Technological Innovations for Agricultural Production from an Environmental Perspective: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for this opportunity. Nice article. References are OK. The structure is quite good. I would ask tou to ensure there is no Spanish words walking around. I found a few in the tables and images. Please, check it.

Author Response

Please check the document where the corresponding amendments have been made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript attempts a review of previous research related to ICTs and agricultural digitalization. The topic is interesting and appropriate for the journal. Nonetheless, the review is presented in a quite idiosyncratic and unconventional manner, as is detailed in the following list of concerns:

·       Line 48: This generalizing sentence seems out of place from the argument of the paragraph, which is much more specific in nature.

·       Materials and methods section must be better organized to allow replication.

·       Line 99: Not sure what the “parameters” are. I cannot find them in Figure 1.

·       Figure 1: unclear diagram. What do the size and position of the circles mean? Why are there smaller circles with no text?

·       Section 2.2: The content does not fit the title of the subsection.

·       Line 105: What are the “other aspects” mentioned?

·       Line 106: Many definitions of “heuristics” may be used, but identifying sources of information does not fit any of them.

·       Line 109: Is this sentence necessary?

·       Line 111: Where are the sources “outlined”?

·       Line 115: Please explain your process in a detailed manner and let the reader decide if it is “thorough” or “professional”.

·       Line 116: What is meant by “section”?

·       Line 119: Comparisons to what or between what?

·       Line 121: Unclear sentence

·       Line 123: Please state the exact timeframe here, not at the end of the paragraph.

·       Line 126: Please state the full list of databases here.

·       Line 134: Unclear sentence structure

·       Line 136: What are “these”?

·       Line 138: Unclear, “Critical Review Form Quantitative Studies”

·       Lines 139-142: These categories are too subjective.

·       Line 143: Please use past tense instead of future tense.

·       Line 144: Unclear that ACC is. Is it an index for journal or for papers? If it is for individual papers, why “average”?

·       Line 148: The sentence states that Figure 2 depicts the 40 articles, but it doesn’t.

·       Line 155: What is “bibliometric analysis”?

·       Figure 3: What is the order for the categories in the Y axis? What is the sample size?  The X axis is in Spanish.

·       Figure 4: What is the sample size?

·       Line 174: There is “limited accessibility” because there is more literature in English than in Spanish? Limited accessibility to whom?

·       Figure 5 is unnecessary, because its contents can be included in a single sentence.

·       Line 186: Why does it say the “first 8 articles”? Why is there a cabalistic number (8) of articles for each topic?

·       Line 188: Are you sure the topics are “summarized”? Seems more like a table of details than a summary.

·       Lines 191-225: so now there is one paragraph for each of the 8 papers? If this is a review, this and the following similar sections should identify main themes an results, as well as gaps in the research lines.

·       Lines 226-397: This part of the manuscript follows the same structure as lines 191-225. The same comments apply.

·       Line 399: The results do not “reveal” the need for innovation.

·       Lines 401-403: Although this argument is probably true, your results do not support it.

·       “Discussion” section: This is not really a discussion of your results compared to those of previous research. It is a summary of the topics, with citations.

·       Lines 431-433: Although this argument is probably true, your results do not support it.

·       Lines 445-447: your findings do not support that “results have been favorable” of that there are “positive outcomes”.

·       Line 448: There is no evidence of “cost reduction”.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English needs editing

Author Response

Please check the document where the corresponding amendments have been made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article conducts a review of technological innovations in Latin American agriculture to enhance environmental management, especially of soil, water, fertilizers, and agrochemicals. The methodology involves a bibliometric analysis of 280 articles from 2018-2023, of which 40 are selected based on relevance.

The results revealed five categories of innovations: artificial intelligence, machine learning, drones, mobile apps, and the Internet of Things. The main application areas are natural resource management (soil, water), crop management (fertilizers, agrochemicals), and monitoring.

The discussion highlights that most agricultural technology originates from developed countries, while Latin America lags despite needing solutions. Innovations have focused on managing degraded soil and water resources. Precision agriculture tools optimize fertilizer and agrochemical use, reducing costs and environmental impact.

The conclusion emphasizes the need for Latin American countries to develop their own technologies. Current innovations mainly come from technologically advanced nations and focus on sustaining resources like soil and water while improving agricultural production efficiency.

Overall, the review analyzes technological innovations for sustainable agriculture, categorizing their applications and benefits. It finds imbalances between nations in developing vs. using agricultural technologies. Recommendations include expanded technology development tailored to Latin America's needs.

Strengths:

The article has a clear objective of reviewing technological innovations for agricultural resource management, specifically soil, water, fertilizer, and agrochemical use, in Latin America.

The methodology is well-described, including the databases searched, selection criteria, and qualitative and quantitative analyses conducted.

The results section categorizes and summarizes the key findings from the 40 selected articles effectively.

The discussion integrates the results to highlight the major trends and implications of technological innovations for sustainable agricultural development.

The conclusion succinctly summarizes the main points about the origins of agricultural technology developments, focus areas, and benefits.

Suggestions:

Expand the introduction to provide more context about the role of technology in addressing agricultural production challenges in Latin America.

In the results, include some quantitative data (e.g. publication dates, author origins, etc.) to complement the categorization and summarizations.

In the discussion, compare and contrast findings from Latin America versus other regions.

In the conclusion, provide recommendations for future research directions or policy implications.

 

Author Response

Please check the document where the corresponding amendments have been made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would suggest a new Title: Technological Innovations for Sustainable Agricultural Production: A Review

 

Abstract:

The abstract provides a clear overview of the study's objectives and findings. It effectively summarizes the key contributions and findings, making it a significant asset to the paper. The language used is precise and comprehensible.

 

Introduction:

The introduction sets the stage effectively, providing context for the importance of technological innovations in agriculture. It clearly states the purpose of the study. However, it could benefit from a more specific research question or hypothesis.

 

Methodology:

The methodology section adequately describes the document review process and bibliometric analysis. It would be beneficial to elaborate on the criteria used for article selection. Additionally, a brief explanation of the hermeneutic analysis could enhance clarity.

 

Results:

The results section is comprehensive and well-structured. The use of figures aids in visualizing the categorized data. The descriptions are clear, providing a good understanding of the findings.

 

Discussion:

The discussion provides valuable insights into the significance of technological innovations in agriculture. It effectively links the results to broader implications for sustainable agricultural production. However, further emphasis on potential practical applications or policy implications would enhance the section.

 

Conclusion:

The conclusion appropriately summarizes the key findings and their implications. It effectively reinforces the importance of technological innovations in sustainable agriculture.

 

References:

The references provided are appropriate and relevant. However, it might be beneficial to include a wider range of sources, including recent studies from Latin American countries to address the regional context.

 

Language:

The English language usage throughout the paper is clear and readable. There are only minor grammatical and syntactical issues that require attention.

Comments for Authors:

1. Consider providing a more specific research question or hypothesis in the introduction for added clarity.
2. Elaborate on the criteria used for article selection in the methodology section.
3. Provide a brief explanation of the hermeneutic analysis for better understanding.
4. Emphasize potential practical applications or policy implications in the discussion section.
5. Include recent studies from Latin American countries to address the regional context in the references.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English used is correct and readable, with only minor grammatical and syntactical issues that require attention

Author Response

The proposed suggestions have been incorporated into the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript does not merit publication. Some clarifications and cosmetic changes were made by the authors, without considering the underlying concerns of the revision.

The main objective (see Line 102) is stated as to inventory the existing digital tools that provide access to Latin American populations for utilizing innovations that enhance agricultural productivity. “Inventory” is not the best choice of verb for a proper “systematic review” (see Line 14). There are many examples of systematic reviews available, and the present manuscript is clearly not one of them. The authors argue that they have followed a consistent procedure (see Response 32), but that is not enough.

The materials and methods section is poorly written, with many paragraphs of single sentences. An extreme case is Section 2.7, which consists of 10 words.

Section 2.9 is especially unclear. This was pointed out in the previous review (see Comments 19-20), and the authors ignored the observations, claiming that “it is clear” (see Response 19) and “not subjective”, following an “already validated methodology” (see Response 20).

There is no explanation why Tables 1 to 5 have exactly 8 references each. This was pointed out in the previous revision (see Comment 29), but the authors ignored the observation.

After each table, there is a paragraph for each of those eight references. The authors claim that this is consistent (see Response 32), so it is supposed to be appropriate and scientific. Nonetheless, consistency in the process does not make it systematic nor scientific.

As you will find in any proper review paper, the references need to be classified into topics and compared against each other. Moreover, key research gap areas are identified, so that other researchers can find inspiration for future research.

The conclusions section is not supported by the analysis. If you check the objective, the evidence provided and the conclusions, you will find that they do not match. The conclusions section merely presents pseudo-scientific opinions which the reader is supposed to believe as true because she found them in an academic paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The main concerns are conceptual and logical, not linguistic.

Author Response

The proposed suggestions have been incorporated into the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Figure 1: Too little information. It could be a sentence.

Line 138: Consider adding a dash: "Critical Review Form – Quantitative Studies". Please add a proper reference for this form.

Line 185: There are no "findings" in Table 1. It´s just a list.

Tables 1-5: Kindly explain (explicitly) why there are exactly 8 papers in each list.

Lines 194-222: Please summarize the findings in the literature according to topics. If you have 1 paragraph per reference, it looks like homework.

The same comment applies for the rest of the subsections, after Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5. 

Lines 224, 267, 308, 353: There is no summary here. Consider changing the verb to: "listed".

Discussion section: You have results about a series of identified topics in the literature. The discussion section should be an interaction between your results and the previous literature. It cannot be a simple literature review, as it is now. It does present a nice summary of the literature, though.

Conclusions: Remember that the objective of the research is “mapping digital tools” via a “bibliometric approach”. In this section, please summarize this mapping, sticking to what was found via the methodology.

Think of a reader who will skip to the conclusions. ¿Is the first paragraph the best answer to the research question? Is the second paragraph enough as a conclusion?

 

Line 464 begins with a recommendation. Is it based on your results? Do you need to perform a bibliometric analysis to recommend this? Are there any recommendations for researchers? Any areas that have not received sufficient interest? Literature reviews are usually good for finding new research avenues. Your research team has read many papers and systematized the topics and results. ¿What can you recommend to others, who will not embark on such a lengthy review of the literature on this topic?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is understandable. Minor editing will be enough.

Author Response

The observations have been corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf