Why Gender Matters in Breeding: Lessons from Cooking Bananas in Uganda

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This exciting paper examines men's and women's farmers and consumer traits preferences of different banana varieties in Uganda. Unfortunately, the authors do not clearly state how their paper can contribute towards a gender-responsive breeding banana pipeline. It is unclear what is wrong with the present breeding system and how this study would improve it.

The methodology needs to be rewritten. Which methods were used and why? the details are missing,, and this section is a bit confusing. Also the qualitative data has to be used to validate the quantitative data.

This paper looks at farmers and consumers, not the whole value chain.

It uses the gender blind approach, was not well defined, and the scenarios do not make sense.

I suggest the paper focuses on what is missing in the breeding program and what is needed to make it gender-responsive.  

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment for the point-by-point response to the comments 

Thank you,

Kind regards

 

Losira Nasirumbi Sanya

Onbehalf of Co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The author presents an interesting research study highlighted the most relevant features for Ugandan women and men banana farmers to influence current and future national breeding efforts. Comments for the author includes:

1.       In the introduction, there is a lack of clarity. The literature review does not provide adequate evidence to support the objective of this work. Please explain more about the state-of-the-art of research in the introduction section.

2.       The novelty of this work is ineffective. After reading the full article, the reviewer felt that the authors' contribution is less.

3.       Adding nomenclature will help the readers for understanding quickly the terms and symbols used.

4.       How do women's and men's trait preferences affect the acceptability of cooking banana cultivars? And how can this knowledge guide future breeding efforts?

 

5.       What is the mixed-methods research (MMR) design conducted in this article? Please elaborate on the understanding of your audience.

 

6.       How many samples are collected for this research work? Is the collected dataset reliable? 

 

7.       Is the collected dataset quite enough to draw the proposed outcomes? 

 

8.       By using which technique have the authors processed the data for this research work?

9.       Improve the quality of the all pictures in manuscript.

10.   English language minor spell and grammatical mistakes check required.

11.   After improving the paper, recent references must be included in the reference section.

12.   Conclusion section is missing some perspective related to the future research work, quantify main research findings.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment for the point-by-point response to the comments 

Thank you,

Kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1. You talked of three scenarios but only presented two scenarios

2. It is unclear whether the scenarios are developed from your present study. Secondly, what value do they add?

3. The grammar was bad, making it difficult to read

4. The methodology still needs more information if four FDGs were conducted, how many were men and women only and how many participants were in each FDG. What questions were asked?

5. The cultivars are not divided into traditional and improved cultivars, so it's not clear when you mention the differences. Please indicate this in the introduction and result section

 

Author Response

Point 1: You talked of three scenarios but only presented two scenarios

 Response 1: During the first round of reviews, the section describing the scenarios was revised. The number of scenarios was reduced to two to improve clarity and coherence. The study uses two scenarios: 1) a gender-blind approach where data are not disaggregated by sex and 2) a gender-differentiated approach where analysis is differentiated between men and women. The analysis in the different results section was updated to reflect the two scenarios and their implications. Therefore, the scenarios are two not three, as described in the methodology and presented in the results section.

Point 2: It is unclear whether the scenarios are developed from your present study. Secondly, what value do they add?

Response 2: The scenarios were developed from the present study based on the sex-disaggregated data collected and analysed.

Regarding the value addition of the scenarios, this research aimed to provide evidence on why a focus on gender matters in banana breeding. By providing gender-blind and gender-differentiated scenarios, it is clear that there is a need to be more deliberate in targeting different gender groups for inclusive banana breeding products.

As explained in the revised introduction section (see lines 111 - 117)  and in response to reviewer #2’s comment during the first round of comments, this research supported by the GREAT initiative in 2017 has been very instrumental to the current processes implemented by the Uganda National Banana Programme and beyond. Previously, there was no deliberate focus on the gendered analysis of trait preference, as evident in the existing literature prior to this research. This research aimed to inform breeders of the value of prioritising gender-specific needs and preferences in the breeding pipeline.

Therefore, this research and the associated evidence generated, as well as the continued engagement, have been a landmark in banana research. Currently, we see a deliberate multi-dimensional focus on women and men within the banana value chain

Point 3: The grammar was bad, making it difficult to read

Response 3: We have engaged a native English-speaking colleague who was able to review the manuscript and made extensive English language editing and revisions, including grammar checks. We hope the current version reads much better.

Point 4: The methodology still needs more information if four FDGs were conducted, how many were men and women only and how many participants were in each FDG. What questions were asked?

Response 4: The methodology has been revised to include the required information on the FGDs for men and women, the type of questions asked and data collected (see lines 180 – 184, 196 – 197, 226- 231). Four sex-disaggregated FGDs (two with women, and two with men) were conducted with banana consumers. The mean number of participants in each FGD was 14. Several questions were included in the different data collection tools applied in this study, as explained in Section 2.4 regarding data collection methods. By and large, data were collected on banana production objectives, varieties grown (both local and hybrids), preferred traits, reasons that explain the banana varietal preferences, and required information to enhance the acceptability and uptake of new banana varieties.

 Point 5: The cultivars are not divided into traditional and improved cultivars, so it's not clear when you mention the differences. Please indicate this in the introduction and result section

Response 5:

The distinction between local/traditional varieties and improved/hybrids has been made clear in the introduction, methodology and results sections. A detailed description of most traditional cultivars is given in a study by Mulugo et al. (2022) and this has been adequately referenced. The “M” symbol has been explained in the methodology section to indicate that this refers to Matooke series of hybrids bred and introduced  by the banana programme (see line 153 - 159). Furthermore, the graphs now indicate the categories of the presented varieties (i.e. if they are local/traditional or improved/hybrids. Therefore, the distinction between traditional cultivars and hybrids has been clearly articulated in the current version of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all the concerns of the reviewer. Hence, accept this manuscript in its present form. 

Author Response

Point 1: The authors have addressed all the concerns of the reviewer. Hence, accept this manuscript in its present form. 

Response 1: Thank you very much for the review comments and insights provided during the first round which greatly helped us extensively revise the content and quality of this manuscript.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

It's okay for publication