Effects of Organic Fertilizer Substitution on the Technical Efficiency among Farmers: Evidence from Bohai Rim Region in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title needs changes. It is too long and unclear.

Abstract is not self-explanatory – data and methods description is missing.

 

Introduction – literature references are missing in lines 27 to 30; 61 to 75;

Literature review – presents a good assessment of the previous studies dealing with the substation of chemical fertilisers. On the other hand, the research hypothesis are missing.

Research methods:

-          An overall definition of efficiency is missing. The differences between technical and allocative efficiency are not described;

-          Figure 1 is not complemented by a relevant literature review. Such theoretical developments should be supported by a relevant literature review.

-          Variables used in model 3 (table 1) and the ones from table 2 are not described in comparison with other previous studies. What are the main limits of DEA and SFA methods?

-          This section does not describe how the data from table 1 and 2 where obtained – survey/interview/other sources? The main questions used in the survey should be descried. The sample statistic should be described.

Results section is too long failing to underling the main important results. Such results should be discussed in the discussion section that currently is missing.

 

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments can be found in the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed almost all shortcomings identified in the first review process. However, there are some issues that should be further address:

-        Description of the questions mentioned in stratified random sampling survey from section 3.2.4 is missing;

-        Discussions of the results are missing.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you very much for taking time to thoroughly review our manuscripts. We find that your comments and suggestions are very useful and constructive.

We added a description of the questions in the sample survey in lines 376 to 377.

We have added a discussion section at the end of the article based on your opinion. Please see lines 624 to 640.

Sincerely,

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Section 4 may be 'Results and discussion' since there is no 'Discussion' section.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you very much for taking time to thoroughly review our manuscripts. We find that your comments and suggestions are very useful and constructive.

We have added a discussion section at the end of the article based on your opinion. Please see lines 624 to 640.

Sincerely,

Authors