Stressors and Resilience within the Cassava Value Chain in Nigeria: Preferred Cassava Variety Traits and Response Strategies of Men and Women to Inform Breeding

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1- Line 57: ...... economic stressors and social stressors are written italic Why. It will be better if you announce the meaning of these two concepts by the present study. Sure authors are invited to give confidential references about that 

2- SPSS should be included in the list of the references 

3-Table 12: groups a and b may be included between parenthises 

Author Response

• Line 57: ...... economic stressors and social stressors are written italic Why. It will be better if you announce the meaning of these two concepts by the present study. Sure, authors are invited to give confidential references about that. 

Response to reviewer's comment: The entire introduction has been written to concisely focus on stressors and resilience within the Cassava Value Chain in Nigeria. Highlighting Preferred cassava resilient traits and response strategies of men and women to inform breeding.

• SPSS should be included in the list of the references. 

Response to reviewer's comment: SPSS software citation has been added and to the reference list, alongside other statistical and analysis packaged used (can be found in the reference list 64 to 73)

3-Table 12: groups a and b may be included between parentheses

Response to reviewer's comment: Tables have been reorganized. Table 8, 9 and 10 have been edited and given proper titles.

Note to reviewer 1:

Your constructive reviews are well appreciated. The discussion of findings has been improved. Aspects such as study limitations and further study areas have been incorporated. Citation and references have been updated and formatted in line with the guideline or style.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

congratulations on the current version of the manuscript. The manuscript needs several amendments, which I indicate below:

The formal requirements of the journal Sustainability do not specify the chapter titles you used. Please correct this according to the formal conditions.

The indicated order of the literature references is not appropriate and the intertextual references were not made in the correct form either. It should not be used in ABC order, but in the order of appearance and reference, please correct this. The form of the authors listed in the References chapter is not appropriate - the formal requirements are applied to this as well. Another big problem is that in many cases the year is also missing. After the correction, please increase the number of literary references published in the topic in the last five years, if this does not meet the formal requirements.

Why does the term climate change start with a capital letter in the Keywords chapter?

Table 4 and Table 8 is unnecessary or in need of conversion.

Please fix these.

Author Response

• The formal requirements of the journal Sustainability do not specify the chapter titles you used. Please correct this according to the formal conditions.

Response to reviewer's comment: Chapter titles have been adjusted. Sub-titles in results and discussions have been deleted.

• The indicated order of the literature references is not appropriate, and the intertextual references were not made in the correct form either. It should not be used in ABC order, but in the order of appearance and reference, please correct this. The form of the authors listed in the References chapter is not appropriate - the formal requirements are applied to this as well. Another big problem is that in many cases the year is also missing. After the correction, please increase the number of literary references published in the topic in the last five years, if this does not meet the formal requirements.

Response to reviewer's comment: All the citations within the text has been corrected in line with the journal format, provided in the guidelines as well as in the reference list.

Prior to research fieldwork, an extensive state of knowledge review was done which greatly assisted results/findings corroboration and interpretations. Over fifty (50%) of the cited literatures on cassava, conflict and other stressors are recent and not less than 5 years publication.

• Why does the term climate change start with a capital letter in the Keywords chapter?

Response to reviewer's comment: Adjusted and keywords rearranged in alphabetical order. Although journal did not specify any particular order.

• Table 4 and Table 8 is unnecessary or in need of conversion. Please fix these.

Response to reviewer's comment: As suggested, table 4 and 8 has been deleted while qualitative comments/responses in these tables have been incorporated into respective aspects (where it fits) within the text.

Note to reviewer 2:

Your valid comments and reviews are well received and appreciated. Aspects on citation within text and the reference list has been improved and formatted in line with the guideline or style. Presentation of results ans conclusion has been improved as suggested, especially table 4 and 8 qualitative responses, which is now incorporated and added as interpretation to findings and within text.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks a lot for your research work. Well done.

 

Some comments:

"Backgorund:", "Mehtod:", "Results:" and "Conmclusion:" necessaryin the Abstract? Please check the standard/guidelines of the Journal.

How about keywords in alphabetical order?

In the Abstract Climate Change is abbreviated as CC but not in the rest of the text.

Line 40: climatic, 40 social and economic but in Line 44/45: environmental, economic, political and social stressors

Line 46: which "security" is meant?

Line 53: measures. . => 2 dots

Line 53: Climatic/environmental stressors not in italic, the other stressors (line 56, lin 57 an dline 59/60) are in italic.

Line 56: labour costs,, => two ","

Line 64: value chain (VC) is abbreviated but the abbreviation is not used throughout the whole paper.

Please check the references, e.g. Line 436 or 445: the year in brackets OR some titles are in "", e.g. Line 460, 465 Or check Line 494 year no tin the front, 479 year in the front and at the end; somethime there is an "and" or "&" before the last author.

 

An inprovement woudl be to have a discussion section with similar studies. Also missing are the limitaitons of the study as well as the further need of research.

 

 

Author Response

• "Background:", "Method:", "Results:" and "Conclusion:" necessary in the Abstract? Please check the standard/guidelines of the Journal.

Response to reviewer's comment: Headings in the abstract added has been deleted as specified in the guideline that “The abstract should follow the style of structured abstracts, but without headings: 1) Background: 2) Methods 3) Results: and 4) Conclusion”.

• How about keywords in alphabetical order?

Response to reviewer's comment: The journal guideline did not specify any particular order and this has been adjusted accordingly

• In the Abstract Climate Change is abbreviated as CC but not in the rest of the text.

Response to reviewer's comment: Climate Change abbreviation within the text has been adjusted accordingly to CC.

• Line 40: climatic, 40 social and economic but in Line 44/45: environmental, economic, political and social stressors

Response to reviewer's comment: Within the context of this paper, climatic and environmental are used interchangeably. The entire introduction has been rewritten to reflect these adjustments.

• Line 46: which "security" is meant?

Response to reviewer's comment: This now reads “food security”. In addition, cassava as the focused crop is a major food security crop in Nigeria.

• Line 53: measures. . => 2 dots

Response to reviewer's comment: Second dot deleted. Edit addressed. The entire introduction has been rewritten to reflect these adjustments.

• Line 53: Climatic/environmental stressors not in italic, the other stressors (line 56, line 57 and line 59/60) are in italic.

Response to reviewer's comment: For stressors written in in italics, italics formatting is disabled. The entire introduction has been rewritten to reflect these adjustments.

• Line 56: labour costs, => two ","

Response to reviewer's comment: One comma (,) deleted. Edit addressed.

• Line 64: value chain (VC) is abbreviated but the abbreviation is not used throughout the whole paper.

Response to reviewer's comment: Value chain abbreviation within the text has been adjusted accordingly to VC, all through the manuscript.

• Please check the references, e.g. Line 436 or 445: the year in brackets OR some titles are in "", e.g. Line 460, 465 Or check Line 494 year no tin the front, 479 year in the front and at the end; sometime there is an "and" or "&" before the last author.

Response to reviewer's comment: All the citations within the text has been corrected in line with the journal guidelines as well as in the reference list.

• An improvement would be to have a discussion section with similar studies. Also missing are the limitations of the study as well as the further need of research.

Response to reviewer's comment: Aspect on limitations and further research areas has been incorporated into the latter section.

Note to reviewer 3:

Many thanks for your detailed reviews and positive comment. The entire introduction has been written to concisely focus on stressors and resilience within the Cassava Value Chain in Nigeria: Preferred cassava variety traits and response strategies of men and women to inform breeding. Discussion aspect has been added as well as study limitation

Reviewer 4 Report

It was a pleasure revising your manuscript. Its not easy to conduct this kind of study and I know you made a tremendous effort to get these results. I think your manuscript is well written and can be published with minimal revision.

Abstract: Your abstract provided to your audience a clear summary of your study, methods, results, and conclusions.

Introduction: The introduction of this manuscript conveys the basic information to the readers without obligating us to investigate previous publications and provided clues as to the gaps addressed by the present study.

Material and Methods; This section allows us to reproduce the study and the way that the data was analyzed is clear.

Discussions: The authors have interpreted and described the significance of their findings in relation to what was already known about the research problem being investigated and explained any new understanding or insights that emerged as a result of their research.

Conclusion:  Please, rewrite all conclusions. Please make sure the conclusion underscores the scientific value of your study/ highlight the applicability/limitation/future study instead of summarizing the manuscript.

 

I appreciate the references used. Please arrange the list of references according to the requirements. Once again I congratulate the author for this I study and I look forward to read the revised version.

Author Response

• Conclusion:  Please, rewrite all conclusions. Please make sure the conclusion underscores the scientific value of your study/ highlight the applicability/limitation/future study instead of summarizing the manuscript. 
• Response to reviewer's comment: The entire conclusion has been rewritten to highlight the applicability of the findings. Aspect on the limitations and further research areas has been incorporated into the latter section.
  
  I appreciate the references used. Please arrange the list of references according to the requirements. Once again, I congratulate the author for this I study, and I look forward to reading the revised version.

Response to reviewer's comment: All the citations within the text has been corrected in line with the journal guidelines as well as in the reference list.

Note to reviewer 4:

We (authors) agreed that not highlighting the limitation/future study was a major weakness in the manuscript submitted. We have completely re-written the introduction and conclusion to specifically respond to your comment. Many thanks.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments

·         This is a comprehensive and excellent study covering many items

·         1. In Abstract: I don’t think that you need to separate into sections (like: background, Methods, Results, conclusion). The journal doesn’t required this format.

·         2. All the tables (Table 1, 2, 3) lack the statistical analysis, and the table title didn’t contain “means” as indication for the statistical analysis.

·         3. Also, in methods section: no mention for the statistical analysis that performed, nor the software or any application performed. It is just mentioned in abstract “two way ANOVA”, but still no mention for the software name (SPSS, Minitab, ….etc).

·        4.  Interesting mention for the study objectives, but as you mentioned them in points, so please capitalize each word. (ex: 1. identified – Identified; 2. Assessed – Assessed; 3. estimated – Estimated)

·       5.  Table 8 has high plagiarism, please try to reduce

·       6.   In the reference list: please adjust the format of the following reference (Walker, T., A. Alene, J. Ndjeunga, R., Labarta,Y. Yigezu, A. Diagne, R. Andrade, R. M. Andriatsitohaina, H. De Groote, K. Mausch, C. 594 Yirga, F. Simtowe, E. Katungi, W. Jogo, M. Jaleta, and S. Pandey. 2014. Measuring the Effectiveness of Crop Improvement Research 595 in Sub-Saharan Africa from the Perspectives of Varietal Output, Adoption, and Change: 20 Crops, 30 Countries, and 1150 Cultivars in 596 Farmers’ Fields. Report of the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA), CGIAR Independent Science and Partnership Council 597 (ISPC) Secretariat: Rome, Italy. http://impact.cgiar.org/files/pdf/ISPC_DIIVA_synthesis_report_FINAL.pdf).

Author Response

1. In Abstract: I don’t think that you need to separate into sections (like background, Methods, Results, conclusion). The journal doesn’t require this format.

Response to reviewer's comment: Headings in the abstract added has been deleted as specified in the guideline that “The abstract should follow the style of structured abstracts, but without headings: 1) Background: 2) Methods 3) Results: and 4) Conclusion.

 2. All the tables (Table 1, 2, 3) lack the statistical analysis, and the table title didn’t contain “means” as indication for the statistical analysis.

Response to reviewer's comment: Table 1 to 7 are descriptive and values in the tables are percentages (already included in the title). Hence, for this type of descriptive statistics, use of mean is as good as use of percentage. Example, 69 is 0.69 and 77 is 0.77 for percentages and means, respectively in each case. All tables have been adjusted accordingly based on your review.

3. Also, in methods section: no mention for the statistical analysis that performed, nor the software or any application performed. It is just mentioned in abstract “two way ANOVA”, but still no mention for the software name (SPSS, Minitab, ….etc).

Response to reviewer's comment: SPSS software citation has been added alongside other statistical and analysis packaged used (reference list 64 to 73)

4.  Interesting mention for the study objectives, but as you mentioned them in points, so please capitalize each word. (Ex: 1. identified – Identified; 2. Assessed – Assessed; 3. estimated – Estimated)

Response to reviewer's comment: Study objectives has been replaced with corresponding research questions based on reviews.

5.  Table 8 has high plagiarism, please try to reduce.

Response to reviewer's comment: Table 8 is deleted while quotes in the table have been incorporated into respective aspects (where it fits) within the text.

6.   In the reference list: please adjust the format of the following reference (Walker, T., A. Alene, J. Ndjeunga, R., Labarta,Y. Yigezu, A. Diagne, R. Andrade, R. M. Andriatsitohaina, H. De Groote, K. Mausch, C. 594 Yirga, F. Simtowe, E. Katungi, W. Jogo, M. Jaleta, and S. Pandey. 2014. Measuring the Effectiveness of Crop Improvement Research 595 in Sub-Saharan Africa from the Perspectives of Varietal Output, Adoption, and Change: 20 Crops, 30 Countries, and 1150 Cultivars in 596 Farmers’ Fields. Report of the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA), CGIAR Independent Science and Partnership Council 597 (ISPC) Secretariat: Rome, Italy. http://impact.cgiar.org/files/pdf/ISPC_DIIVA_synthesis_report_FINAL.pdf).

Response to reviewer's comment: Adjusted to

Walker, T.; Alene, A.; Ndjeunga, J.; Labarta, R.; Yigezu, Y.; Diagne, A.; Andrade; Andriatsitohaina, R.; Muthoni, R.; Hugo De Groote, Kai Mausch, Chilot Yirga, F. S.; Katungi, E.; Jogo, W.; Jaleta, M.; Pandey, S. Measuring the Effectiveness of Crop Improvement Research in Sub-Saharan Africa from the Perspectives of Varietal Output, Adoption, and Change: 20 Crops, 30 Countries, and 1150 Cultivars in Farmers’ Fields. Report of the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment; Rome, Italy, 2014; Vol. 19. https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.ppl.19072014.16

Note to reviewer 5:

The authors appreciate your constructive review and positive comment. Respective comments have been addressed and reviews incorporated into the manuscripts.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

nice work, but please make the Abstract more concise and stick to the maximum of 200 words. After that, I accept the manuscript.

Author Response

Many thanks for your further review and feeback.

Abstract has been edited and concise and within the 200 words limit. 

Grateful.