Agricultural Markets, Cropping Patterns, and Consumption Patterns: The Moderating Effect of COVID-19 on Mountainous Communities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic and the usage of the PLS-SEM are nice and interesting. But the information about the data source is not detailed (from rows 325). What about the approximate number of possible mountain farmers? What about the sample representativity? Because of the 3 years period of data collection, it would be nice if the data would be separated by years, and the time-related change would be able to analyse.  The pre, during and near end COVID data would be comparable, and higher value model would be nice. Because of the existing data, more PLS-SEM would be available. What software was used for PLS-SEM, it is not clear for me? Instead and paralel to the results tables I suggest to use some model related visualisation, the rank score would more easily interpretable. 

Overall the topic is interesting, the methodology is great, but the data collection has some limitation. I suggest to rethink the datasource, and the PLS-SEM possibilities. 

Personally I do not prefer the so long sentences. I suggest to restructure of the long ones especially in the results part. Some of the results are only focus the values, and the possible resasons, and explanation are missing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I am writing to sincerely express my gratitude for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your thoughtful and thorough evaluation of the paper, along with your constructive comments and suggestions, have been invaluable in enhancing the quality and clarity of the research.

The meticulousness with which you examined the manuscript is evident from the detailed comments and insightful observations you provided. Your expertise and keen eye for detail have greatly contributed to improving the overall strength and coherence of the paper.

Thank you once again for dedicating your time and expertise to evaluate our work. Your commitment to the scholarly community and willingness to provide constructive feedback is truly commendable. We are deeply appreciative of your contributions, which have undoubtedly played a pivotal role in advancing the robustness and impact of this research.

Please see the attachment, where a detailed response to your comments has been established. We hope that the modifications adequately address your concerns.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

General and specific comments on the manuscript can be found in the attached pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor fixes are required, as listed in specific comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I am writing to sincerely express my gratitude for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your thoughtful and thorough evaluation of the paper, along with your constructive comments and suggestions, have been invaluable in enhancing the quality and clarity of the research.

The meticulousness with which you examined the manuscript is evident from the detailed comments and insightful observations you provided. Your expertise and keen eye for detail have greatly contributed to improving the overall strength and coherence of the paper.

Thank you once again for dedicating your time and expertise to evaluate our work. Your commitment to the scholarly community and willingness to provide constructive feedback is truly commendable. We are deeply appreciative of your contributions, which have undoubtedly played a pivotal role in advancing the robustness and impact of this research.

Please see the attachment, where a detailed response to your comments has been established. We hope that the modifications adequately address your concerns.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

the topic chosen for your article seems really interesting and, therefore, potentially publishable in this journal but, I think it requires a further effort to make it truly appealing and of international interest. In general, it would be appropriate to create a balance between the different sections. At the moment, in my opinion, it seems a bit unbalanced and make the reading of the text more usable.

The methodological part should be better described and should be more linked to the presentation of the results. Specifically, a better description of the econometric model used should be provided, and also relative theoretical references, and so on.

Please find below some suggestions that I hope will help to improve your work:

-        Use the thousands indicator when numbers exceed three digits. For example, line 22: 5273 must be 5.273;

-        avoid using words already present in the title of the manuscript as keywords;

-        references do not follow journal guidelines. In the text they must be numbered in order of appearance and indicated in square brackets. In the references they must be inserted following the previous numbering and not the alphabetical order. For example, line 42: (FAO, 2008) must be [1]. In the references it must be moved from number 10 to number 1;

-        line 124: Figure.1 must be Figure 1;

-        check text editing;

-        Use the journal guidelines;

-        simplify paragraph 2 “aims and hypotheses” because most of the text seems to be useful to insert in discussions;

-        controls footnote editing;

-        in my opinion, the hypotheses can be simplified. For example, H4a and H4b can be only one (in consideration of the fact that by input we can generically mean the 3 factors necessary for production: land, labor and capital);

-        line 336-339: A figure highlighting the area of study would greatly help non-Pakistani readers;

-        line 352: percentages can be indicated with only one decimal place. So, for example, 63.34% can be written as 63.3%;

-        tables and figures should be separated from the text. They are preceded and followed by an empty line;

-        line 364-371: check for leading spaces; nothing is said about the sample analysed. For example, how it was defined and extracted, etc.;

-        the methodology of analysis, in fact, is only mentioned. In my opinion, this part should be decidedly expanded, for example by inserting a statistical-econometric description of the analysis method, showing some formulas and, finally, some other bibliographic references should be inserted. The relationships between variables etc. must be shown;

-        the presentation of the results must be linked more to the various hypotheses made;

-        the discussions appeared to me a bit poor in comparison with the other works in the literature. In this regard, it could help to move part of the text inserted in paragraph 2 to this section;

-        conclusions: they lack the description of the limits of the study carried out as well as of the future prospects of the same;

-          please check the editing of the references...it must be in accordance with the guidelines of the journal.

The English writing is quite good although some parts could be simplified a bit.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I am writing to sincerely express my gratitude for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your thoughtful and thorough evaluation of the paper, along with your constructive comments and suggestions, have been invaluable in enhancing the quality and clarity of the research.

The meticulousness with which you examined the manuscript is evident from the detailed comments and insightful observations you provided. Your expertise and keen eye for detail have greatly contributed to improving the overall strength and coherence of the paper.

Thank you once again for dedicating your time and expertise to evaluate our work. Your commitment to the scholarly community and willingness to provide constructive feedback is truly commendable. We are deeply appreciative of your contributions, which have undoubtedly played a pivotal role in advancing the robustness and impact of this research.

Please see the attachment, where a detailed response to your comments has been established. We hope that the modifications adequately address your concerns.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Agricultural Markets, Cropping Patterns, and Consumption Patterns: The Moderating Effect of COVID-19 on Mountainous Communities'' investigated the proposes and tests a model for the transformations observed in the agriculture markets, particularly input, labor, and product markets, and elucidating the influence of these changes on cropping and consumption patterns.

The English of the paper is readable, but there are some punctuation and grammatical mistakes, so I would suggest the authors check it by a native English-speaking person to avoid any mistakes.

Overall, the paper has been well written and there are only a few points, please see the comments below:

 

Abstract

The main problem of the abstract is related to the results and conclusion, without impressive data about results and weak conclusion are the main problem of this section. Please modify this section.

keywords should be different from title words. Make them specific.

Introduction

 

Lines 43-44 à Provide reference(s). 

The English of the paper is readable, but there are some punctuation and grammatical mistakes, so I would suggest the authors check it by a native English-speaking person to avoid any mistakes.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I am writing to sincerely express my gratitude for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your thoughtful and thorough evaluation of the paper, along with your constructive comments and suggestions, have been invaluable in enhancing the quality and clarity of the research.

The meticulousness with which you examined the manuscript is evident from the detailed comments and insightful observations you provided. Your expertise and keen eye for detail have greatly contributed to improving the overall strength and coherence of the paper.

Thank you once again for dedicating your time and expertise to evaluate our work. Your commitment to the scholarly community and willingness to provide constructive feedback is truly commendable. We are deeply appreciative of your contributions, which have undoubtedly played a pivotal role in advancing the robustness and impact of this research.

Please see the attachment, where a detailed response to your comments has been established. We hope that the modifications adequately address your concerns.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for the effort you made for the corrections to the text but, actually, I am quite disappointed with your review of the article, my intentions were to make your article interesting for a potential reader but, probably, I was not able to convey to you what I meant.

However, even if the article has improved slightly since the revision, much work remains to be done before it can be published in this journal. In fact, in revising the manuscript, you focused on specific suggestions, leaving out the general but more important ones. For example, I had suggested to you that it would be appropriate to seek a better balance between the different sections, as at the moment it seems a bit unbalanced. Furthermore, the methodological part should be better described and more closely linked to the presentation of the results. But none of this was done, as you have limited yourself to correcting bibliographical references and small things here and there within the manuscript without trying to find a balance within it. Furthermore, the editing must be checked.

Please find below some (few) specific suggestions (which partly add to my previous observations) that I really hope will help to improve your work:

line 114-119: having deleted the text you have in fact also deleted the bibliographic reference ([10]). So please check and review all reference numbering;

in reducing the decimal figures (as I had suggested) it would have been appropriate to approximate the numbers. For example, line 364: 20.39% should have become 20.4% not 20.3%. Please check;

table 2 is not new, it has just been moved into the text. However, in my opinion, it is too far removed from when it was first mentioned. Perhaps it would be better to include it in paragraph 3.1. Please check;

table 2: write the column headings in full. As it is, it is not clear what the acronyms used mean;

tables/figures must be separated from the text by an empty line;

line 416-426: in my opinion there is a bit of confusion in the comments on tables 3 and 4. It would be appropriate to comment on table 3 first and then on table 4 without mixing things up;

“TABLE 4” must be “Table 4”.

For these reasons I am forced to once again ask for major revisions.

Like the previous review: the English writing is quite good although some parts could be simplified a bit. Try to write in simple and concise English.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for the effort you have brought in tackling the revision of the article again. I’m happy that the misunderstanding that had arisen between us has been understood and overcome. However, I would like, once again, to underline the fact that I had and have nothing against you. As I said last time, my observations were only aimed at seeking a better draft of your manuscript (at least from my point of view). I really appreciated the work done in this new version of the manuscript. Even if some parts of the work are not new, their distribution within the paper appears to be more organic, harmonious and well balanced. Therefore, with pleasure, I can consider myself satisfied with what you have produced.

However, before publication I ask you for a little further effort:

please check the editing of the manuscript (perhaps it is better to do it on a clean version in which all the revisions made are not visible). In particular, you must check the punctuation (for example, line 133: “time. [10,11]” must be “time [10,11]”), the spaces (for example, line 233 or even line 443). Don’t forget to check the line spacing, in some cases I think they are incorrect;

line 321: “[23] [29] [30]” should be “[23, 29-30]”. Please check;

table 2: I think it is better to write down the column headings and not use acronyms. Please check;

line 432: “3.2 Measurements” must be “3.3 Measurements”. Please check;

line 515-517: in my opinion this part can be moved after table 3 (this way it visually separates table 3 from table 4). Please check;

table 4: in my opinion it is better to put the acronyms in square brackets. For example: “Agricultural Input Market -AIM” should be “Agricultural Input Market (AIM)”. Please check.

After that, for me, the work is ready to be published.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx