Assessing the Challenges and Opportunities of Agricultural Information Systems to Enhance Farmers’ Capacity and Target Rice Production in Indonesia
, Setia Sari Girsang 2,*, Budi Raharjo 3, Arlyna Budi Pustika 2, Yanter Hutapea 4, Mahargono Kobarsih 5, Agus Suprihatin 2, Erpina Delina Manurung 2, Deddy Romulo Siagian 6, Sidiq Hanapi 7, Tommy Purba 8, Dorkas Parhusip 9, Sri Wahyuni Budiarti 2, Yeyen Prestyaning Wanita 5, Retno Utami Hatmi 5, Moral Abadi Girsang 8, Lermansius Haloho 8, Waluyo 2, Suparwoto 2, Yustisia 2 and add
Show full author list
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors investigate Agricultural Information System (AIS) service for rice commodities and the relationship of these service indicators to each other in increasing farmer capacity and rice production in Indonesia.
They carry on a thorough analysis through interviews and survery techniques to pursue their goals.
The paper is overall well written, interesting and susceptible to further developments. However, it lacks a formal and analytical study of their results in a statistical setting. In particular, I would suggest the authors to at least make an effort for analyzing their outcomes, taking advantages from recent papers, e.g. Giorgio et Al, Soil Moisture Sensor Information Enhanced by Statistical Methods in a Reclaimed Water Irrigation Framework, Sensors 2022 https://doi.org/10.3390/s22208062, which
could represent a good reference for improving the paper.
A list of issues and questions follows.
- L.29-30 in the abstract: the sentence is not complete. Please fix it and revise English throughout the whole paper.
- How do you manage the possibility that your sample responses are reliable? Did you consider any robustness index to support your analysis?
- Are you method suitable to be applied, in principle, to other contexts?
Author Response
The paper is overall well-written, interesting, and susceptible to further developments. However, it lacks a formal and analytical study of their results in a statistical setting. In particular, I would suggest the authors at least make an effort for analyzing their outcomes, taking advantage of recent papers, e.g. Giorgio et Al, Soil Moisture Sensor Information Enhanced by Statistical Methods in a Reclaimed Water Irrigation Framework, Sensors 2022. Answer: The topic of our paper is cause-and-effect research not forecasting and time series. After we read the paper that was sent, we felt it was not appropriate for this paper. We apologize for not following the reviewer's suggestions because they are not by the objectives in line 24.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The analysis of the functioning of the agricultural information systems (AIS) applications introduced in the manuscript as well as factors determining its usage by the farmers is an interesting scientific and practical issue. The presented issues fit into the current of institutional economics. The attention has been paid to the crucial aspect of farmers’ access to the reliable source of information that allows for the improvement of production efficiency and, as a consequence, to the increase in the obtained agricultural income.
The idea of the work is very interesting, the applied research methods are correct.
I have one major caveat: in the manuscript the characteristic of the surveyed farmers are introduced, however, an analysis of the relationship between the characteristics of the farmers, and the usage and evaluation of the AIS application is missing.
The presented analysis of the obtained results in the discussion has a rather loose relationship with the topic and purpose of the work. If the authors decided to show the relationship between the evaluation of the application and the features that characterize farmers, the paper would benefit significantly. Its added value would be much higher.
Also, the assessment of the effects of using the application is missing, which at this point will be difficult to complete, due to the fact that research has already been carried out. But without it, the paper can also be very interesting.
I also believe that in the article the authors in the discussion should refer to the presented models to a greater extent. They are described, but very poorly.
Another question concerns: If there are 227 farmers who have never tried AIS, then there should be there should be 246 that used it at least once (473-227). So why in the table 4 there are 287 farmers that used AIS for Fertilizer recommendation?
I believe that the paper after the corrections will be made, can be published in the journal Sustainability.
Best regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
-
In the manuscript the characteristic of the surveyed farmers are introduced, however, an analysis of the relationship between the characteristics of the farmers, and the usage and evaluation of the AIS application is missing. I also believe that in the article the authors in the discussion should refer to the presented models to a greater extent. They are described, but very poorly. Answer : Farmers' characteristics are related to the results of the AIS evaluation, we use Spearman's correlation analysis (Table 9) with an explanation in lines 625-638. Furthermore, the topic of our paper only discusses evaluating the use of AIS, not discussing the effects or impacts of using AIS.
-
If there are 227 farmers who have never tried AIS, then there should be 246 that used it at least once (473-227). So why in table 4 there are 287 farmers using AIS for Fertilizer recommendation? Answer: Based on Table 5 (line 229), the answer choices are ever tried. This means that respondents can answer more than 1 answer so that the total exceeds 473
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Congratulations to the Authors.
The article refers to a very actual subject which is the adoption of AIS in rural areas.
The novelty of the paper was using software that can be used for free for students.
The little question that I have is about the response rate. I have seen that authors mention about 473 respondents. Was it the initial number of people asked to participate in the survey or the number of respondents with valid, complete, filed surveys? If it was the number of respondents with accurate, complete, filed surveys, what was the total population, and if the output could be representative?
What was the total population and response rate if that was the number of respondents with valid, complete, filed surveys?
That issues should be mentioned in the paper.
Overall that is an exciting paper.
Author Response
The little question that I have is about the response rate. I have seen that authors mention about 473 respondents. Was it the initial number of people asked to participate in the survey or the number of respondents with valid, complete, filed surveys? If it was the number of respondents with accurate, complete, filed surveys, what was the total population, and if the output could be representative? What was the total population and response rate if that was the number of respondents with valid, complete, filed surveys? Answer: The number of respondents based on farmers or extensions have known AIS for at least 2 years, meaning that the respondents submitted are accurate. The total population is 2,415 while the respondents are only 473 in Table 1 (line 140).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Before make a judgement, I would like to see a pointwise response to my comments, since it seems authors did not address some questions.
Reviewer 2 Report
In my opinion, the manuscript can be published in its present form.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
accept
