Conventionalization of Alternative Agriculture and the Intervention of External Investors: Case Sharing Community-Supported Agriculture Farm, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors(1) This study was conducted on a Sharing Community Supported-Agriculture (CSA) Farm, with data being gathered through semi-structured interviews and analyzed using thematic methods, to examine the dynamics through which the intervention of external investors facilitates the conventionalization of alternative agriculture.
(2) There are limited studies examining the dynamics where external investors’ intervention and their investments contribute to the conventionalization of alternative agriculture. The failure of alternative agriculture often stems from a strict adherence to the principles and values of agroecology and the consequent lack of sustainable business patterns in practice. The gap presented in the research is worthy of investigation.
(3) Lines 70-132: The literature review section should be moved to the Introduction section by including it into the research development statements.
(4) Lines 178-179: The author stated that “The data collected were organized in NVIVO 12,……”. However, no figure or table containing some data was found in the following sections of the manuscript.
(5) In the manuscript, many statements were associated with “Zhang”, however, no relevant literature about Zhang was found, please supplement it.
(6) As a research article, no relevant figure or table with sufficient data analyses will not convince the other researchers in dealing with a scientific gap; e.g., the findings in Lines 14-19 cannot be entirely convincing.
(7) The language should be improved, e.g., “indicate” in line 14 should be “indicated”.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the introduction, there was a part missing to enter marketing data for alternative products. What is the market share? How many % are alternative products?
Another missing point, which products? What is the biggest demand? Lettuce? Tomato? Hardwoods?
Line 88 – To introduce an idea, or a trend towards the production of alternative products, it is not necessary to denigrate conventional agriculture. Conventional practices have historically been criticized. Yes, OK. “Because of its unsustainability”. I don't see it that way. The world needs more and more food. Conventional practices are generally more productive. The world needs a lot of production. I don't see it as unsustainable.
Line 89 - “Environmental damage and dominance of corporate interests”. It's a super controversial subject. Authors should avoid this type of comment. To sell the idea of alternative products, you don't need to talk bad about other techniques.
Line 92 – “Numerous studies” but there is only one quote.
Line 111 – “they represent a threat to the ecological environment” I repeat again: Conventional agriculture produces a lot of food. It doesn't need to massacre conventional agriculture.
Line 197 – “RMB 50,000 yuan” these values should be transformed into US dollars or, in addition to the yuan, also described in dollars.
Line 215 – 220 – This is a personal story. I don't think it fits well in a scientific article. Language should be more direct and objective. It should not be personal language.
The authors set out to tell a story. Honestly, I think scientific language is different. I believe that the way events are presented can be expressed differently.
Line 330 – 335 - Many sentences talking about values, values, values (yuan). I think the goal here is to look at facilitating external investors transitioning into alternative agriculture.
I don't think the way the text is presented is appropriate. They talk a lot about values (yuan) in plain text. Perhaps placing a table showing items and corresponding values would improve understanding and presentation. As it stands, I believe that the authors were unable to achieve what they wanted.
Of a total of 52 citations, 12 are recent and less than 5 years old. The rest are old. The authors could improve and insert more recent, new citations into the text.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSPECIFIC COMMENTS
TITLE
The title of the article is: Conventionalization of Alternative Agriculture and the Intervention of External Investors: Sharing Community-Supported Agriculture Farm
I suggest that the title include the word Case: Conventionalization of Alternative Agriculture and the Intervention of External Investors: Case Sharing Community-Supported Agriculture Farm
ABSTRACT
No comment
KEYWORDS
I suggest that the author eliminates the keywords Alternative agriculture; conventionalization; external investors; community supported-agriculture, which are in the title. Instead, I suggest the keywords organic farming; alternative farming; conventional farming; external financing and economic sustainability.
INTRODUCTION
No comment.
LITERATURE REVIEW
No comment.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
No comment.
FINDINGS
No comment.
CONCLUSION
No comment.
REFERENCES:
The reference 44 of McMahon, P. 2016 is not cited in the text. On the other hand, I recommend that the author update references prior to 2005.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript “Conventionalization of Alternative Agriculture and the Intervention of External Investors: Sharing Community-Supported Agriculture Farm”
The materials presented in the manuscript will be of interest to supporters of community-supported agriculture farms.
However, in my opinion, the manuscript needs to be revised because the form of presentation of the material is not appropriate for a scientific publication. Data on the farm's vegetable yields, yield losses, vegetable prices, farm profits, farm costs, investments, etc. during the period under study should be presented in the form of charts (graphs). In addition, the costs of vegetables grown on this farm should be compared to the costs of vegetables grown on traditional farms. The manuscript should also include information on the quality and safety of the vegetables grown on the farm compared to those grown on traditional farms. It would also be advisable to analyze the market demand for such products and the willingness of consumers to pay a higher price for them (in the form of graphs, charts). This will allow the readers to analyze the data in a convenient way and check the validity of the conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author stated that "statements from Zhang are the primary data (acquired from interviews) to support the article’s arguments." in the response of the Comment 4. However, is the interview available in the published website? These statements must be published and able to be found by the readers or they may not be convincing and cannot be referred.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors removed negative and critical comments about traditional agriculture from the introduction. That was important.
They put values ​​in dollars to get a better idea of ​​the values.
They inserted at least 8 new, recent citations.
They inserted tables that helped in better understanding the text.
I must confess that it has improved a lot. It is now a text that is not critical of traditional agriculture.
I recommend accepting.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageok
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am satisfied with the responses to my questions/issues raised in my initial review. I recommend that the paper be accepted in present form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll the comments and suggestions have been addressed. The manuscript has been improved significantly. Currently, the revised manuscript can be considered to be accepted for publication in this journal.
