Sustaining Global Food Systems with Youth Digital Livestock Production Curricula Interventions and Adoption to Professionally Develop Agents of Change

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This reviewer would like to thank this journal and the authors for the opportunity to submit a review report on this manuscript.

While this reviewer perceives scientific value in the current version of the manuscript, this reviewer would like to share the following comments/ questions. They aim to contribute to improve the manuscript and seek to increase the likelihood of its publication in this journal. In any case, this reviewer looks forward to the authors’ answers/ comments to these comments/ questions.

 

1.      Would the manuscript’s title fit better the actual approach and empirical data of the manuscript if the title would refer to USA and/ or Texas?

-          From section 2.2 Population and sample, this reviewer has the impression that the manuscript empirically (with data) mainly or only addresses cases that exist in Texas, USA.

-          While the Introduction section addressed the global angle of the topic, this reviewer hasn’t found in later sections like 4. Conclusions and 5. Discussion enough eleemnts on how the manuscript’s topics manifest beyond USA. Meaning that this reviewer hasn’t found a rational for the word global in the title.

 

2.      Would the manuscript require further editing before further peer-reviewing?, assuming there is no need to proofread or edit the manuscript to improve its use of the English-language

The two example sentences that this reviewer is sharing here below have been difficult to understand. This reviewer was re-reading the fragments several times, thinking that the manuscript was technically very challenging, and that this reviewer hasn’t just yet technically understood the relevant manuscript’s fragment. Then, during the re-reading this reviewer got the impression that likely there might be some mistypes? If so, then this reviewer would see value in the manuscript being edited/ proofread from a language perspective before proceeding with further peer-reviewing. This reviewer hasn’t delivered an exhaustive list of fragments with potentially a similar situation:

Example 1: In lines 41-43 (fragment pasted here below). To which other word the word “are” connects in this fragment?

“Sustainable livestock systems’ information and attributes need to be shared with local stakeholder are more essential today global climate and sustainability demands [3].

Example 2: in lines 57-59 (fragment pasted here below). To which other word the word “influenced” connects in this fragment?

“The maturation of youth toward adulthood brings advanced opportunities for independent and autonomous thought as they seek to separate from the family and influenced more so by mentors [9].”

 

This reviewer would like to again thank the authors and the journal for the opportunity to read this valuable manuscript and looks forward to further steps in this review process.

See comment/ question in the above "Comments and Suggestions for Authors".

Author Response

Thank you for the detailed feedback and recommendations to improve our manuscript. We have attached how and where, in blue, we revised the manuscript based on your suggestions. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript reports on a survey to assess the effectiveness of youth livestock educational programs conducted in an expansive and important livestock production region of the USA. The study followed a standard and straightforward methodology; the manuscript is well organized, with a succinct presentation and discussion of the results.

For non-USA readers, and for additional context, I would suggest providing a general background (profile) on the different role, employment and educational background of Extension agents and agricultural education teachers.

For general background, it may also help to briefly describe and discuss how does the issue of gender and ethnic background fall, with respect to youth livestock education programs-- and of whether these type of surveys can elucidate any strategies to improve youth educational programs, taking these variables (gender and ethnic background, both of teachers and students), into consideration. The authors already do indicate the possibility to improve the survey effectiveness by considering the "variety of stakeholders," but perhaps this can be discussed a little further, in terms of future research.

Additional comments on the text include,

L 150, Did this population cover the entire state of Texas? Is this all at the University level, or both University and Secondary Schools? Did all the participants have undergraduate and/or graduate degrees? This background information would provide additional context to the study, esp. for non-USA readers.

 

L 169-171, This sentence is unclear. Please expound on how this works, re: the role of gatekeepers.

 

L 175-176, Phrase out of place?

 

L 182, Was a particular statistical model used for the analysis? Was a particular Statistical software or program used for the analysis?

 

L 196-197, Incomplete sentence.

 

L 213-215, Unclear, please rephrase.

 

L 227, Re: Heading of Table 3, please rephrase, unclear.

 

L 239 & L 262-263, Is there a statistical significance in the evaluation values (M) between the three modules?

 

L 303-306, Unclear, incomplete sentence? Rephrase?

 

L 335-336, Please rephrase. What does “it” refer to?

 

Minor editorial suggestions are included in the attached copy of the manuscript.

 

////

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Moderate editing is required; suggestions provided in the attached copy of the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you for the time you spent and the details you provided to help us strengthen our manuscript. We have attached our revisions and where they are located in blue to help you identify our revisions and where they are located more easily. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We have attached our revisions and where they are located in blue to help you find revisions and where they are located. We appreciated your detailed feedback that helped us improve the manuscript including it's scientific and practical implications. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx