Recalibrating Data on Farm Productivity: Why We Need Small Farms for Food Security
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to thank the editor for giving me a chance to review the research article entitled, ‘Recalibrating Data on Farm Productivity: Why We Need Small Farms for Food Security’. I have checked the manuscript carefully. However, this manuscript seems like an easy rather than scientific article. The data quality of this manuscript is not enough even the discussion section is poor for consideration as a research article. Hence, my suggestion is to reject this article in its present format.
Author Response
The paper is developed as a response to an ongoing debate, rather than a report on original primary research. We have, however, revised the manuscript and hope that these clarifications better meet the reviewer’s expectations.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank the authors for submitting the manuscript titled “Recalibrating Data on Farm Productivity: Why We Need Small Farms for Food Security”. This paper aims to argue that Richie’s commentary, in its effort to critique the ETC Group’s estimate, both minimizes the significance of small farm productivity and fails to acknowledge the multifaceted social and environmental benefits of farming practices typically associated with small farms. Although there are some novelties, I still have some comments for the authors to improve this manuscript.
1. In the introduction section, could you please use one or two sentences to summarize the objectives of this manuscript. After using several paragraphs to describe the background, could you please highlight what are the objectives of this manuscript to give readers a clear picture of the goals of this manuscript.
2. Line 241-242: could you please use your own words to describe the study cited here instead of directly quoting the original sentences from that study? Also there are several places in this manuscript that directly quote other studies, could you please try to minimize direct quotations of the original sentences from others’ and use clear and concise descriptions showing how other studies could support your research?
3. Please remove colors in table 1. You can add borders to separate different categories.
4. I don’t think the “Results” section is novel enough. I would suggest describing the “Results” and “Discussion” sections together, and please add more data or results to support your perspectives.
Author Response
Thanks for your thoughtful feedback. All your points are well taken. We have now:
- Included an explicit statement on our objective
- Re-worded two lengthy direct quotes. For the FAO definition of family farming and the ETC Group’s definition of the peasant food web, we think that direct quotes are still more appropriate.
- Removed colours from the table.
- Retitled section 3 to “results and discussion”
- Added a clarification that our motivation was to write a contribution to a specific debate, rather than a metanalysis. To that end, adding more data could clutter our argument. However, on this last point, we are open to further revising if the reviewer is still not satisfied with this.
Reviewer 3 Report
It's short, but I think it's a meaningful manuscript. because, (1) It is necessary to clarify the statistical position of small farmers, and (2) the agricultural form of small farmers (chemical fertilizers, land use, etc.) has a significant impact on ecosystem services such as food security. (3) The contribution of Small Farms to the local community is significant (this includes not only food production but also the activation of communication within the region), and (4) Small farmers' rights to global agribusiness are beginning to be advocated. Although the conclusion remains on the surface of existing papers and opinions on both arguments, I appreciate the fact that it is based on the verification of the authors.
Author Response
Thank you for the positive assessment of this paper. We have nevertheless made some revisions, and hopefully improved the manuscript in response to all reviewers’ comments.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Can be accepted in its present form.
English is fine.
