Study of the Spatio-Temporal Variation of Agricultural Sustainability at National and Provincial Levels in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments and Suggestions for the authors:
First of all, I congratulate the authors of the article for the research that they have carried out, since the text presented for evaluation is well founded, structured, and developed. In addition, they study a very important social and economic phenomenon such is the agricultural sustainability of China in the context of the implementation of 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In this sense, the article provides relevant arguments, data, information and empirical indicators with regard the past, present and future context of environmental sustainability of agriculture in China.
However, it is necessary to clarify and / or develop some ideas:
1.- In research articles it is necessary to emphasize the central ideas and questions of the research carried out. In this article, the working hypotheses are not explicitly indicated. It is necessary to show the hypothesis or hypotheses that are worked on in the article. This can help readers identify the central ideas under investigation. It would also be useful to make explicit how the hypotheses are linked to the article’s research question. The hypotheses could be indicated in the first section (Introduction, pages 1-3) of the work. (It seems that the hypotheses or central ideas are implicit in the introduction. But it is necessary to indicate them systematically).
2.- It is necessary to indicate the sources in all figures and in all tables of the article. In the article figures and tables, starting on page 4 (Figure 1) and pages 5-7 (Table 1), the source of the data shown is not indicated. Therefore, it is necessary to indicate the source in all tables. If the source is the authors’ own elaboration, as it appears to be, it must be indicated. This should be done with all the tables and figures in the article.
3.- In the article, various acronyms are not defined. Reading of the text must be facilitated, even to readers not specialized in the topic study. Acronyms must be defined the first time they are referred to. In the abstract, ASDI needs to be defined, then on page 2-3, the acronyms need to be defined, for example: OECD, DPSIR, DSR, RUE, OOSD, SCOPE, etc.
4.- It is necessary to provide information in the article (page 5) that describes the social and economic context of China regarding the “14th Five Year Plan” and the “Rural Revitalization Strategic Plan (2018-2022)”. This information about the social and economic context of these plans would be necessary to provide new ideas with which to interpret the empirical data provided in the set of indicators shown in the article. Especially, this clarification of the information on the context of said plans may be useful to clarify some ideas presented in the Discussion and Conclusions sections.
5.- The Conclusions (pages 19-20) are too brief. Therefore, it is recommended that authors consider two possible issues to include. On the one hand, it is convenient to show the new research questions (and possible hypothesis) that arise after the study carried out. The latter allows continuing the research undertaken in the near future, by the authors of the article or other researchers. On the other hand, perhaps it would also be convenient to highlight, in the Conclusions, the difficulty and/or complexity to obtain certain data and information in the research carried out.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsthe paper appears to be an important contribution to the assessment of agricultural sustainable development in China, but improvements in the presentation and discussion of results could make it even more effective and understandable for the audience.
Introduction: This paragraph provides a good introduction to the context of the work. However, it might be helpful to provide some basic information about the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to help the reader better understand the initial context. Additionally, it could be beneficial to explicitly state the main objective of the work, such as stating that the study aims to assess the trends in agricultural sustainable development in China.
Methodology: This paragraph provides a detailed explanation of the methodology used in the study, including a description of the indicators used.
Results: This paragraph provides a summary of the assessments of agriculture-related SDGs in China, along with an evaluation of the ASDI. It is useful and informative. Moreover, the key findings and trends emerging from the assessment could be highlighted to help the reader better comprehend them.
Discussion: This paragraph is crucial for interpreting the results. However, it could be further developed. The authors could discuss in more detail the implications of the findings, including reasons for performance differences among different agricultural regions and the reasons behind changes over time. Furthermore, it would be useful to discuss how these findings might influence agricultural policies and sustainable development in China.
Conclusions: This paragraph presents the main conclusions of the study. However, it might be helpful to briefly summarize the key findings, such as listing the main key points in a bullet list. Additionally, it could be advantageous to include some practical recommendations based on the study's findings, suggesting possible future actions to improve agricultural sustainable development in China.
Comments and Suggestions for the Authors:
Provide a brief introduction to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at the beginning of paragraph 1 to provide context to readers. Highlight the key findings and trends emerging from the assessment in paragraph 3. Expand further on the discussion in paragraph 4, discussing the implications of the findings and potential policy implications. Briefly summarize the key findings in paragraph 5 and provide practical recommendations for future actions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents sound and interesting idea and follows in principle a good approach. The problem statement of this manuscript is clear. However in its current version, there are a number of limitations which require minor revisions:
1- Citation on the text is not done well
2- The manuscript holds potential to provide a contribution to the Journal, but still requires work, in particular on the integration with scientific literature.
3-The findings have not been compared with previous researches
Line 35
"Agriculture" is agriculture not industry!
Line 38,62
It needs to be referenced.
Line 94
The first name should not appear in the reference.
Line 60,82
It is not very necessary and if it is necessary, bring it more compactly.
Line 103
DEA is not a suitable method for sustainability evaluation
Literature review should be focus on relationship between agricultural sustainability, spatial development theories. Try to think about what the most relevant information about the case study is that the readers should now, and what information can be add without reducing the paper's understandability.
The Research Method is clear.
What is the advantage of this normalization method? Add up to 2 lines
Why are the indicators not weighted?
Is this research exploratory or definitive?
The Discussion section should focus more on integrating your findings within the broader literature on sustainability assessment models. It can focus on explaining how the Synthesis results from your study area could be relevant for other places in the world. What are your contributions?
The Results should follow up on some of the issues that are raised in the Introduction, the main research gap and how your study contributes to understanding problems.
The conclusion is weak.
Please use these articles:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02490-5
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031410
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe MS analyzed the spatio-temporal variation of China's agriculture sustainable development based on SDGs (SDG2, SDG6, SDG7, SDG8, SDG9, SDG12) related to agriculture. The content of the MS is relatively substantial, the overall structure is clear. However, the following issues still should be attention.
1. The sentence “the existing research ignored the importance of the sustainable development of agriculture.” in the abstract is suggested further consideration for better understanding the research gap. In fact, the sustainable development of agriculture has been given attention in many previous studies.
2. Check for additional recent publications relevant to this paper on the sustainable development of agriculture (i.e. 2021,2022,2023). Existing literature on the sustainable development of agriculture needs to be further summarized for identifying the existing progress and shortcomings in the introduction.
3. The calculation method of indicators for agricultural sustainable development needs to be clearly presented in the Table 1.
4. Table 1 is suggested to be split into multiple tables for presenting the table content on one page.
5. The data sources in Table 2 are suggested to be deleted and moved to the “Data sources” section.
6. “3.2.1. Spatio-temporal evolution for agricultural sustainable development” is suggested to further compressed more concisely for better reading and understanding.
7. It is recommended to add a secondary title to the discussion section, including the explanation of the results, the comparison with other studies and the limitations of the study.
8. The English language should be checked and improved in the whole parts of the paper.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language should be checked and improved in the whole parts of the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWell done
Author Response
Many thanks for your reviewing.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe English language should be checked and improved before publication.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Many thanks for your reviewing. The English language has been improved in the revised manuscript, which has been highlighted in red. Please check it in the manuscript.
