Short Commercialization Circuits and Productive Development of Agroecological Farmers in the Rural Andean Area of Ecuador

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate that the authors submitted a manuscript that is interesting, and is linked to the objectives of the journal, however, there are some issues that have to be reconsidered. The Title is rather complicated to understand, and even if that is not, necessarily, a negative aspect, I, personally, recommend making it clearer. 

The objective of the manuscript is to analyze the short commercialization circuits for agroecological foods as a contribution to the productive development in the rural Andean area of the Pillaro canton, by a quantitative approach involving cross-sectional data collection.  

The topic addressed could be, potentially, relevant for the journal and for the field, as large. But the aim gap is insufficiently pointed out in the studied literature review. It is necessary to further arguments to see what is this study bringing new in the scientific literature, but covering a gap that is, at the moment, unexploited and insufficiently exploited by other scholars.

 

The subject is rather interesting, so there is potential room for this manuscript, once it reaches the expected level of quality.   

The Abstract should be completed with some relevant findings (expressed in numbers, for a better impact on the reader). Also, in this part, a too-large share is allocated to the concept presentation compared with the result and conclusions. 

In the introduction, the presentation of the structure of the paper is missing.  Also, the main objective and the potential secondary objectives are not sufficiently pointed out. 

The part of the Literature Review is somehow, mixed with the Introduction. The authors need to clarify that. Anyway, this part it is needed to construct the literature gap, which is not clearly pointed out, as mentioned before. General text about the topic (one para), focus on its relevance and importance for the industry, practice, and theory. Then briefly inform readers that there is a surge in wellness experience, and xx and xx studies have been organized so far. One para on what has been done so far on the topic. Then talk about research gaps- What are the keys and why are they important or need to be addressed now? Clearly present 3-4 research gaps on this topic. Finally, present the focus of the current study. What are its RQs and details on the method – briefly say about data, country, context, and theory. Which is the novelty and contribution of the study?  

The results are interesting, but, sometimes confusing. For instance, lines 159-163,, somehow, tries to convince the reader that 89% is higher than 96% (at least that is the first impression). 

The discussion part is too short compared with the results. But that is because of the lack of a literature review. I suggest making an adequate comparison of the results with the previous literature; however, the authors must emphasize the contribution of the manuscript to the literature, leading to theoretical implications. That means creating an adequate literature review.

The conclusions part seem to be superficial, there are missing the limits of the research (which exists in fact to this study) and there are no recommendations for the government, scholars, forests/parks administrators etc.

The references are valid but not consistent as, again, the scientific literature gap is almost missing.

The tables and figures are clear and enough.

Author Response

Hemos seguido las observaciones y sugerencias del revisor para mejorar la claridad del manuscrito para los lectores y hemos hecho correcciones de lenguaje y estilo. Agradecemos al revisor por estos comentarios y sugerencias perspicaces, que han mejorado en gran medida la legibilidad del texto.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The abstract does not indicate the time period used in the study. It might be recommendable to include a mention to the exact time period of this research.
The introduction needs more reliable sources and statistical information. Similarly, the introduction does not identify the research question and why it is important to answer it. It is suggested to add some numerical data about market along with some latest citations I can recommend you a few citations

Khushi, M., din, S. M., & Sulaiman, M. A. (2020). Effects of profitability measures on free cash flow; evidence from pakistan stock exchange . International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 9(2), 3882-3889.

Riphah, H. Z., Ali, S., Danish, M., & Sulaiman, M. A. (2022). Factors affecting consumers intentions to purchase dairy products in Pakistan: a cognitive affective-attitude approach. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing. doi:10.1080/08974438.2022.2125919

Asad, M., Asif, M. U., Khan, A. A., Allam, Z., & Satar, M. S. (2022). Synergetic effect of entrepreneurial orientation and big data analytics for competitive advantage and SMEs performance. 2022 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Applications (DASA) (pp. 1192-1196). Chiangrai, Thailand: IEEE. doi:10.1109/DASA54658.2022.9765158

The review of literature is general. It should be more concentrated on the topic and narrower than the current format. It is recommended those evaluated the impact of positive and negative relationships

The methodology also needs to be supported by similar studies that have followed the same methodologies.
Likewise, the results section also needs to be analyzed in detail.

 

 

 

Author Response

Hemos seguido las observaciones y sugerencias del revisor para mejorar la claridad del manuscrito para los lectores y hemos hecho correcciones de lenguaje y estilo. Agradecemos al revisor por estos comentarios y sugerencias perspicaces, que han mejorado en gran medida la legibilidad del texto.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have performed a work on using short commercialization circuits for food production in the rural areas of Pillaro, Ecuador. The work is interesting and shows the potential sustainable food production to improve the living conditions of citizens in rural areas.

Authors can add on the potential benefits of SCC in terms of analytical data, like how much more efficient in food trading and distribution has it contributed in its implementation. Why are there only females taking the survey, in terms of gender distribution? Are the diversification of products based on the food available in the area mentioned, or in general?

When including the fact of self-financing, does this indicate the potential of farmers for expansion on their existing land or the purchase of new lands for agriculture? Please remove the grid lines in Figure 2 and enlarge the arrow pointer. Same for Figure 3. the context mentions Figure 5 and 6 but there are not present.

The discussion should look into how different factors can also affect the feasibility of the trade model, or certain unforeseen circumstances. there is a mistake of "Equator" term that should be Ecuador. Please proof read the manuscript again.

Author Response

hemos seguido las observaciones y sugerencias del revisor para mejorar la claridad del manuscrito para los lectores y hemos hecho correcciones de lenguaje y estilo. Agradecemos al revisor por estos comentarios y sugerencias perspicaces, que han mejorado en gran medida la legibilidad del texto.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Present research relays on interesting research conducted among farmers in rural areas of Andean region of Ecuador. The practices of production and marketing of agricultural products are an example of sustainable agricultural production in remote areas. However, the way in which the results are presented is inappropriate regarding several aspects:

1. English is very bad; it is direct translation with utilization of inappropriate synonyms or words with similar meaning making text, even for an expert in the area very difficult to read. Revised text should be translated by professional English-speaking person who is familiar with the research field. Simple revision by native English-speaking person who is not in the field might, due to unclear sentences alter the meaning. Some of remarks in this regard are given in the text and here I am providing suggested changes for first ten lines (too many):

Line 40: what did you mean by “interchange of assets that circulate the harvest” it is not clear

Line 41: “take place to” is not appropriate, better use “reach the”

Line 42” “cluster” is not appropriate, better use “issue”

Laine 42: “continued” is not appropriate, better use “continuous”

Line 45: “reduced” is not appropriate, better use “small” or “low”

Line 46: “one of these” is not appropriate, better use “the market”

Line 47: it is not clear what you mean with “due to participation of all kinds of farmers”, do you refer to competition among small farmers, if yes try to phrase this in different manner, for example “internar competition among small farmers”

Line 48: replace “Each group is characterized by” with #Farmers with the”

Lines 48-49: Replace “and applies distinct 48 levels of” with “are applying different”

Line 49. Replace “without the” with “with different levels of”

Line 50: Replace “participates” with “competes”

Line 50: Replace “as” with “with”

 

Line 50: Replace “traditional” with “conventional” 

2. Methodological approach chosen by the authors resulted in the fact that the inputs from the farmers are unclear and provided in the text, while the results are aggregated as the sustainability indicators. However, the manner in which values of sustainability indicators were obtained is not clear (comments provided in methodological part). I suppose that farmers were answering the questionnaire in which they provided exact data about their products, production practice, plots, diversification, association etc. It would be interesting to see the data with ranges in which they fluctuate and to relate them to the indicators of income and financing capacity. Only on clearly presented data, and clearly defined methodology aggregated indicators can be presented and discussed. It should be also explained how the market of agricultural products in the region is structured. Describe what is meant by market - is this farmers market, green market of wholesale market, how are farmer linked with intermediaries; what are fairs, how often are they organized - or possibly this refers to farmers markets. Some photos would be great contribution. 

3. I believe that there is a methodological mistake in the analysis of distribution channels used by farmers. It is quite unlikely that farmers use only one distribution channel, in my experience they usually use all three but with different share and frequency. Thus, you have to refer to "the most usually used distribution channel" (or provide evidence that only one distribution channel is used). 

4. The schemes in which the structure of the market is presented must be based on more clearly presented evidence from questionnaire. 

5. There are repetitions of the same claims many times throughout the manuscript: for example, that the products in the baskets are of high quality but no evidence for this claim is provided. Please structure the text better and provide evidence for each stated claim.  There are other examples too. 

In general, the manuscript has to be rewritten to the form through which valuable results of conducted research will be transformed into the form acceptable for academic journal. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

hemos seguido las observaciones y sugerencias del revisor para mejorar la claridad del manuscrito para los lectores y hemos hecho correcciones de lenguaje y estilo. Agradecemos al revisor por estos comentarios y sugerencias perspicaces, que han mejorado en gran medida la legibilidad del texto.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors successfully addressed my concerns, so the manuscript could be accepted.

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have made appropriate revision.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript was improved according to the inputs from reviewer. It can be published in present form.