A Longitudinal Study of Brazilian Food Production Dynamics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A longitudinal study of the dynamics of the Brazilian food production

Dear Authors

The basic science of this paper is not conducted in a good way and is of inappropriate standard. The author and his team should try to write this paper according to journal scope. I reviewed this paper thoroughly and I found there is no novelty in this paper and also language of this paper is very poor. The author also used professional services for language modification. I give comments on whole paper because this research does not make any sense. I hope the author will modify and highlight the significance and resubmit again in this journal. 

Major

·         Line 7-10: Split this sentence and don’t write in passive.

·         The authors try to write in a better way but still, there are some mistakes. The author should follow the content of the abstract. The abstract is very rigorous.  The author should improve this part

•           Background

•           Context

•           Objectives

•           Material and methods

•           Results/findings

•           Novelty and purposes of this research

 ·         Author should clearly explain the main objectives of this study with a central hypothesis which is missing in the Introduction.

·         In this introduction section, there are so many reference problems. The author should check all references accordingly to the context.

·         I found many type errors in the whole manuscript. The author should double-check the whole manuscript.

·         Objectives are not clear at the end of the introduction part

·         I believe the authors can demonstrate this and it should only take a couple of paragraphs in the introduction and discussion to show it but it is very important to do so if they wish to publish in an international journal.

·         Add the study area heading in the manuscript and add details of the study area.

·         Modify Figure 1 as per international journal criteria.

·         Add these headings with details

·         1. Datasets,

·         2. Methods.

·         3. Methodology.

·         Results are not appropriate.

·         Final remarks, should be the conclusion

I hope the authors will improve this study and resubmit it again in this journal.

Best Regards

Author Response

Cover Letter - Round 2 – To Editor and Reviewers

 

Brazil, September 2022

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

 

We are sending the paper for appreciation in the second round in Agriculture-MDPI.

In this round, as well as in the initial, we would like to thank all the feedback from the editorial committee and the reviewers, who contributed to the qualification of our research. We worked hard to submit the best version of the paper, as we believe the Agriculture is the ideal place to share our research. Our responses on each suggested comment are written in italics.

 

Sincerely, Authors

-------------------------------------------

 

External Peer-Review Reports

 

Open Review 1

 

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your attention and diligent efforts to help us improve our paper! We appreciate all of the suggestions, which have enabled us to improve our research. We have re-written the sections of the manuscript. Furthermore, a native speaker from a service contracted edited the text.

Below, we respond to the comments and hope to meet the demands. In this new iteration, we seek to respond in detail to questions and clarify the comments that created doubts in the previous manuscript. We apologize if, at any time, details were missing in the responses addressed to you previously. Supplementary document was added in the second round of review.

With best regards, Authors.

 

 

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A longitudinal study of the dynamics of the Brazilian food production

Dear Authors

The basic science of this paper is not conducted in a good way and is of inappropriate standard. The author and his team should try to write this paper according to journal scope. I reviewed this paper thoroughly and I found there is no novelty in this paper and also language of this paper is very poor. The author also used professional services for language modification. I give comments on whole paper because this research does not make any sense. I hope the author will modify and highlight the significance and resubmit again in this journal. 

Major

• Line 7-10: Split this sentence and don’t write in passive.

We appreciate the feedback; we have made several changes throughout the manuscript to improve it. We hope we made it clear in the current version. A native speaker reviewed the paper, so we prioritize British English and active voice. We highlight that all authors had experience in an English-speaking country.

• The authors try to write in a better way but still, there are some mistakes. The author should follow the content of the abstract. The abstract is very rigorous.  The author should improve this part
• Background
• Context
• Objectives
• Material and methods
• Results/findings
• Novelty and purposes of this research
• Author should clearly explain the main objectives of this study with a central hypothesis which is missing in the Introduction.

 

We really appreciate the feedback; we have made several changes throughout the abstract. We hope we made it clear in the current version. A native speaker reviewed the paper, so we prioritize British English and active voice.

• In this introduction section, there are so many reference problems. The author should check all references accordingly to the context.

We appreciate the suggestion, all references and citations have been revised in order to achieve a right presentation.

         I found many type errors in the whole manuscript. The author should double-check the whole manuscript.

We appreciate the feedback; we have made several changes throughout the manuscript to improve it. We hope we made it clear in the current version. A native speaker reviewed the paper, so we prioritize British English. We highlight that all authors had experience in an English-speaking country.

        Final remarks, should be the conclusion.

Great, it was modified as suggested.

• Objectives are not clear at the end of the introduction part.

We thank the feedback; therefore, we revised the presentation of the objectives.

• I believe the authors can demonstrate this and it should only take a couple of paragraphs in the introduction and discussion to show it but it is very important to do so if they wish to publish in an international journal.

We really appreciate the feedback; we have made several changes throughout the abstract. We hope we made it clear in the current version. A native speaker reviewed the paper, so we prioritize British English and active voice.

• Add the study area heading in the manuscript and add details of the study area.

The authors appreciate the suggestion; the information was added to the method.

• Modify Figure 1 as per international journal criteria.

We identified the low quality of the figures in the first version. In this way, a company was selected to improve their disposition (contracted service). All figures have been edited.

• Add these headings with details

We appreciate the feedback; we have made diverse changes throughout the manuscript. We hope we made it clear in the current version.

• 1. Datasets,

We appreciate the feedback; we have made several changes throughout the manuscript to improve it. We hope we made it clear in the current version. ·

2. Methods.

We appreciate the feedback; we have made several changes throughout the manuscript to improve it. We hope we made it clear in the current version. ·

• 3. Methodology.

We appreciate the feedback; we have made several changes to improve the methodology. We hope we made it clear in the current version. ·

• Results are not appropriate.

We thank the feedback; we have made several changes throughout the text to improve it. A table has been added. Results, presentations and discussions were revisited.

• Final remarks, should be the conclusion

Great, it was modified as suggested.

.

I hope the authors will improve this study and resubmit it again in this journal.

We really appreciate all the feedback and the time dedicated to careful reading. We worked intensively to present a clear version. We are available for any clarification. Our best.

Best Regards

 

Submission Date

14 September 2022

Date of this review

19 Sep 2022 19:45:41

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I was very interested to review this paper because it was on a compelling topic.  I think there are many strong points to the paper and recommend publication but I think it would be helpful to significantly strengthen every section of the paper.  I think there is such a strong story to tell here but that it is not clearly communicated.  One idea (just a suggestion) would be to combine the results and discussion to allow you to better show the results and then explain the why at the same time?

 

Abstract

-       Isn’t Brazil already among the world’s leading food producers and exporters?

-       Add time period of analysis in abstract?

-       The end of the abstract is a bit vague… what did you actually find?  It seems like a list of potential topics… I think this could be improved from line 34 onwards.

 

Introduction.

-       First sentence is the abstract… too general and not compelling. I think you need a stronger start!

-       The introduction seems to be a bunch of disconnected paragraphs put together.  You need to develop a compelling narrative that explains the context for your study.  I think this can be much stronger.

-       What about reviewing previous work on this topic?  There has been a lot written about agriculture and its movement in Brazil.

 

Figure 1 – legend is too small.  I think you could wrong up to whole numbers?

 

Methods – lines 86-92 seem to be results rather than methods?

 

Results

-       first paragraph seems more like general text for the intro or discussion but not results that you found?

-       A map that shows the microregions would be helpful

-       More figures in general would be helpful.. maybe histrograms for the different regions? 

-       Fig 3 resolution is too low.. hard to interpret

Author Response

Cover Letter - Round 2 – To Editor and Reviewers

 

Brazil, September 2022

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

 

We are sending the paper for appreciation in the second round in Agriculture-MDPI.

In this round, as well as in the initial, we would like to thank all the feedback from the editorial committee and the reviewers, who contributed to the qualification of our research. We worked hard to submit the best version of the paper, as we believe the Agriculture is the ideal place to share our research. Our responses on each suggested comment are written in italics.

 

Sincerely, Authors

-------------------------------------------

 

External Peer-Review Reports

 

Open Review 2

 

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your attention and diligent efforts to help us improve our paper! We appreciate all of the suggestions, which have enabled us to improve our research. We have re-written the sections of the manuscript. Furthermore, a native speaker from a service contracted edited the text.

Below, we respond to the comments and hope to meet the demands. In this new iteration, we seek to respond in detail to questions and clarify the comments that created doubts in the previous manuscript. We apologize if, at any time, details were missing in the responses addressed to you previously. Supplementary document was added in the second round of review.

With best regards, Authors.

 

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I was very interested to review this paper because it was on a compelling topic.  I think there are many strong points to the paper and recommend publication but I think it would be helpful to significantly strengthen every section of the paper.  I think there is such a strong story to tell here but that it is not clearly communicated.  One idea (just a suggestion) would be to combine the results and discussion to allow you to better show the results and then explain the why at the same time?

We really appreciate all the feedback and the time dedicated to careful reading. We worked intensively to present a clear version. We are available for any clarification. Our best.

Abstract

-       Isn’t Brazil already among the world’s leading food producers and exporters?           

We thank the feedback; therefore, we revised the presentation of the sentence.

 

-       Add time period of analysis in abstract?

Great, it was modified as suggested.

 

-       The end of the abstract is a bit vague… what did you actually find?  It seems like a list of potential topics… I think this could be improved from line 34 onwards.

 

We really appreciate the feedback; we have made several changes throughout the abstract. We hope we made it clear in the current version. A native speaker reviewed the paper, so we prioritize British English and active voice.

 

Introduction.

-       First sentence is the abstract… too general and not compelling. I think you need a stronger start!

We appreciate the feedback, we have made several changes throughout the section to improve it and make it more attractive.

-       The introduction seems to be a bunch of disconnected paragraphs put together.  You need to develop a compelling narrative that explains the context for your study.  I think this can be much stronger.

We appreciate the feedback, we have made several changes throughout the section to improve it and make it more attractive.

 

-       What about reviewing previous work on this topic?  There has been a lot written about agriculture and its movement in Brazil.

We thank the feedback; we have made several changes throughout the text to improve it.

 

Figure 1 – legend is too small.  I think you could wrong up to whole numbers?

We identified the low quality of the figures in the first version. In this way, a company was selected to improve their disposition (contracted service). All figures have been edited.

Methods – lines 86-92 seem to be results rather than methods?

We appreciate the feedback; we have made several changes to improve the methodology. We hope we made it clear in the current version. ·

 

Results

-       first paragraph seems more like general text for the intro or discussion but not results that you found?

We thank the feedback; we have made several changes throughout the text to improve it. A table has been added. Results, presentations and discussions were revisited.

 

-       A map that shows the microregions would be helpful

Great, a map of the microregions was added as a supplementary document to support this point.

 

 

-       More figures in general would be helpful.. maybe histrograms for the different regions? 

We thank the feedback; we have made several changes throughout the text to improve it. A table has been added. Results, presentations and discussions were revisited.

 

 

-       Fig 3 resolution is too low.. hard to interpret

We identified the low quality of the figures in the first version. In this way, a company was selected to improve their disposition (contracted service). All figures have been edited.

 

We really appreciate all the feedback and the time dedicated to careful reading. We worked intensively to present a clear version. We are available for any clarification. Our best.

 

Submission Date

14 September 2022

Date of this review

22 Sep 2022 16:26:14

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept in present from becasue atuhors provide us revised version in very good form. I found there are some typo mistakes. I hope during production stage, they will modify.

Congratulations

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors did an excellent job responding to the review.