Drivers of Postharvest Loss among Citrus Farmers in Eastern Cape Province of South Africa: A Zero-Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Regression Model Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is written with clear understanding of the project addressed, but there are some problems.  My specific comments are as follows: 

1. The introduction is too long and does not fit the topic of the paper, and does not condense the scientific question well. Please use concise language to summarize the research background of the article, the current research status at home and abroad, and the problem to be solved in this paper.

2. The number of citations of references[1-8] is excessively cited. For example, in line 38, 51, 57, 225, the reference[1] is referenced more than once.

3. Please summarize the discussion concisely.

4. The conclusion section needs to be revised and only important results should be mentioned. Please summarize the conclusion concisely.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

agriculture-1904638

Drivers of post-harvest loss among citrus farmers in Eastern Cape Province of South Africa: a zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) regression model analysis

 

The work describes the cause of citrus fruit loss during postharvest handling. The work is very interesting and extensive , but it is not error-free. Minor linguistic and grammar errors can be easily eliminated by giving a qualified translator for correction. Examples of minor errors found at the beginning of the work I have placed below. The work, although it seems extensive, omits one very important aspect. Fruit losses after harvest are very often related to the course of weather conditions in a given place. This element was not taken into account at all in the conceptual model presented in Figure 2. The course of weather conditions is often crucial for the development of pathogenic and physiological diseases. Disturbances in the uptake of minerals caused by mild weather and lack of water very often lead to loss both during the cultivation of the orchard and after fruit harvesting. This aspect is also completely omitted from table one, where all variables are listed. Reading this table, one gets the impression that it is more an sociological  study concerning the situation of producers than an examination of the causes of losses. The problem of climate change has basically been raised only once, very briefly in one sentence and in the introduction. The work is to be placed in the section and in the special issue on climate change, and in fact this issue is not really discussed at all. Therefore, I think that if some very significant changes are not brought in paper this is not suitable for publishing in thissection and in this  special issue.

 

I would recommend writing the word postharvest together without the hyphen. As in the title of the journal: Postharvest Biology and Technology

 

Detailed comments below

 

The keywords should be avoided using words that have been previously used in the title of the work. Publication search machines always search both by title and keyword. By avoiding repeating words, we increase the chance of being quoted later.

Line 11: in South Africa’s citrus → in the South African citrus

Line 12: Yet, there is limited knowledge on the extent  → However, there is limited knowledge of the extent

Line 15: appraise  → assess

Line 26: If we are talking about plants obtained by human breeding always we use the name cultivar not variety. Check and correct throughout the document.

Line 53: accounted for → represented

Line 55: being  → that are

Lines 59-60   : On the other hand, Mpu- …. warmer temperature…→ On the other hand, the provinces of…. warmer temperatures…

Lines 74-75: … assessed the PHL management angle by looking at the technological implications of adopting various strategies  → assessed the angle of PHL management by looking at the technological implications of the adoption of various strategies.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

• The author have made a careful revision. The manuscript has been significantly improved. It is recommended to publish in agriculture.

•  

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors of the work in its next version introduced a lot of changes. In my opinion, the changes have been introduced to at least 1/3 of the work. The comments I had were both commented on and included in the new version of the publication. In my opinion, this work has a completely different character at the moment, which satisfies me much more. The language of speech has also been corrected and therefore requests  that the work be allowed to be printed, of course after passing the technical edition.