Influential Factors in the Evaluation of Agricultural Lands in the Huambo Province, Angola
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see my comments in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments, which have greatly helped us improve the paper's text. Below, we provide responses to all the items individually in blue text. In the paper's text, you will also find the changes made in blue. These are the contributions of four reviewers. This work is significant and pioneering in Angola for us. If you believe that any aspect still requires improvement, we are available to do so.
Thank you.
Best regards.
Major revision
The subject of Influential Factors in the Evaluation of Agricultural Lands in the Huambo Province, Angola, is interesting and can be suitable for the Land MDPI journal. However, before recommending the acceptance of this article, several improvements need to be made:
The most important results should be presented quantitatively in the Abstract section.
The Abstract has been improved.
The introduction is poorly structured and needs to be rewritten. In the current format, most of the Introduction section information should be transferred to the Survey of Relevant Literature section. You should state your research problem in the introduction. Also explain its importance and necessity. Finally, present the purpose and research question and state the innovation of your study compared to previous studies.
The innovation of the research should be highlighted in the Introduction section. This will help distinguish the article from previous studies and emphasize its contribution to the field.
The text has been improved to respond to this request.
The quality of the figure 1 should be improved. Clear and visually appealing figures will enhance the understanding and presentation of the research findings.
The figure has been replaced.
Consider including a flowchart at the beginning of the Methodology section to illustrate the steps of the research methodology.
In order to improve readers' understanding of the results and compare the impact of different factors, it is better to present some of the information in the tables in the form of graphs and charts.
The text has been improved. This text has a figure and seven tables. The graphics would add more pages and repeat information that is already in the tables. In fact, we believe that it looks better just in tables. That's why we didn't add the graphics. But if you consider it necessary, we are available to do so.
Add a Discussion section in the manuscript to discuss the obtained results in relation to different aspects of the study and make comparisons with previous studies.
Done. The results discussion section was added.
The limitations of the study should be clearly stated in the Discussion section. This will provide a balanced view of the research and help readers understand the potential weaknesses or constraints of the study.
The Discussion or Conclusion section should include suggestions for future studies. This will encourage further research and provide ideas for expanding on the current findings.
The information provided in the Conclusion section is very long. The information in this section should be shortened. In this section, you should present the final conclusion of your research findings.
Work done as requested.
Best wishes
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to congratulate the authors on their work. The topic is interesting and relevant, particularly for Angola and especially for Huambo.
However, from the point of view of contributing to improvement, I would like to make a few comments:
The authors present a well-written and explanatory introduction; nevertheless, I think it would give more value to the work if they presented the motivation, importance and differentiation of this work compared to the others.
I believe that the authors have used the correct methodology to achieve the proposed objectives and have a reasonable sample for the work.
Throughout the work, the authors present some very long paragraphs, such as lines 99 to 114; and 420 to 436, I believe that these paragraphs could be reduced.
The bibliography is recent and relevant.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments, which have greatly helped us improve the paper's text. Below, we provide responses to all the items individually in blue text. In the paper's text, you will also find the changes made in blue. These are the contributions of four reviewers. This work is significant and pioneering in Angola for us. If you believe that any aspect still requires improvement, we are available to do so.
Thank you.
Best regards.
Reviwer 2
I would like to congratulate the authors on their work. The topic is interesting and relevant, particularly for Angola and especially for Huambo.
Thank you very much.
However, from the point of view of contributing to improvement, I would like to make a few comments:
The authors present a well-written and explanatory introduction; nevertheless, I think it would give more value to the work if they presented the motivation, importance and differentiation of this work compared to the others.
Thank you very much.
I believe that the authors have used the correct methodology to achieve the proposed objectives and have a reasonable sample for the work.
Thank you very much.
Throughout the work, the authors present some very long paragraphs, such as lines 99 to 114; and 420 to 436, I believe that these paragraphs could be reduced.
Work done as requested.
The bibliography is recent and relevant.
Thank you very much.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The introduction lacks the "why". Why is it important to study the region under study? Why is it urgent to assess Africa's agricultural land? Why is the situation of the province of Huambo specific within Angola? What environmental, social, economic, and agricultural processes characterize the affected area? These should be generally presented to the authors in the material chapter. Chapter 3 would also need a better-quality map showing the region's location in Africa. This map should show at least the location of the agricultural areas or where the surveys took place. When describing the questionnaire, it is unclear to what extent the sampling can be considered correct or representative. These should be clarified here. The presentation of the results is good, although the description of the methodology and the new empirical observation is excessively mixed. According to the reviewer, it would be worthwhile to consider writing a new discussion chapter in which the authors add more international relevance to the study and compare their own experiences with some foreign examples.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments, which have greatly helped us improve the paper's text. Below, we provide responses to all the items individually in blue text. In the paper's text, you will also find the changes made in blue. These are the contributions of four reviewers. This work is significant and pioneering in Angola for us. If you believe that any aspect still requires improvement, we are available to do so.
Thank you.
Best regards.
Reviwer 3
The introduction lacks the "why". Why is it important to study the region under study? Why is it urgent to assess Africa's agricultural land? Why is the situation of the province of Huambo specific within Angola? What environmental, social, economic, and agricultural processes characterize the affected area? These should be generally presented to the authors in the material chapter.
Thank you very much. Text was added as requested.
Chapter 3 would also need a better-quality map showing the region's location in Africa. This map should show at least the location of the agricultural areas or where the surveys took place. When describing the questionnaire, it is unclear to what extent the sampling can be considered correct or representative. These should be clarified here. The presentation of the results is good, although the description of the methodology and the new empirical observation is excessively mixed.
Done.
According to the reviewer, it would be worthwhile to consider writing a new discussion chapter in which the authors add more international relevance to the study and compare their own experiences with some foreign examples.
Thank you very much. Text was added as requested.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
1. The contribution of the research to the literature can be added at the end of the introduction (novelty of the study)
2. Do not us esame Word in abstract and title
3. “2.2 The negative externalities” this section should be extended.
4. Make better Figure 1 . It is not suitable for an international journal with its current form.
5. Graphics and tables are good but it can be upgraded like in the article https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-08534-w
6. Conclusion section have to be upgraded please mention with the future studies.
7. The manuscript is suitable for “Land” readership.
The minor language editing is required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments, which have greatly helped us improve the paper's text. Below, we provide responses to all the items individually in blue text. In the paper's text, you will also find the changes made in blue. These are the contributions of four reviewers. This work is significant and pioneering in Angola for us. If you believe that any aspect still requires improvement, we are available to do so.
Thank you.
Best regards.
Reviwer 4
- The contribution of the research to the literature can be added at the end of the introduction (novelty of the study)
Done.
- Do not us esame Word in abstract and title
We had difficulty understanding this repair. If you understand it important, could you explain better, and ask again, please.
- “2.2 The negative externalities” this section should be extended.
Done.
- Make better Figure 1 . It is not suitable for an international journal with its current form.
Done.
- Graphics and tables are good but it can be upgraded like in the article https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-08534-w
Yes, we saw the tables. Ours have more information, so we think graphics are unnecessary. If you understand it essential, please say so. Thanks.
- Conclusion section have to be upgraded please mention with the future studies.
Done.
- The manuscript is suitable for “Land” readership.
Thank you very much.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have made several improvements to various sections of the manuscript in accordance with my comments. In its current form, the revised manuscript is ready for acceptance.
Best regards
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your review.
Thanks.
Best Regards,
The authors have made several improvements to various sections of the manuscript in accordance with my comments. In its current form, the revised manuscript is ready for acceptance.
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript was upgraded with revisions.
In Figure 1, add north arrow,
Do not use "Source: Quantum GIS 3.32.0" for this map it is unnecessary.
Use journals rules for referencing. It is not correct usage I think, please check it.
For extending manuscript add paper https://doi.org/10.18615/anadolu.834940
The manuscript merit publication after minor revisions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your review. We believe we have responded to your requests. We changed the map, edited the aforementioned paper, formatted the bibliography.
If you understand that any aspect needs improvement, we are available to do so.
Thanks.
Best Regards,
The manuscript was upgraded with revisions.
In Figure 1, add north arrow,
Do not use "Source: Quantum GIS 3.32.0" for this map it is unnecessary.
Use journals rules for referencing. It is not correct usage I think, please check it.
For extending manuscript add paper https://doi.org/10.18615/anadolu.834940
The manuscript merit publication after minor revisions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
