Integrating Rural Development, Education, and Management: Challenges and Strategies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article deals with current and important issues related to rural development in developing countries.
The authors' omission of key elements that define a scholarly text is cause for concern. These include: a clearly formulated research problem, the purpose of the paper, a discussion of the material and research methods used, including a clarification of the temporal, subjective, spatial scope of the research. Moreover, the title of the paper should well reflect the problematic undertaken in the research.
The paper adopts a very general perspective. The work has not been set in the specific conditions of rural areas. It does not provide an opportunity to deepen the issue. No examples of specific models of rural development policies in selected developing countries/groups of countries (policies that respond to the specific development conditions of rural areas in selected countries/regions) are presented. It is therefore difficult to assess, infer and propose specific recommendations for rural development policies. The reader only gradually guesses at the context of the study in the following pages - developing countries, selected African countries, Southern African countries? It is not clear how the countries were chosen to present some of the statistics.
The paper contains an insufficiently in-depth theoretical layer on rural development processes (in African countries/selected groups/selected country as an example?). Subsection 2 of the paper misleadingly suggests that a comprehensive presentation of the issue will be given, with attention to the evolution of different developmental concepts of “rural development” concept.
Other specific comments include:
1. Parts of the work seem inconsistent (e.g. the introduction).
2. Why there are colons after titles.
3. Not all graphics are well presented/described, e.g. figure 6, table 2.
4. Subsections are suddenly introduced in the body of the subsections.
5. Table 1 does not contain the source, is not discussed.
6. There are statements in the paper that are too general, e.g. ‘many rural areas’, or informal, e.g. ‘make ends meet’.
Author Response
Please attached is the response to the useful comments and suggestions you proposed. Thank you for your time on our manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article initiates a discussion on key issues and challenges related to rural development. It is thought-provoking, engaging, and easily understandable, with a comprehensive approach.
The abstract and keywords accurately represent the aims and content of the article. The study is highly successful and methodologically sound. The paper is very concise, well-structured, and clear.
The bibliography is relevant and supports the chosen subject.
I congratulate the authors on their well-prepared work and suggest publication in the present form.
Author Response
Thank you for your time on our manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI encourage the authors to address the following issues:
Major issues:
What is specific research question(s), the methodology, sample sizes and key synthesis points for the integration of rural development, education and management? How did the challenges, strategies, future directions and research gaps were identified?
Specific issues:
Line 18: 'tailored approaches' = ? What is its relationship/relevance to the 'Sustainability of rural areas'?
Line 71: references [11] & [12] are duplicates.
Line 79: [15] used the term 'Integrated conceptual framework of rural regional learning', not 'rural development'.
Line 94: "local development" or 'rural development'
Line 106-107: The sentence is unclear about which literature? Is it [21] or [1-21]?
Line 107: What is the definition of 'comprehensive perspectives' in rural development?
Line 127-129: Figure 2, please refer to a technical or scientific source.
Line 142: Incomplete sentence (Figure 3. demonstrates ...).
Line 154-155: Source is unclear and not listed in the reference section.
Line 167: Table 1 is not cited in the text.
Line 177: An extra comma; Epstein, & Sanders (2006).
Line 198: Should cite some recent articles.
Line 202 and 204: Figure 5 cited twice. and rather old references [48,49]
Line 210-252: Unclear contents to link with the issues of 'rural education' and 'rural development' at the global level and in Africa as stated in Line 252.
Line 259: Please provide reference(s) to the first sentence of the paragraph as an evidence for 'many efforts ... employed the 'top-down' approaches in rural development.
Line 253-366: Unclear contents to link with the issues of 'rural management' and 'rural development'
Line 367: Table 2 is not cited in the text. Also, unclear about the survey methods used in 2012?
Line 370-405: Please identify the future directions and research gaps for each direction.
Line 376: Please elaborate the methods and materials used to reach the recommendations.
Line 407: Is the integration, using the 'tailored approaches', aim for sustainability of rural and urban communities by securing job, livelihoods and environment? To achieve such goal, What are the changes needed at the policy and practical levels?
Author Response
Please attached is the response to the useful comments and suggestions you proposed. Thank you for your time on our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRow 44 – 56: citation source is missing
Table 1 – source is missing
Table 2 – write the complete source (survey from which research)
Figure 2 - source is missing
In main chapter headings without a colon (for example „MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND POLICY IMPLICATION IN RURAL DEVEL:“
Sources number 11 and 12 in the references are unclear. Is it the same source, the book?
In general, the paper INTEGRATING RURAL DEVELOPMENT, EDUCATION, AND MANAGEMENT: CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIES is well-structured and the topic is interesting. In my opinion, the summary needs to be refined. The chapter "Future directions and research gaps" should include existing research findings from literature and then address the authors' viewpoints. This chapter needs to be improved. The conclusion should be written more broadly and encompass the main features of the research. Also, it should be emphasized the scientific contribution. The conclusion needs to define better: limitations and future research directions (incompletely answered questions).
Author Response
Please attached is the response to the useful comments and suggestions you proposed. Thank you for your time on our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
Thank you for your efforts in developing the article. In my opinion a number of general remarks remain valid, e.g. the title of the article does not reflect its essence. The presentation of the research objectives in Section 1 does not indicate the region/group of countries to be studied/analysed. Methodological elements appear in section 2 instead of 1. I also notice editorial faults, including, inter alia, the numbering of chapters.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your time on our manuscript. Please, see attachment for the responses for the suggestions raised. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors provide some improvements, especially specific research questions. However, the specific issue have not been addressed; the definition of 'tailored approaches'. The 'tailored approaches' appears once on line 18 in the Abstract. The author must provide specific definition of 'tailored approaches' and its relevance to the 'Sustainability of rural areas development'. I cannot recommend for publication at this stage.
Line 29: Reference [1] is incorrect. Please check.
Line 31-32: Reference [2] mentioned '... severe droughts related to El Niño caused a sharp decline in agricultural output and localized spikes in food prices in parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean, but no in the 'rural areas'. Please check.
Line 49: The term 'rural areas' appears in many locations, but no definition. Please see, for example, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a81ae00e5274a2e8ab5547c/Defining_rural_areas__Mar_2017_.pdf
Line 58-63: Important statements, but no references.
Line 94-96: 'A systematic literature review (SLR)' methodology appear to have not defined the specific search terms and the scientific databases for the search to identify suitable published articles for the review.
More details on SLR, please see https://www.tu.berlin/en/wm/bibliothek/research-teaching/systematic-literature-reviews/description-of-the-systematic-literature-review-method
Author Response
Thank you very much for your time on our manuscript. Please, see attachment for the responses for the suggestions raised. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn my opinion the article is ready to be publish.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your time on our manuscript.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors. Thank you for your response.
Author Response
Thank you for your time on our manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors provide some improvements in the methodology, definitions of 'tailored approaches' as 'rural'. However, several issues remain.
1. The SLR methodology and the data sources used appeared to be unrelated to the six research questions (see section 1.4).
2. The authors provided no details on the total number of publications retrieved from the databases (Line 126-131) based on the search strings (line 120-125).
3. The methodology did not provide descriptions of the criteria used for inclusion and exclusion of the retrieved publications to be used to address the research questions. See line 132 (Only the studies that ...).
4. Several citations in the text are not conformed with the MDPI's format and rules (Line 145-146).
5. The results (sections 2 to 4) appear unrelated to the 'systematic literature review (SLR)' methodology described in lines 120-125 as well as research questions. It appears as a 'Literature Review: LR'.
6. Research questions left unanswered, for example #6 on 'community involvement' (Line 112-113). The term appears on line 17 (Abstract section) and Line 593 (FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND RESEARCH GAPS section). However, no results reported with respect to the question.
7. The authors must discussed the 'limitation' of the methodology (SLR or LR) in addressing the 'research questions'.
Author Response
Thank you for your time on our manuscript. Please see attachment for the responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
