Crop Type Prediction: A Statistical and Machine Learning Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper provides a new forecasting model for the Crop type. It’s an interesting topic, but there are still some minors before acceptance.

1. Could you add some numerical analyses and conclusions in “Abstract”?

2. The motivation and research gaps should be summarized in “Introduction”.

3. In ,Section 2, literature reviews can use a table so that readers can quickly understand the characteristics of the proposed method (for instance, COVID-19 lockdowns and air quality: Evidence from grey spatiotemporal forecasts).  And "Introduction" section can be made much more impressive by highlighting your contributions!

4. The grey forecasting model should be referenced in Section 2.

5. Besides Precision, more other metrics of forecasting models (such as STD and R2, which are defined in “A novel method for carbon emission forecasting based on Gompertz's law and fractional grey model: Evidence from American industrial sector”) should be shown.

6. Is there any sensitivity analysis added to the article to make the conclusion more convincing?

7. Please make sure your conclusions' section underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, limitations, underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable time and comments. The manuscript is modified accordingly. The author's reply is attached here.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, an analysis of information about several variables important in agriculture in India is presented. 

This paper presents some good ideas, however, the methodology presents several issues.

First of all, please, include clear access to the data set. Reference [18] is the general web page of FAO. Also, this citation has information that not corresponds to the data set or something similar. 

Why all of those crops are considered? In the opinion of this reviewer, just the most important should be included in this paper. 22 crops are excessive. 

Authors claim that data from 1962 to 2022 were taken into account during this study, with this information Figure 1 was generated. However, the weather has been different in the last years, it obviously affects the distribution of variables such as rainfall or humidity. Authors can see that fact in: https://climate.nasa.gov/global-warming-vs-climate-change/#:~:text=Since%20the%20pre%2Dindustrial%20period%2C%20human%20activities%20are%20estimated%20to,0.36%20degrees%20Fahrenheit)%20per%20decade.

 

Additionally to that, some nutrients such as N, P, or K are changing over time. If some land produces continuously the same crops, it reduces the nutrients. Thus, they will not be in the same quantity after 50 years of production, which also affects the result of Figure 1. 

 

This reviewer recommends dividing all the data into several ranges, it could be in ranges of 10 years. 

Improve Figure 2. For example, it is very hard to see the difference between bananas and mangos, 

Improve the axes and quality of figures 3 and 5.

Most of the algorithms presented are well known nowadays, reducing redundant information. 

All tables should be presented as figures, at least tables 1 and 3. It is better to see the difference using a plot.

Where are figures 2, 4, 6, and 8?

Most of the references are not well cited. Names and last names are in the wrong positions.

Some references do not exist or correspond to other papers, for example. Cite [13].

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable time and comments. The manuscript is modified accordingly. The author's reply is attached here.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I am sending you my comments on the article as an attachment, I hope they help you to reinforce it.

Best regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable time and comments. The manuscript is modified accordingly. The author's reply is attached here.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Crop type prediction: A Statistical and Machine Learning approach

Dear Authors

The basic science of this paper is not conducted in a good way and is of inappropriate standard.  The author and his team write this paper according to the journal's scope and modern trends but failed. I am confused, about how the authors did this manuscript because there is no sense in the research. This study just consists of tables and figures. Its looks like a project report. Moreover, the language of this manuscript is very poor. I strongly reject this study.

Best Regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable time and comments. The manuscript is modified accordingly.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for authors' effort, all my questions were answered well.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1:  Thanks for authors' effort, all my questions were answered well.

 

Response 1: The authors want to thank the reviewer for the time and effort in reviewing the article to make it a better version.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Most of the recommendations were attended

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Point 1: Most of the recommendations were attended.

 

Response 1: The authors thank the reviewer for the comments. The article was redefined based on the extensive comments that the reviewer put forward. Thank you for your time and efforts.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I send you the minor revision in the attached file.

Best regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Point 1:  The authors have not made the changes proposed by the reviewer, they have added two

paragraphs, but the reviewer recommended "The introduction chapter is well written and

provides a broad view of the subject matter addressed by the authors. But in my opinion,

the authors should Combine the introduction section with section 2. Literature Review,

redrafting the latter to give the introduction a more robust form."

 

Response 1: The authors thank the reviewer for the valuable time and comments. Both sections were combined and reformed accordingly.

 

Point 2: In the current version, the authors have separated the Results and Discussion sections, but

I think that the Discussion section does not meet the requirements specified in the journal

template "Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the

perspective of "Previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their

implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible. Future research

directions may also be highlighted."

For this reason, in my opinion, the authors should rewrite the discussion section,

contributing previous studies and discussing the implications of the study in the broadest

possible context.

I hope these comments help the authors to improve their article. I encourage the authors

to continue in this interesting work.

 

Response 2: The authors agree with the reviewer’s comment, and proper changes were made in the Discussion section.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

 The author can submit and publish this manuscript in local journal. Its not suitable for sustainability journal. Sustainability journal focus on the high quality, well structured, and sustainabilty based journal. Thank you for submitted this manuscript in the sustainability journal.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

 

Point 1:  The author can submit and publish this manuscript in local journal. Its not suitable for sustainability journal. Sustainability journal focus on the high quality, well structured, and sustainabilty based journal. Thank you for submitted this manuscript in the sustainability journal.

 

Response 1: The authors thank the reviewer for the valuable time and comments. The manuscript is revised accordingly to the reviewer’s comments. The language is improved throughout the paper.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf