Systematic Review of Technology in Aeroponics: Introducing the Technology Adoption and Integration in Sustainable Agriculture Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
No comments to the work, which provides a sound and clear information on the subject, clearly exposed.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your positive evaluation.
Reviewer 2 Report
The review paper is well-structured and well-written. I only have a few comments for your consideration.
Abstract: please consider adding a clear and concise definition of aeroponics for readers who are not familiar with this concept; more practical conclusion as the future trend and areas of development need to be added at the end
The model: what's the relationship between SAMR and TAISA? This needs to be clarified.
Figure 7: dotted line needs to be specific in the figure using legend
Figures 8 and 9: some labels on the x-axis are incomplete
proofreading would be benificial
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses in the attached document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled “Systematic Review of Technology in Aeroponics: Introducing the Technology Adoption and Integration in Sustainable Agriculture model” systematically summarizes 47 research results on Aeroponics published in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings between 2012 and 2023. This manuscript is structurally layered and meticulously analyzed. There is only one point that needs to be improved by the author.
These four groups of Figures/Tables, that is, Table 2/Figure 3; Table 3/Figure 4; Table 4/Figure 8; and Table 5/Figure 9, the contents of the Figures can be added to the Tables without the need to make a separate Figure.
Author Response
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. Accordingly, we moved the information from the mentioned figures to the corresponding tables.
Reviewer 4 Report
Agronomy review 12/09/23
Manuscript: Systematic review of technology in aeroponics: introducing the technology adoption and integration in sustainable agriculture model.
The authors have reviewed the literature on aeroponics and summarised it using the TAISA model. Reading only the title and abstract, I was very confused about the purpose and findings of this review. After reading the full manuscript, it appears to me that TAISA model is a key focus and that perhaps aquaponics technology is the test case for the model as a tool in agriculture. Perhaps the paper can be refocussed to reflect this better if that is the purpose of the study which I think would make for easier reading. If not, I do not feel like the manuscript addressed an evaluation of the range of technologies employed in aquaponics and their suitability for growing plants in a sustainable way. The commentary was just too generalised for this purpose but at the same time, the findings from the model are vague and need to be succinctly described in the abstract.
Comments by line:
The abstract is vague and reads like a table of contents rather than summarising the findings. What is “impact on the growing process”? Consideration must always be given to costs in a growing system, so how is this weighted for aeroponics differently to other systems? In what contexts is aeroponics superior to other systems?
Line 51: What are the disadvantages?
Line 66: Critical for what purpose?
Line 83: what is Industry 4.0?
Line 107: why is sustainability unique to aeroponics?
Line 14: Why the need to evaluate the impact of technology on aeroponics specifically?
Line 144: evidence for what purpose?
Line 149: I think technology integration needs defining here.
Line 393: summarise table 1 into a matrix, grouping the cultivated products and number of studies addressing each technology level.
Results: Each section should provide a key succinct summary, upfront, and these should be used in the abstract. This section is very long and could be reduced.
Line 408, 443: the dark blue masks the number.
I think the manuscript would be improved with a stylised diagram of the aeroponics system and its variable elements.
In general, the purpose and findings of this study need to be clarified. I feel that the manuscript suffers from trying to achieve two objectives at once, reviewing the technologies of aquaculture and evaluating the TAISA model, and does not fully succeed at either. If the focus of this review is to evaluate the TAISA model for technologies in agriculture, using aquaculture as a successful case study, you can suggest how it can be applied elsewhere in agriculture. Also, since the model has been borrowed from educational pedagogy, I would be really interested to read a more critical analysis of that interaction between the change in grower skills and knowledge and the level of aquaculture technology. With a refocussing, this manuscript could make an important contribution to the literature.
I hope this review has been helpful.
Author Response
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. Accordingly, we moved the information from the mentioned figures to the corresponding tables.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
