The Role of Social Inclusion in Restoring Communal Rangelands in Southern Africa: A Systematic Review of Approaches, Challenges, and Outcomes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript is a review paper that analyzes the sustainable restoration of community ranches in southern Africa from three aspects: Approaches, Challenges, and Outcomes. However, overall, the article does not strictly follow the writing style of a review paper, lacks analysis of the focus, consensus, and points of contention of the research content, and does not indicate the research trends of the relevant content.
The scope of this article is relatively broad, why only 20 articles were selected for review, which is difficult to convince readers.
Table 1 contains too much text, it is recommended to explain it directly in the main text without using it as a separate table.
It is not necessary to list 20 articles separately in Table 2.
Figures 1 and 3 should be further optimized to make them more aesthetically pleasing.
3.5. Key themes generated from word cloud， Is it necessary to provide a lengthy introduction? It is recommended to delete this section.
Most of the cited literature is relatively outdated, with fewer references from the past 5 years, especially in the past 3 years.
The article lacks discussion, and in the discussion section, at least marginal contributions, research shortcomings, and next research directions should be included.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Reviewer Comment 1: The manuscript is a review paper that analyzes the sustainable restoration of community ranches in southern Africa from three aspects: Approaches, Challenges, and Outcomes. However, overall, the article does not strictly follow the writing style of a review paper, lacks analysis of the focus, consensus, and points of contention of the research content, and does not indicate the research trends of the relevant content.
Response: We revised the manuscript to align more closely with the structure of a review paper. We added a comprehensive analysis of the consensus, key debates, and divergent perspectives in the literature. Furthermore, a section on emerging research trends in the field of communal rangeland restoration in Southern Africa was included to address this concern. This enhanced the critical synthesis of the research content, making the review more focused on current and ongoing scholarly discussions.
Reviewer Comment 2: The scope of this article is relatively broad, why only 20 articles were selected for review, which is difficult to convince readers.
Response: We acknowledge the concern regarding the selection of articles. However, the 20 articles were chosen based on strict inclusion criteria aligned with the specific focus on social inclusion, restoration approaches, and communal rangeland management. The selection criteria were explained in greater detail in the methodology section to clarify how each article contributed uniquely to the review’s themes. Although the scope is broad, the 20 articles were carefully selected for their relevance, providing depth and coverage of the key topics.
Reviewer Comment 3: Table 1 contains too much text, it is recommended to explain it directly in the main text without using it as a separate table.
Response: We retained Table 1 but revised its content to reduce text and focus on key points for clarity and brevity. We also expanded on the discussion of the table’s contents in the main text to improve the flow and coherence of the manuscript. The revisions ensured that the table complements the narrative in the text, enhancing the readability and understanding of the information presented.
Reviewer Comment 4: It is not necessary to list 20 articles separately in Table 2.
Response: While we retained Table 2 to maintain transparency about the literature used in the review, we revised its structure. Instead of listing the articles verbatim, we categorized them based on the themes they addressed, which helped condense the table and align it better with the review format. We believe this revision improves clarity while still providing a comprehensive overview of the key studies.
Reviewer Comment 5: Figures 1 and 3 should be further optimized to make them more aesthetically pleasing.
Response: We have optimized Figures 1 and 3 by improving their design for clarity and visual appeal. The changes include refined labels, enhanced color schemes, and adjusted layouts to ensure that the figures are more visually engaging while maintaining their informative value.
Reviewer Comment 6: 3.5. Key themes generated from word cloud, Is it necessary to provide a lengthy introduction? It is recommended to delete this section.
Response: We revised the section on key themes from the word cloud to reduce its length and streamlined the discussion to focus on the most critical insights. We believe that by shortening this section, we retained its relevance without overwhelming the reader. We opted to keep the section because it highlights significant themes, which are integral to understanding the trends within the literature.
Reviewer Comment 7: Most of the cited literature is relatively outdated, with fewer references from the past 5 years, especially in the past 3 years.
Response: We conducted a thorough search for more recent literature and updated the references to include studies published within the last five years, particularly from the past three years. The inclusion of these recent studies ensures that the review reflects current research trends and advancements in the field.
Reviewer Comment 8: The article lacks discussion, and in the discussion section, at least marginal contributions, research shortcomings, and next research directions should be included.
Response: We expanded the discussion section to include a more in-depth analysis of the contributions of the reviewed studies, the limitations of existing research, and suggestions for future research directions. This revision addressed the gaps in the discussion, providing a more thorough evaluation of the field’s current state and its potential future developments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for allowing me to review this paper. I found this to be an excellent work, and one of the best papers I've reviewed this year. This paper used common and accepted methods to review an important topic, and I think it is of value to the scientific community.
The one thing I would like to see is a little bit more information in the text about the value to human and ecological systems about value of restoration projects. I understand that this is fairly well-trod ground in the scientific literature, but a little context for readers would go a long way. I don't want to see a lengthy addition to the paper, but just a little bit more would be valuable, I think.
Author Response
Comment: Thank you for allowing me to review this paper. I found this to be an excellent work, and one of the best papers I've reviewed this year. This paper used common and accepted methods to review an important topic, and I think it is of value to the scientific community.
The one thing I would like to see is a little bit more information in the text about the value to human and ecological systems about value of restoration projects. I understand that this is fairly well-trod ground in the scientific literature, but a little context for readers would go a long way. I don't want to see a lengthy addition to the paper, but just a little bit more would be valuable, I think.
Reponse: Thank you very much for your kind words and for your thoughtful feedback on the manuscript. We greatly appreciate your recognition of the value of this work. In response to your suggestion, we have added a concise section in the discussion that highlights the dual benefits of restoration projects for both human and ecological systems. We focused on emphasizing the interconnectedness of social and ecological resilience, providing additional context without extending the length of the paper significantly. We believe these additions enhance the overall contribution of the manuscript by clarifying the broader significance of restoration efforts for readers.
We hope these revisions address your suggestion and improve the manuscript. Thank you once again for your positive feedback and valuable input.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has made sufficient revisions according to the review comments.
