Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting paper but there are some issues that must be addressed before it can be published:

1. what is the definition of agri.-entrepreneurs. In Table 1, it shows that the work units of the sample are Public employment, etc., why are these agri.-entrepreneurs? if these people are not agri.-entrepreneurs, then why are they included in the analysis?

2.Line129-130" Women in developing countries like Pakistan are at an advantage compared to men and face much vulnerability. Why are women more advantaged?" Is the statement wrong?

3.How is the "*, and ** significant difference" in Table 1. calculated? It need a detailed description of the statistical method here.

4. Table 2 does not show the difference between men and women, but why is the title "Effect of COVID-19 on Agri.- entrepreneurs' QoL based on gender"?

5. Table 4 needs to report the OR values, and the results of the logit regression need to be described in detail.

6. The paper' contribution needs to be stated clearly.
7. It may be helpful to identify the target audience for the paper, given the rather technical nature of research topic.

8. The conclusion section needs to include some recommendations for practitioners based on the findings.

 

9. Lack of research limitation section.

Author Response

Maintaining Quality of Life during the Pandemic: Managing Economic, Social, and Health Well-being amid COVID-19 Crisis of agricultural entrepreneurs

First of all, I would like to thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to comment on our manuscript. We have tried to include every comment and suggestion in the revised manuscript. We hope that we have successfully addressed your concerns. We also hope that it will undoubtedly improve the quality of our research.

We have worked on the language of the papers and tried to use formal language throughout the manuscript. We especially worked on the language of the materials and methods section. We appreciate you bringing this to our attention. 

Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Comment: What is the definition of agri.-entrepreneurs? In Table 1, it shows that the work units of the sample are Public employment, etc., why are these agri.-entrepreneurs? If these people are not agri.-entrepreneurs, then why are they included in the analysis?

Authors’ response: Respected Reviewer, Thank you for your comments, and we have added a definition of agricultural entrepreneurs in "2.1 Study area and sampling procedure" with citations. These are the professions of other family members of agricultural entrepreneurs, and we have clearly mentioned them in Table 1. In Pakistan, especially in rural areas, the majority of the households live in joint family systems, where families have more than one occupation. So it is very important to look at how the occupations of other family members impact the QoL of agricultural entrepreneurs. So we kept these variables as they were.  

Comment:  Line129-130" Women in developing countries like Pakistan are at an advantage compared to men and face much vulnerability. Why are women more advantaged?" Is the statement wrong?

 Authors’ response: Dear Reviewer, This was a typo mistake, and we have corrected it in the revised file as "Women in developing countries like Pakistan are at a disadvantage compared to men and face much vulnerability."

Comment:  How is the "*, and ** significant difference" in Table 1. calculated? It need a detailed description of the statistical method here.

Authors’ response: Respected Reviewer, Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have mentioned the statistical method in the footnote of Table 1, How are the "*" and "**" significant differences in Table 1 calculated? Additionally, we have also described the method that was used to calculate the statistical differences in Table 3.

Comment: Table 2 does not show the difference between men and women, but why is the title "Effect of COVID-19 on Agri.- entrepreneurs' QoL based on gender"?

Authors’ response: Respected reviewer, thank you for your comment. We have amended the legend of Table 2 in the revised file. We hope this will better represent the data in the table.

Comment: Table 4 needs to report the OR values and the results of the logit regression need to be described in detail.

Authors’ response: Respected Reviewer, Thank you for your precious suggestions. We have provided OR in Table 4 in the revised file. Moreover, we have also described the results in detail. Thank you for your valuable suggestions, and we hope this will improve the scientific quality of this paper.

Comment: The paper' contribution needs to be stated clearly.

Authors’ response: Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your comments. We have briefly added the contribution of this paper after study objectives in section “1.1 COVID-19 in Pakistan”.

Comment: It may be helpful to identify the target audience for the paper, given the rather technical nature of research topic.

Authors’ response: We provided the target audience of this study after the study objectives in Section "1.1 COVID-19 in Pakistan" in the revised file.

Comment: The conclusion section needs to include some recommendations for practitioners based on the findings.

Authors’ response: Respected Reviewer, We have added recommendations for practitioners based on the findings at the end of conclusion section.

Comment: Lack of research limitation section.

Authors’ response: Dear Reviewer, Thank you for the suggestion. The study's limitations have been added to the revised file at the end of the "Discussion" section. 

We would like to thank you once again for giving us suggestions/comments to improve the quality of this article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article considers the fundamental topic of human well-being in the applied aspect: the influence of Covid and the case of the agricultural sector of Pakistan. The developed methodology and conclusions can be applied to other cases and have high practical value. I recommend the following work to the authors:1. to bring the study in line with the requirements of the journal, they are not fulfilled in all sections. 2. Add to the list of references  basic and the most valuable article on objective human well-being - Van Praag, B. M., Frijters, P., & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2003). The anatomy of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 51(1), 29-49. (500 citations in Scopus) 3. In conclusion, it is more detailed to describe how the developed metrics and the results obtained can be applied in other countries of the world.

Author Response

Maintaining Quality of Life during the Pandemic: Managing Economic, Social, and Health Well-being amid COVID-19 Crisis of agricultural entrepreneurs

First of all, I would like to thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to comment on our manuscript. We have tried to include every comment and suggestion in the revised manuscript. We hope that we have successfully addressed your concerns. We also hope that it will undoubtedly improve the quality of our research.

We have worked on the language of the papers and tried to use formal language throughout the manuscript. We especially worked on the language of the materials and methods section. We appreciate you bringing this to our attention. 

Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article considers the fundamental topic of human well-being in the applied aspect: the influence of Covid and the case of the agricultural sector of Pakistan. The developed methodology and conclusions can be applied to other cases and have high practical value. I recommend the following work to the authors:1. to bring the study in line with the requirements of the journal, they are not fulfilled in all sections. 2. Add to the list of references  basic and the most valuable article on objective human well-being - Van Praag, B. M., Frijters, P., & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2003). The anatomy of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 51(1), 29-49. (500 citations in Scopus) 3. In conclusion, it is more detailed to describe how the developed metrics and the results obtained can be applied in other countries of the world.

 

Authors’ response: Respected Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments, and we revised all sections in the light of your valuable comments to bring the study in line with journal requirements. The revised file now includes the study's contribution, target audience, and limitations.

We have also added the suggested study to the revised file, and we thank you for suggesting this quality research.

We have also added the recommendations to the conclusion section and provided guidelines for future studies where we discuss study limitations.

We would like to thank you once again for giving us suggestions/comments to improve the quality of this article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made changes based on the review comments and I have no further comments.