An Evaluation of Research Interests in Vertical Farming through the Analysis of KPIs Adopted in the Literature
, Ahmed Mubarak Mekki Awouda, Nicolò Grasso, Giulia Bruno, Paolo Chiabert and Franco Lombardi
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors need to improve this paper. The sections are disarticulated, and some paragraphs need to be clearer or with an impact. Authors need to find the real contribution or a gap to solve. These are comments by sections:
-Abstract: The authors could reinforce the gap and contribution of this research. The text needs to be more direct and easy to read.
- Introduction: The structure could be better. Describe more methodology and possible alternatives. Some sentences need support, not only ideas without connections. Add more references, 3 or 4 per paragraph.
- Literature review: Connect this section (related works) with the introduction. How do the authors connect this section with materials and methods? Authors could reformat the paper considering their three subsections and the subsection intersection. The author develops some literature review in the next section (methods). This section could be better between 1000 and 1500 words.
-Methodology: Authors merge literature review with methodology. This section describes the steps: improve Table 2 structure and evaluate figure 2 support. If they do not add value, delete it.
- Research question and methodology. It is more of a literature review. Explain more the research phases and the relation with results.
- Results: Focus on the contribution. It is not a description. Explain why and how; more quantitative results
- Discussion: It is the only description. The authors could improve this section by considering aligning this section with the introduction, literature review, and results.
- Conclusions: Analyze the proposal's impact and the state of art contribution.
- References: Review this section. For example, 66.
The paper needs to be clearer and improved with an English academic style, focusing on these words: of, to, and that.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thank you for your manuscript which is of interest to me.
However i have several doubts on the correct conductance of the literature review.
In specific, you used only vertical farming as main keywords combined with OR function with different soilless systems, one as you wrote, biophonic, actually its name is bioponics or organic hydroponics. This make me think there was an error in your sources output from which you retrieved the articles. in addition, the most appropriate sinonymous of vertical farming is Plant Factory with Artificial Light, hydroponic, aquaponics and aeroponics are soilless systems used in controlled environment agricultural/ protected cultural systems such as greenhouses and "vertical farms".
In addition, since you cover a wide range of period. it would be nice to add the total number of sources you started to filter to arrive at the selected articles.
Please review the data, and the manuscript with my suggestions.
Please, when you write a sentence and you cite a references.. eg. as reported by [4]; please modify for the whole manuscript as: as reported by surname et al. [4].
However
Comments on the Quality of English Language
In table 2 biophonic is bioponics or organic hydroponics
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The abstract does not reveal the significance of the paper well. The methods used in the study are not clear. I suggest that the abstract is rewritten to address each of the following points:
(a) the importance of field/issue/research problem;
(b) identified research gap(s);
(c) very brief detail on study aim and objectives;
(d) summary of study methods;
(e) key study findings/results; and,
(f) the technical or policy implications of key study findings.
2. Existing literature on the sustainable development of agriculture needs to be further summarized for identifying the existing progress and shortcomings in the introduction.
3. The structure of the introduction is too scattered. It is recommended to clarify the research background, significance, and innovative points in about 4 paragraphs.
4. I do not recommend writing these steps for each section as followings:
Methodology
The following sections outline the methodology, which is divided into four steps:
•identification of the main dimensions for classifying the VFPS’ KPIs;
•identification of the VFPS elements to be evaluated through the KPIs;
•merge of the dimensions and the elements to obtain the final categories for the classification of the KPIs
•paper selection for the analysis of KPIs.
6. The formats of figures and tables in the paper need to be more standardized
6. It is recommended to add the explanation of the results, the comparison with other studies and the limitations of the study in the discussion section.
7. The English language should be checked and improved in the whole parts of the paper.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language should be checked and improved in the whole parts of the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article aimed to evaluate vertical farming systems, considering their potential to revolutionize agriculture by reducing environmental impact. Through an extensive literature review, 76 KPIs were identified representing different dimensions of vertical farming assessment and classified into eight categories, covering critical aspects of productivity, sustainability and quality. Using the IDEF0 analysis methodology, a vertical agricultural production system model was built, which allowed for a structured KPI classification.
A well-conducted analysis showed that most research in this field tends to emphasize KPIs related to productivity, while those related to sustainability and quality are relatively underrepresented. In addition, the lack of studies addressing the integration of all three dimensions highlighted the need for a more balanced and multidimensional approach to evaluating the performance of vertical farming.
Congratulations to the authors for a deep and well-done analysis.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview on the manuscript with title: An Evaluation of Research Interests in Vertical Farming through the Analysis of KPIs Adopted in the Literature. I suggested a major revision with the following comments:
1. In abstract, the author classified the KPIs into eleven categories and encompassing the dimensions of productivity, sustainability, and quality, please explain Whether the three dimensions include the eleven categories or if they are merely provided as illustrative examples.
2. The authors should revise the literature citations in the full text, for example “As defined by [1]”, the authors should condense the parts that need to be explained by the cited literature into one sentence for description.
3. The author should carefully examine the formatting issues, for example, in the lines 30, the authors should replace “carbon dioxide concentration (CO2)” to carbon dioxide concentration (CO2).
4. In the lines 96-98, the authors focused on the environmental impact of VFPS through the implementation of LCA, please explain the implementation process of LCA in details and the meaning of LCA.
5. In the lines 357-359, the authors should regeneralize the definition of Hazardous Compounds and provide illustrative examples. The reference (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 120 (2023) e2304552120) may be helpful for the section and was suggested to be cited.
6. In the lines 363-364, the authors should further explain the negative effects of heavy metals on plant and microorganism. The reference (Science of The Total Environment. 907 (2024) 168133) may be helpful for the section and was suggested to be cited.
7. In the lines 408-409, the authors should further explain the concept of the 'ease of measure' effect.
8. In the lines 436-437, the authors classified these KPIs were into eight categories, but in abstract, the author classified the KPIs into eleven categories, please explain where is the other three categories?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors improved the introduction and upgraded some sections.
The authors tried to clarify the document, but I can´t find their contribution considering the two versions.
The main question and objective are still not clear. It is a literature review without an extensive methodology (review Prisma).
The tables are difficult to read.
The conclusions need more analysis and consistency. The authors need to review their references. The authors mentioned that they used Zotero for references. But they need to review them; for example, references 24, 72,
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt is good, but It needs more coherence and simplicity. Authors could consider a professional English-style revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have compeleted the revision according to the comments. The paper can be published after minor editing of English language.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview on the manuscript with title: An Evaluation of Research Interests in Vertical Farming through the Analysis of KPIs Adopted in the Literature. The authors have answered my questions and responded to my comments. I recommend the publication of the manuscript in its present form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe latest paper versions show some improvements made by the authors. However, it still needs significant contributions.
One additional comment: "All references were checked and modified using the Zotero tool, as suggested by the Journal guidelines." In addition to this comment, the authors tend to assume certain facts without conducting in-depth research.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageGood with minors' improvement
