Roles of Selective Agriculture Practices in Sustainable Agricultural Performance: A Systematic Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors present an innovative idea that presents an interesting potential for the way of presenting a review on the topic. However, the choice of words and the way of interpreting the results seem superficial and do not reflect the real dimension of the theme.
Addressing sustainable agriculture and not having links with the community, population demonstrates some conceptual flaws. If the authors choose to remain in this line, they should reduce the expectations of the work to approach the techniques themselves, and even so, I still make the same caveat.
The results are also confusing and with a not very clear organization, also provoking a little use of the discussion. Anyway, the general idea of ​​the work is still good and has potential, but in my view the work should be reformulated.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for providing valuable comments/suggestions. Please find our point-by-point responses (attached).
Regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Strength:
The manuscript is nicely drafted. It offers a comprehensive review and understanding of SI system in agriculture
Weakness:
In literature review, authors missed to highlight the assessment framework and the related papers. (https://sitoolkit.com/).
SIToolkit mobile app: https://scisoc.confex.com/scisoc/2021am/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/136049
Detailed comments are as follows:
Line 67: Web of Science 1: I guess 1 is typo and same for Google scholar 2
Line 89: Table 1: Sources: you can just add reference number here. Authors are also good to showcase names. But it would be better to keep references exclusive to tillage, stubble, precision and so on in each row so that readers can understand which one is for tillage and so on
Line 100: It would be great if the socioeconomic livelihood options should also be included in the searches. However, it requires major changes, discussion section can be strengthened using these parameters.
Line 110: Studies
Line 188-130: Merge in one para
Discussion can be strengthened with all the general suggestion at the top.
Please cross check references style
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for the valuable comments/suggestions. Please find our point-by-point responses (attached).
Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The sustainable development of agriculture is a big problem that every country has to face. In this context, the author analyzed the Roles of selective agriculture practices in sustainable agricultural performance in the form of a review. In general, the research perspective is novel and the analysis is in-depth, which can provide beneficial enlightenment for the study of agricultural sustainable development. Several suggestions for revision are for reference:
(1) The marginal contribution of research needs to be further clarified. Now the importance of the introduction is pointed out, but the marginal contribution of the research is not clearly highlighted. It is suggested that the author should highlight the marginal contribution of the research with a certain amount of ink in the introduction.
(2) The logic of the chart needs further elaboration. It is suggested that the author add a research design section to introduce the writing logic of this paper in detail, including chart logic. This will help the reader understand the content of the article.
(3) The conclusion of the study is too simple, and it is suggested to further strengthen it. A brief summary can be made from several aspects of research concerns.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for the valuable comments/suggestions. Please find our point-by-point responses (attached).
Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors explained much of the methodological limitations that I pointed out. Although I still disagree with some interpretations, these are merely my views, but still the manuscript is relevant and should be published.