An Agricultural Career through the Lens of Young People

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Research represents a significant contribution in this field.

Applied research methods are adequate.

The results are correctly presented.

The literature used is satisfactory for this research.

 

I only have a few minor comments:

Figure 1 and Figure 4:  the two figures have a low resolution; it is tiring to read them

Figure 1: the logic should be better articulated in the text (2.1 Materials)

 

Figure 4: In my opinion, the 4 clusters should be better declined, before proceeding to their extended comments (3.3.1, ...)

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much, we are glad that the topic was appreciated by you. We consider your comments very important for the improvement of the study. Regarding these: 

-we have changed the resolution of the images and hope you find them better now. We are committed to providing the attached images for better viewing.

-we have improved the logic of the “materials” section, explaining how we chose the keywords included and briefing the steps of the PRISMA model; hope they are more appropriate now.

-the four clusters are the result of software processing information, based on associations and connections. The resulting analyses are from the above clustering. We’ve implemented the “method” and “discussion” sections in order to decline the four clusters better than before.

We hope we have fully responded to your comments and are grateful for your time and attention.

Kind regards

The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The selected literature comes from 19 countries, 10 years, and a total of 41 articles, with a small sample size. Is it sufficient to support the analysis and conclusions? For example, in line 225, "Some of them affirm they have tried to access a loan but felt hindered by excessive bureaucracy." Different countries have different land, agricultural, and economic policies. Is this dilemma only applicable to a specific country?

2. As shown in Line 151, does the graph show a decreasing trend after 2021? Is there a chance of selecting fewer articles?

3. line121: Research methods are suggested to be improved. The use of VOSviewer software for retrieval and visualization is only a step to help sort out literature. The article lacks co word analysis, and the co word map only visualizes simple correlation between keywords, lacking word frequency statistics and clustering analysis, and the degree of closeness of the correlation is unclear.

4. Lack of introduction to the types of literature and research content of the research subjects, how can the views of young people on agriculture in different literature be summarized and abstracted into four thematic clusters? Based on subjective judgment and induction? Is it scientific? The young people involved in this study only rely on keyword search and have no age limit, right?

5.Are young people's perspectives on agricultural concepts negative? Or did this article only discuss the negative side? The perspective should be diverse, and it is recommended to add a positive perspective or accurately summarize and explain the research content in the preface.

6. The title of the article mentions "General renewal in agriculture", but does not seem to describe intergenerational differences too much? Is it more an explanation for the current phenomenon? The conclusion does not match the research content and focus of the article, only explaining the current situation and suggestions for young people's views on agriculture.

7. Figure 1: Both criteria and criteria appear in the three boxes on the right side of the image. It is recommended to use the same word for synonyms.

8. Figure 2 is missing necessary components such as coordinate axis information.

Can the countries selected demonstrate that this study has global applicability?

9. Other: The text in the picture is too small, and the color block in Figure 3 covers the text content. It is recommended to deepen the font color. Figure 3. Please use a legend or other means to clarify the country's location. Suggest improving the clarity of the image, such as Figure 4. Is the text difficult to read? Line 75: Only 1.1 is recommended not to be separately titled. All image names are recommended to be placed below the image.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewer’s comments:

I have some comments on your paper titled “Generational renewal in agriculture: A lens on young people's perceptions”. The paper topic is interesting I believe, however, some parts are still weak. Hence, the author(s) are highly required/suggested to revised the paper to improve the paper content.

Specific comments:

1. Most of figures provided are hard to see, so please upgrade/make them clearer/better in the updated version.

2. The discussion section is still insufficient/weak. For example, your idea regarding educational programs to support young people is right, but you did not mention about an appropriate mechanism to transform/engage young people more in agriculture, which limits the topic's knowledge to some extent. In this sense, the author(s) can support your valuable points/arguments by appropriately applying mindsponge theory (https://sciendo.com/book/9788367405157) and mindspongeconomics (https://papers.ssrn/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4453917) (a special advanced decision-making mechanism/process using information from the living environment) and SM3D knowledge management system (https://www. In view of mindspongeconomics/mindsponge, implementing an educational program to engage young people in farming could be a good/practical approach because it helps update information needed and eventually transforms their mindsets/core values and behaviors.

3. Please further elaborate the contribution and limitation part of the paper in the next version.

4. There are some key references that you may consider using for your revising, as follow:

·        Quan-Hoang. 2023. Mindsponge Theory. Berlin: De Gruyter. Available online: https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=OSiGEAAAQBAJ

·        Khuc, V. Q. 2022. Mindspongeconomics. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4453917

·        Vuong, Q. H. et al. (2022). Covid-19 vaccines production and societal immunization under the serendipity-mindsponge-3D knowledge management theory and conceptual framework. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01034-6

 

 

NA

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much, we are glad that the topic was interesting for you. We consider your comments very relevant for the improvement of the study. We have implemented the paper content to address weaknesses, adding more references and explanations. Our answer in below: 

1. We have changed the resolution of the images and hope you find them better now.

2. Discussion has been implemented, hope they provide a broader and more detailed view of the results. Thank you for this suggestion that we wanted to include in order to recommend it to potential readers as well. Ours is an initial work on the topic, and knowledge of the theory you suggest will also be useful in future work.

3. We have implemented the conclusions in order to better explain the contribution of the work. The limitation has been integrated into discussions.

4. We’ve found the references interesting and useful and decided to add them (lines 294-295)

We hope we have fully responded to your comments and are grateful for your time and attention.

Kind regards

The authors

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in present form

Minor editing of English language required

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for carefully addressing my comments. The revised paper is much improved as expected and I have no further comments on your work.

 

NA