Assessing Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Adopting Sustainable Corn Traits: A Choice Experiment in Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject matter is contemporaneous and is likely to captivate the readership of the journal. Nevertheless, the paper exhibits a deficiency in empirical evidence and a persuasive theoretical framework, both of which are indispensable prerequisites for its potential acceptance in scholarly publication. It is suggested that authors should engage in more strategic thinking regarding the claims they can establish, taking into consideration the data at their disposal. This will enable individuals to transform their study into a significant academic contribution. Regrettably, based on its current condition, I am unable to endorse the acceptance of this manuscript.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Many writers, including myself, make the mistake of presenting general content and topics in the beginning of the introduction of the articles. While in order to expand and increase the readability of the articles and make the research topic clear for the readers, it is necessary that immediately after the beginning of the article in the introduction section, the research problem is narrated and the evidence and general topics are added to the article in line with it. In this article, why the lack of acceptance of the characteristics of corn is a research issue. It is necessary for the authors to start the introduction by stating the acceptance and evidence in line with the research problem, including statistics, documentation, theories and analogies, etc. Therefore, it is necessary to rewrite the introduction.

 

After rewriting the introduction section, it is necessary to include at the end of the introduction the works that have been done so far in the body of literature related to intention and behaviorism. To do this, it is necessary to provide (1) evidence that shows intention, In which fields has psychology and behaviorism been done, and (2) the author should point out the field he is going to study, that is, the tendency to accept corn characteristics, in order to show the novelty of the research. For the first part, it is suggested to read the following citations, which provide useful information.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2020.12.007

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123802

In the research method section, the values related to the reliability of the questionnaire should be reported.

 

The results and conclusions section is well presented.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript presented by Barriviera et al. “Assessing farmers’ willingness to pay for adopting sustainable corn traits: a Choice Experiment in Italy” is attractive to the scientific community.

But the article needs to revision.

Therefore, I have some concerns in the manuscript.

·       The technical English and formatting of the manuscript needs improvement, and more information needs to be added in the manuscript.

·       In the abstract section, authors should write the significance of the study.

·       Introduction section should be improved. There is need to add more data in this section.

·       Add the aim of the study.

·       Authors should provide the survey copy in the supplementary material.

·       Quality of figures needs to improve. Authors provide the high resolution of figures 1 & 2.

·       Need to write the scientific name of plant species. The scientific name should be in italics. Check it properly in the manuscript.

·       The structure of the text needs improvement.

·       Discussion does seem incomplete or confounded sometimes.

·       References should be journal guidelines. Check the references and correct them according to the journal guideline.

·       Based on the above considerations I recommend a major revision of this research paper.

Needs some improvement

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

A thorough examination has been conducted on the article. The authors have implemented the requisite modifications and adhered to the prescribed structure of the manuscript. I suggest adopting the article in its present state.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors revised the manuscript substantially. Accept the manuscript in its current form.