Comparative Analysis of Leaf Vegetable Productivity, Quality, and Profitability among Different Cultivation Modes: A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research is good for contributing to the scientific world. But, I do have some concerns:

1. In abstract need to mention your method. And need to be more compact and explain the implication of your research.
2. Introduction: don't same word with abstract "In recent years ...".
3. Line 36: What is "mu"?
4. Introduction need to be sharper, and conclude with the aim of your study.
5. Results: You need to be more focus on your aim, which is about the economic analysis of differenct treatment. But, the result of the different treatment show the appearance of the leaf is very different, that I think for sure effect the price. So you need to consider this in your analysis.
6. Conclusion: Make the conclusion and abstract in different explanation. And make the conclusion not in point, but show your main finding, not explain the same thing with the results. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article assesses three leafy vegetable production systems within a Chinese company. The study holds relevance for leafy vegetable production, and its results may interest communities exploring various production models beyond those detailed in this study. However, for enhanced clarity and robustness, specific areas of the document need revision. The Abstract section requires a comprehensive rewrite, the Results section needs reconstruction, and the Discussion and Conclusions should provide the necessary data to support the claims made in the results.

Among the opportunities for improvement of the document are:

§  Provide a quantitative summary of the findings.

§  -Explain the practical implications of your findings. Who benefits from them, and why are they valuable?

§  -Clarify the contribution your study makes based on the obtained results.

§  -Verify and correct data accuracy, such as distinguishing between 34.9 and 349. Scrutinize all data in each table for accuracy.

§  -Specify the timeframe for "April to May." From which year does this period span?

§  -Elaborate on and justify the experimental design employed in your research, including an explanation of study variables.

§  -Discuss the statistical rationale behind the analysis rather than merely describing apparent trends in the tables. Utilize additional statistics from your results to bolster each assertion.

§  -Explain the purpose of inserting a " * " beneath certain figures and tables. Is it a footnote? If so, what information does it convey, and why is this format chosen?

§  -Provide a more thorough explanation of section 3.2.6 and confirm the key points it emphasizes.

§  -Verify the alignment of statements in lines 394-401 with the research objective. Assess the necessity of this paragraph in relation to the overall study.

§  -Integrate numerical results into the discussion section, anchoring the discussion in the specifics of your research. Compare and contrast your findings with prior studies.

§  -Evaluate whether sentences like 406-408 concerning "hydroponics mode" should be relocated or substantiated with relevant references.

§  -Reiterate the importance of incorporating numerical values in the discussion section rather than using generic terms like "much lower" or "higher."

 

These comments should be reviewed throughout the entire discussion and conclusion sections.

 

§  -Restructure sections, focusing on utilizing your results to draw conclusions in line with your research objective. Omit introductory paragraphs in these sections.

§  -Conclude with thoughts on potential future work in your field.

§  -In the literature of the last three years, you can find more current references.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After carefully reviewing the paper, entitled “Comparative analysis of leaf vegetable production and profitability among different cultivation modes: a case study” my comments are the following

 

Title: The title does not clearly represent the content of the paper. A clue of quality characteristics should be embodied

 

Abstract: The abstract has a good structure and present the main findings of the study. However, there is alack of  discussion about the quality characteristics analysis.

 

Introduction section includes all the appropriate information needed for the characterisation of quantity and quality in vegetable production. However, some minor amendments should be implemented. 

 

Line 53 A missing comma in the in-text citation

 

Moreover, the state of the art section of this study is well justified.

 

Methodology:The methodology section  covers appropriately the followed methodological guidelines. The inclusion of fuzziness characteristic was note-worthy.

 

The results are well presented through illustrative figures and clear tables, providing further insights into the topic of the study.

 

The discussion and conclusion sections have satisfactory content with the appropriate references for this topic.

 

The number and quality of references are are considered sufficient for the study

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors already revised the manuscript based on my comments and recommendations.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review and provide us with helpful advice. We greatly appreciate it.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has submitted a revised manuscript that addresses the feedback provided in the initial version. The following comments are intended to ensure uniformity in the current manuscript. These are important for the clarity and coherence of your manuscript:

Line 16: Please write accurately, separating the magnitude from the dimension in which the value is expressed.

Line 87: Not listed in References. Check all citations. Check the author's handwriting?

Line 145: I recommend using the format with the dimension at the end, as written in Line 148.

Line 235: Insert "(Figure 2)" at the end of the paragraph in Line 235.

Line 450: You must maintain consistency when expressing the equation within the text. It is consistent in the Tables. Refer to Line 312, 313.

Line 486: Notice how it is written in to Line 216. Ensure consistency.

Line 496: Verify the correct citation of "Balqiah (2020)."

Line 516: I recommend using: ,,,,,,, yield. Cost ,,,,,,,

Line 521: Be consistent in your expression throughout the manuscript. Refer to lines 486, 487, among others. Also, observe how you express other dimensions where consistency is lacking.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your beneficial advice. We have studied your comments carefully and revised the manuscript point by point.  Modifications are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.