Quantitative Assessment of Spatial–Temporal Characteristics of Agricultural Development Level in China: A County-Level Analysis
, Feng Zhou 1, Hong Peng 4, Xin Liu 1, Yue Wang 1 and Xiao Zhang 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this study, based on the entropy method mentioned above, the index of the level of agricultural development of the districts and counties is calculated and classified.This study can provide valuable insights into the current state of county-level agricultural development in China and offers useful guidance for policy making and planning strategies aimed at promoting sustainable agricultural modernization the country. Some suggestions are given as follows:
1) In 2.3.1，index selection in this study should be compared with those exsiting index systems and clarify the differences between them.
2) In 2.3.2, how to determine weights with the entropy method should be illustrated by one or two examples.
3)In 2.3.3, how to calculate the ADL should be illustrated by one or two examples.
_ Technical results of this paper are sufficient for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper selected a very interesting topic and designed a high-quality analysis model. However, some deficiencies in this paper need to be corrected.
1. Although section 1 has introduced the research contexts of Main Functional Area Planning (MFAP), a section needs to provide more details of the research contexts. Based on that, this paper needs to clarify the research questions.
2. This paper lacks a section to introduce its basic ideas and research frameworks. Section 2.3 should not be included in a Study area and materials Section. Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 are parts of have introduced the research ideas of this paper (e.g., how to select indexes and why). However, without a research framework and experimental progress, readers hardly can understand and reproduce this experiment. Therefore, I suggest inserting a new section 3 to describe the basic ideas and research framework of this paper and moving section 2.3 into the new section.
3. In Section 2.3.1, it is recommended to explain Four-level.
4. Using the municipal and provincial ADL assessment results as a reference, can we conduct a comparative analysis with the county-level ADL assessment proposed by the author to make the assessment results more convincing?
5. Table S2 "(see Table S2)" in row 261 was not found in the text, and Table 2 does not contain relevant data. I guess it is the data in Figure 3.
6. According to Figure 3, the 5.38 in the sentence "especially the number of counties with level IV decreased by 166 from 2009 to 2015, a decrease of 5.38% compared to 2009 (see Table S2)." in rows 260-261. % should be 5.83% (22.18%-16.35%)
7. In line 293, "(see Table S3)", Table S3 was not found in the text, nor was Table 3 found.
8. Before the result emerges, this paper needs to elaborate on the experimental progress in a detailed section. I suggest that this paper should provide a figure to illustrate the experimental progress. That will help readers to understand the experiment better.
9. There are some of the latest research papers on quantitative assessment, spatial-temporal characteristics, and agricultural development level. It is recommended to read and cite (if applicable) what is helpful to the revision.
Busari, D.A., Nwokporo, E.I. Equity, Access and Utilization of COVID-19 Vaccine in Ebonyi State, Nigeria. Shanthappa, N.K., Mulangi, R.H. & Manjunath, H.M. The Spatiotemporal Patterns of Bus Passengers: Visualisation and Evaluation using Non-negative Tensor Decomposition. Raji, S.A., Odunuga, S. & Fasona, M. Spatially Explicit Scenario Analysis of Habitat Quality in a Tropical Semi-arid Zone: Case Study of the Sokoto–Rima Basin.
At the last, there are many high-quality figures included but some of them are not sufficiently well described in the text, such as Fig.2.
In summary, I suggest accepting this paper after a major correction.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFor obvious reasons, the data used in the article are derived from secondary sources. Due to the inability to verify Chinese statistical sources, I have assumed in good faith that it was not possible to obtain more current data at the level of ADL granularity. If my assumption is correct, I do not expect any comments in this regard. However, my doubt arises from the existence of studies presenting more recent selected data for Chinese agriculture, such as https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19169804
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- Please revise the key words. Choose the words from manuscript other than the words in title.
- Check spacing errors throughout MS i.e., Line 62, Cui et al.[15] evaluated, Line 68 Zhang et al.[17], 73 Liu et al.[5] and 134 Chinese Academy of Sciences(http://www.resdc.cn/).
- Avoid mentioning word "see" like at line 121, 170
- Figure 2: it is hard to see and read legends in figures. check the image quality and replace
- Figure 3: Improve image quality and and show some statistics on ADLs
- Rewrite sentences starting with Fig 3 show, Figs 4 and 5 displays .....
- Figure 7: improve image quality and increase the font size of numbers on bars.....
- Check all citations and references according to the format of journal
- Correct journal names in references i.e., line 673
- Use journal format and template for MS
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Please recheck for errors and improve scientific writing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has revised and improved according to the reviewers' comments, and it is recommended to publish.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
- Please choose the key words other than the words present in the title. The purpose of key words is to increase the visibility of your work. Therefore, choose important key words.
- Avoid starting sentences with abbreviations i.e., Line 102 MFAP, check throughout MS.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
- Minor editing of English language required, please check and read carefully.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
