Access and Control of Resources and Participation in Rice-Breeding Activities among Men and Women Farmers in Southern Ghana
, Ranjitha Puskur 2, Elizabeth Garner 3, Margaret Najjingo Mangheni 4, Richard Adabah 5, Maxwell Darko Asante 5,6, Benedicta Nsiah Frimpong 5 and Stephen Prah 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Below are some comments to improve the paper:
1. Line 17-24. The authors need to summarize again the finding to make them easily understood by the reader.
2. In the Introduction, cite more recent studies to show the current situation and problem in Ghana and the need for this study to be implemented.
3. Section 2.1. It would be better to start with a brief background about Ghana and the reason for focusing on Southern Ghana.
4. Line 112-114. The authors need to rewrite it as the sentence is very confusing.
5. Did the authors refer to previous work to conclude the expected sign for each variable in Table 1? If yes, please add some sentences to show it.
6. In Line 276, the authors conclude "do not differ statistically," but there is no statistical test result in Table 4.
7. Is all the Indices in table 4 calculated using equation (1)? If not, please provide the equation.
8. It would be better if the authors could relate the results of the multivariate probit model in sections 3.6-3.8 with the discussion in Section 2.2 and the results in appendices. This will make it easier to replicate the study.
9. Authors need to improve the writing of equations and the presentation of the tables.
10 Add more recent studies on this issue (2022-2018).
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment 1: Line 17-24. The authors need to summarize again the finding to make them easily understood by the reader.
Response to Comment 1: Comment well acknowledged. The sentences in Line 17-24 has been revised and summarised in the revised manuscript as suggested.
Comment 2: In the Introduction, cite more recent studies to show the current situation and problem in Ghana and the need for this study to be implemented.
Response to Comment 2: Thanks for the comment. More additional literature has been included
Comment 3: Section 2.1. It would be better to start with a brief background about Ghana and the reason for focusing on Southern Ghana.
Response to Comment 3: Comment well noted with thanks. As suggested, a brief background about Ghana has been included in Section 2.1. and the reason for focusing on Southern Ghana.
Comment 4: Line 112-114. The authors need to rewrite it as the sentence is very confusing.
Response to Comment 4: Sentence has been revised to make it clearer
Comment 5: Did the authors refer to previous work to conclude the expected sign for each variable in Table 1? If yes, please add some sentences to show it
Response to Comment 5: Comment well noted with thanks. Authors acknowledged the previous works in concluding the expected signs and this has NOW been included in Table 1 in the revised manuscript.
Comment 6: In Line 276, the authors conclude "do not differ statistically," but there is no statistical test result in Table 4.
Response to Comment 6: Thanks for the comment. accordingly, the sentence has been revised to read correctly and to confer the intended meaning in the revised manuscript. see line 428-430 of the revised manuscript.
Comment 7: Is all the Indices in table 4 calculated using equation (1)? If not, please provide the equation
Response to Comment 7: Thanks for he Comment. Yes, all the perception indices provided were calculated using equation (1).
Comment 8: It would be better if the authors could relate the results of the multivariate probit model in sections 3.6-3.8 with the discussion in Section 2.2 and the results in appendices. This will make it easier to replicate the study
Response to Comment 8: Comment well acknowledged. As recommended, the results in in the two sections as well as those in the appendices has been linked.
Comment 9:Authors need to improve the writing of equations and the presentation of the tables.
Response to Comment 9: Comment well acknowledged. as suggested, the writings of the equations and presentation of tables has been revised accordingly.
Comment 10: Add more recent studies on this issue (2022-2018).
Response to Comment 10: Thanks for the comment. Recent studies on this issue has been duly included in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you. please carefully check the spelling mistake
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2's Comments
Comment: Thank you. please carefully check the spelling mistake
Response: Thank you for the comment. All Spellings has been duly checked and all mistakes corrected in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Thanks for your exciting article about access and control of resources and participation in rice breeding among Men and Women Farmers in Ghana. I do think that the article is an excellent example of apply-research on agriculture participation and shows the importance of the gender variable in any social process as the one that you had studied.
I want to offer a general point about the relation between your qualitative data produced by focus groups and interviews and the quantitative data you gathered. It looks like the probit model fits your question perfectly, and the qualitative data is used to support and never contest the quantitative analysis and discussion. I wish you could find more nuances in the qualitative data set that could lead to producing a more profound discussion about participation and gender in the agriculture of the rise. Also, you can explicitly account that qualitative data supports your quantitative data in your research design.
About some editing but important issues, there is a jump between section "3.2 Perceptions of rice breeding activities among men and women farmers" and section "3.4. Access and control of resources by men and women rice farmers in southern Ghana," but I can't see section 3.3. I don't think you lose a complete unit; it is just a problem with the numbering. Also, please review the written language usage. For example: "3.6 Factors influencing factors influencing participation in rice breeding activities among women 440 and men farmers in Southern Ghana" shows the unnecessary repetition of the expression "factors influencing" in section 3.6.
In general terms, the article offers a good discussion with plenty of new data about Ghana's rice agriculture control and participation. However, I think the paper could gain a lot in quality if the authors could add a section about public policy implications or future research about such issues in their concluding remarks. At the same time, the article can gain theoretically if authors put a table or summary of previous research insights and theories that are sustained with the qualitative and rich quantitative data offered in their paper.
Finally, the article could gain transparency if the authors offer some data summaries from their qualitative data explorations. This could be put in the Apendixs.
Author Response
Response to reviewer 3's Comments
Comment 1:Thanks for your exciting article about access and control of resources and participation in rice breeding among Men and Women Farmers in Ghana. I do think that the article is an excellent example of apply-research on agriculture participation and shows the importance of the gender variable in any social process as the one that you had studied.
Response to Comment 1: Thanks for the comment.
Comment 3: I want to offer a general point about the relation between your qualitative data produced by focus groups and interviews and the quantitative data you gathered. It looks like the probit model fits your question perfectly, and the qualitative data is used to support and never contest the quantitative analysis and discussion. I wish you could find more nuances in the qualitative data set that could lead to producing a more profound discussion about participation and gender in the agriculture of the rise. Also, you can explicitly account that qualitative data supports your quantitative data in your research design.
Response to Comment 2: Comment well acknowledged. As suggested, a more in-depth discussion on the link between participation engender has been included in the revised manuscript.
Comment 3: About some editing but important issues, there is a jump between section "3.2 Perceptions of rice breeding activities among men and women farmers" and section "3.4. Access and control of resources by men and women rice farmers in southern Ghana," but I can't see section 3.3. I don't think you lose a complete unit; it is just a problem with the numbering. Also, please review the written language usage. For example: "3.6 Factors influencing factors influencing participation in rice breeding activities among women 440 and men farmers in Southern Ghana" shows the unnecessary repetition of the expression "factors influencing" in section 3.6.
Response to Comment 3: Comment Acknowledged with. thanks. the numbering of the sections has been revised to ensure coherence and flow. Thanks once again for picking this up.
Comment 4: In general terms, the article offers a good discussion with plenty of new data about Ghana's rice agriculture control and participation. However, I think the paper could gain a lot in quality if the authors could add a section about public policy implications or future research about such issues in their concluding remarks. At the same time, the article can gain theoretically if authors put a table or summary of previous research insights and theories that are sustained with the qualitative and rich quantitative data offered in their paper.
Response to Comment 4: Thanks for the comment. As suggested, suggestions for future research has been included in the revised manuscript
Comment 5: Finally, the article could gain transparency if the authors offer some data summaries from their qualitative data explorations. This could be put in the Apendixs.
Response to comment 5: Comment well acknowledged with thanks. However because the data summaries were more with explicit with the quantitative summaries.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
However, I see an improvement in the overall article; the authors could add a section about public policy implications or future research about such issues in their concluding remarks. I can't see this important aspect within the discussions. This aspect that I already mentioned in my previous review, is still waiting for improvement.
Author Response
Response to reviewer comment:
Comment
However, I see an improvement in the overall article; the authors could add a section about public policy implications or future research about such issues in their concluding remarks. I can't see this important aspect within the discussions. This aspect that I already mentioned in my previous review, is still waiting for improvement.
Response: Thanks of the comment. As you suggested, a section on public policy implications has been included in the conclusion which has provided a more detailed discussions on the policy recommendations.
