes, modified.

7. Line 490. Figure 8 needs to be redrawn.

R: redrawn

8. Line 544. This section should be divided into acknowledgements and funds

R:done

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf