Technological Capabilities for the Adoption of New Technologies in the Agri-Food Sector of Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please note the attached Word file with the collected comments

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Please note the attached Word file with the collected comments

Author Response

 

11/05/2023

 

Dear Editor Supanooch Poungchawanwong

Dear Reviewer 1

Agriculture

 

In relation to the research work entitled “Technological Capabilities for the Adoption of New Technologies in the Agri-food Sector of Mexico”, I am infinitely grateful for the observations made, which undoubtedly gave the work greater solidity and helped to improve it substantially.

 

Regarding the corrections, they were carried out in strict adherence to their instructions and are described below:

General Comments:

• Some terms lack definitions or explanations (what is Agriculture 4.0 and 5.0?); Smart agriculture, Green revolution; Technology capability,...

Agriculture 4.0 and 5.0 is specified in line 163-166

In relation to the green revolution it is already a well-known term. We think it is not necessary to define it.

Technological capabilities are defined in lines 147-149  

• Is there a difference between technology capability and capacity? If not, then only one term should be used

If there is a difference In this case it is discussed and defined from lines 138-159.

 

• The language should be checked again. some expressions are not very well chosen (e.g., "unthinkable levels" l.52; developed "impressively" l.55). Some sentences are unclear, e.g., "In addition, I accelerate four trends." (l.87). Repetitions such as ("mention above"; "the foregoing was...") should be avoided. In several places, "on the other hand..." is introduced without "on the one hand...".

The observations were reviewed and in general the entire document was reviewed.

 

• Some references have no reference to the reference list (e.g.: L.157; L. 289; L. 369) It was reviewed and verified that all references are found in the reference list.

 

• A wide range of Spanish-language literature is cited. This is justified in some places and inevitable when dealing with the situation of the agrofood sector in Mexico, in many places to support general arguments. Further literature research is worthwhile here to promote the quality of the paper but also the comprehensibility of an international readership.

Suggested adjustments were made.

 

Introduction:

• L 31: our society = Mexican society?

Reference is made to society in general. Not only Mexican society.

 

• L1-60: Very general introduction, which can be shortened a little to lead to the actual intention of the paper.

Suggested adjustments were made.

 

• L87-95: While the trends towards food safety can still be linked to digitalization, the exact relationship to functional foods is not fully understood. Why is this listed so extensively here?

The part of functional foods was reduced.

 

• L. 101-102: What is the significance of this short period of time?

Emphasis was placed on the pandemic period, but in general it has maintained constant growth.

 

• The questions at the end of the section are interesting and comprehensible. However, one would like to know more about the certain agrofood regions (products?, production and distribution structures?, historical developments?). In general, a map of the federal states would be helpful to get an idea of the results. A separate chapter or subchapter makes sense here. In the discussion, there is again a lot of general discussion at the national level. One could already present the situation of the different regions in the introduction (e.g. value chain systems, education and training, innovation systems etc.).

Suggested adjustments were made.

Regarding the map of the states, it is not possible because there is no information to carry it out.

 

• In addition, it should be briefly explained how the results of the documentary research method can be used to predict the dynamics of technological change.

Suggested adjustments were made.

 

Method:

• 146: how does the method deal with the "small qualitative components"?

The explanation on the qualitative components was extended.

 

• 150: The term "behavior of technology capabilities" is used more often. It is not clear what or who is behavioring here (also L.253, etc.).

It was reviewed and adjusted according to your indications.

 

• The study variables are to be derived here. For this purpose, Trendov et al. 2019 is taken as reference. However, this framework is not fully considered in the subsequent selection of the independent variables (4) and 5) are missing; 3) only in parts). The argument that one takes "closest to what was found" is also not helpful here. It seems that the variables were selected according to the availability of data. Perhaps it would be possible to elaborate the framework a little better (e.g. why the inclusion of the economic indicators in the analysis etc.). Since some indicators are at farm level and some at state level, this would also need to be checked. Another question is whether multicollinearity does not distort the outcome of the cluster analysis. Hierarchical cluster analysis is very fuzzy if the cluster variables used are not properly selected.

Actually all the variables are at the state level.

Multicollinearity does not distort the results for this analysis.

In the case of the cluster analysis and the selection of variables, they were carried out considering the references on the analysis of technological capabilities and the results are consistent with this.

 

• 208: “Normality”

They were analyzed and did not meet the assumptions to perform parametric statistics, so it was decided to use non-parametric statistics. In this case, it is possible to carry out this type of analysis.

 

• Why was a significance level of 0.1 chosen for the Kruskal-Wallis test? Why not the usual 0.05 level?

Because the highest degree of confidence for this analysis is obtained at 0.1

 

• It is not quite clear what is included under "Agri-food sector companies. Is this about farms or is it also about processing, distribution and marketing companies? Marketing companies are involved. Please describe.

Suggested adjustments were made.

 

Results:

• Table 1 and 2 are illustrations from secondary statistics (without direct reference). To be more meaningful, a suggestion would be that the authors divide the federal states ad hoc into discrete production regions and assign the federal states (the different production regions should be better described in the introduction anyway). Then it would be possible to provide overall and average data by region (with different prerequisites and characteristics). Tables 1 and 2 can then be inserted as supplemental material or appendix to the paper.

The suggestion of dividing the states would be contradictory to the method and objective of the investigation.

Regarding inserting the tables as supplementary material, I consider it important to show the reader the behavior of all the variables. They can even serve to compare with the behavior of other countries.

 

• Table 1: what is meant by use of satellite navigation systems? The technologies are used in different ways; to which totals do the percentages refer?

The use of satellite navigation systems was clarified.

The percentages refer to the percentage of companies out of the total that use or have the technologies (analysis variable).

 

• L-246-247: The “uneven historical developments” should have been described in the introduction

Suggested adjustments were made.

 

• Table 3: Units are missing (is export unit counted really in 1,000 of dollars?); variance is not relevant; standardized values go into the Hierarchical Cluster Analysis anyway, as previously described.

Yes, those are the correct units.

Yes, the data is normalized to avoid inconsistency in the statistical analysis.

• Classification of the clusters: a look at the map of Mexico does not always show a blanket assignment of the states to north, south, central. Here, too, it makes more sense to assign them to predefined regions so that the results can be better interpreted on the basis of their characteristics.

Yes, it is true that the classification is not exact. However, that is an important part of the results. They have different behavior and that is the result of the method.

 

Discussion/conclusions:

• 286-341. the discussion is mainly concerned with general statements on how digitization can be improved and supported nationally. There is little reference to the actual results. Neither the individual variables selected for the cluster analysis nor the regions and states with their specific context in agrofood production are discussed. Again, much Spanish-language literature is incorporated.

Suggested adjustments were made.

 

• 332: To what extent has the pandemic contributed here. How much, then, are the results from the 2019 data still relevant?

It is not known how much the pandemic has contributed. There is no data. It would be excellent if data were available and even a comparison could be made. However, it is not possible.

 

• 390-402: In the introduction much was written about sustainable agrifood production, only at the end of the discussion reference is made. The recommendation to investigate and apply regional innovation systems is very successful and could be expanded to discuss the second promised research question of the paper, the prediction to improve the technical possibilities and to derive the design of policies, e.g. to also support small producers.

Suggested adjustments were made.

 

The changes made are indicated in the document, the above in order to facilitate its review. I consider that the changes made comply with the suggestions, observations and comments made by the reviewers and the recommendations of the editor.

 

Any questions or comments I am at your service.

With Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, the authors explored the technological capacity of the Mexican agri-food sector for the adoption of new technologies. The results indicate that only a few specialized regions are concentrated and the adoption of new technologies in most of the Mexican agri-food sectors remains further improvement.

This manuscript is in poor quality due to the following issues.

First, the authors only mentioned ‘new technologies’ throughout the manuscript, however, what are these ‘new technologies’? Internet of Things? Big Data? Artificial Intelligence? The objectives to be analyzed are totally unclear.

Second, the analysis method is unclear as well. For instance, the authors claimed that a cluster analysis was carried out. There are various clustering algorithms and the authors did not describe theirs in technical detail. Most importantly, no experimental results are presented for support.

 

Third, some variables defined in Tables 1 and 2 can be hardly evaluated. For instance, how did the authors evaluate ‘computer use’ and ‘Internet use’? What did the authors mean by ‘credit availability’ and ‘competitiveness index’?

 

Fourth, the content in the discussion section is sparse and seems not focus on any main idea.

Author Response

11/05/2023

 

Dear Editor Supanooch Poungchawanwong

Dear Reviewer 2

Agriculture

 

In relation to the research work entitled “Technological Capabilities for the Adoption of New Technologies in the Agri-food Sector of Mexico”, I am infinitely grateful for the observations made, which undoubtedly gave the work greater solidity and helped to improve it substantially.

 

Regarding the corrections, they were carried out in strict adherence to their instructions and are described below:

 

1. First, the authors only mentioned ‘new technologies’ throughout the manuscript, however, what are these ‘new technologies’? Internet of Things? Big Data? Artificial Intelligence? The objectives to be analyzed are totally unclear.

It was specified what technologies related to agriculture 4.0 and 5.0 refer to, for example: precision agriculture, use of drones and sensors, Internet of Things (IoT), Big Data, artificial intelligence, automation, robotic machines, smart agriculture (farms and greenhouses), among others. This clarifies the objective.

 

2. Second, the analysis method is unclear as well. For instance, the authors claimed that a cluster analysis was carried out. There are various clustering algorithms and the authors did not describe theirs in technical detail. Most importantly, no experimental results are presented for support.

The adjustment was made according to their indications regarding the cluster analysis.

Unfortunately, no supporting experimental data is available. It is a good point to work for future research.

 

3. Third, some variables defined in Tables 1 and 2 can be hardly evaluated. For instance, how did the authors evaluate ‘computer use’ and ‘Internet use’? What did the authors mean by ‘credit availability’ and ‘competitiveness index’?

Las variables utilizadas para la investigación se obtuvieron de la Encuesta Nacional Agropecuaria que realiza el Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI). Es decir, se tienen la disponibilidad de esa información por entidad federativa. Con respecto al índice de competitividad el Instituto Mexicano para la Competitividad realiza un cálculo por entidad federativa. En relación con la disponibilidad de créditos también se obtuvieron de la Encuesta Nacional Agropecuaria y se consideró el porcentaje de unidades productivas que solicitaron crédito o préstamo para realizar actividades agropecuarias y las que lo obtienen. Lo anterior se especifica en materiales y métodos. Encuesta Nacional Agropecuariacarried out by the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI). That is, the availability of this information is available by state. Regarding the competitiveness index, the Instituto Mexicano para la Competitividad makes a calculation by state. In relation to the availability of credits, they were also obtained from the Encuesta Nacional Agropecuaria and the percentage of productive units that requested credit or loan to carry out agricultural activities and those that obtain it were considered. The above is specified in materials and methods.

 

4. Fourth, the content in the discussion section is sparse and seems not focus on any main idea.

The adjustment was made according to their indications regarding the discussion.

 

The changes made are indicated in the document, the above in order to facilitate its review. I consider that the changes made comply with the suggestions, observations and comments made by the reviewers and the recommendations of the editor.

 

Any questions or comments I am at your service.

With Best Regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Detailed feedback on the authors' comments on the first revision can be found in the attached word document

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

could be improved

Author Response

24/05/2023

 

Dear Editor Supanooch Poungchawanwong

Dear Reviewer 1

Agriculture

 

In relation to the research work entitled “Technological Capabilities for the Adoption of New Technologies in the Agri-food Sector of Mexico”, I am infinitely grateful for the observations made, which undoubtedly gave the work greater solidity and helped to improve it substantially.

It is convenient to mention that he tries to respond to the observations and harmonize the reviewers' perspectives in the document and this generates important changes.

 

As for the corrections, they were made trying to give you concrete answers to your instructions and are described below:

 

General Comments:

• Some terms lack definitions or explanations (what is Agriculture 4.0 and 5.0?); Smart agriculture, Green revolution; Technology capability,...
  - Agriculture 4.0 and 5.0 is specified in line 163-166
  - In relation to the green revolution it is already a well-known term. I think it is not necessary to define it.
  - Technological capabilities are defined in lines 147-149

5.0 not explained; the difference between tec capability and cap. Capacity ist still not explained

Agriculture 5.0 and the differences between capabilities and technological capabilities were explained.

 

• Is there a difference between technology capability and capacity? If not, then only one term should be used

If there is a difference In this case it is discussed and defined from lines 138-159.

cannot see definitions or explanation of differentiation

With the changes of the previous point it is solved. Line 120 to 128.

 

• The language should be checked again. some expressions are not very well chosen (e.g., "unthinkable levels" l.52; developed "impressively" l.55). Some sentences are unclear, e.g., "In addition, I accelerate four trends." (l.87). Repetitions such as ("mention above"; "the foregoing was...") should be avoided. In several places, "on the other hand..." is introduced without "on the one hand...".

The observations were reviewed and in general the entire document was reviewed.

cannot see that the overall text was English-language revised beside the suggested examples

The entire document was reviewed and some adjustments were made according to what was suggested. In some cases it is necessary to keep them to give greater clarity to the idea.

 

• Some references have no reference to the reference list (e.g.: L.157; L. 289; L. 369)
  It was reviewed and verified that all references are found in the reference list.
  
• A wide range of Spanish-language literature is cited. This is justified in some places and inevitable when dealing with the situation of the agrofood sector in Mexico, in many places to support general arguments. Further literature research is worthwhile here to promote the quality of the paper but also the comprehensibility of an international readership.

Suggested adjustments were made.

6 new international citings added

More international and national appointments were added.

 

• Introduction and discussion should be significantly streamlined or redesigned in some places to better

contextualize the questions of the paper and the results.

not generally done

It was reorganized and tried to simplify. However, trying to meet the comments of both reviewers expanded further.

 

 

Introduction:

• L 31: our society = Mexican society?

Reference is made to society in general. Not only Mexican society.

Then, I do not find that an target-driven entry into the paper

That part was modified

 

• L1-60: Very general introduction, which can be shortened a little to lead to the actual intention of the paper.

Suggested adjustments were made.

no shortening and strengthening of the introduction

 

 

• L87-95: While the trends towards food safety can still be linked to digitalization, the exact relationship to functional foods is not fully understood. Why is this listed so extensively here?

The part of functional foods was reduced.

Decreased. There are only two lines (92 and 94).

 

• L. 101-102: What is the significance of this short period of time?

Emphasis was placed on the pandemic period, but in general it has maintained constant growth.

 

• The questions at the end of the section are interesting and comprehensible. However, one would like to know more about the certain agrofood regions (products?, production and distribution structures?, historical developments?). In general, a map of the federal states would be helpful to get an idea of the results. A separate chapter or subchapter makes sense here. In the discussion, there is again a lot of general discussion at the national level. One could already present the situation of the different regions in the introduction (e.g. value chain systems, education and training, innovation systems etc.).

Suggested adjustments were made.

Regarding the map of the states, it is not possible because there is no information to carry it out.

• Results relate to Federal Mexican state; why is it not possible to give an overview on that on a map and explain the known (economic, infrastructure) differences between states/regions?

An initial map of the agri-food regions was added and in the results another map on technological capacities by states.

 

• In addition, it should be briefly explained how the results of the documentary research method can be used to predict the dynamics of technological change.

Suggested adjustments were made.

OK; short explanation was added

The explanation was expanded a little more

 

Method:

• 146: how does the method deal with the "small qualitative components"?

The explanation on the qualitative components was extended.

• insufficient

The explanation was expanded a little more

 

• 150: The term "behavior of technology capabilities" is used more often. It is not clear what or who is behavioring here (also L.253, etc.).

It was reviewed and adjusted according to your indications.

The changes made clarify this point. It is clearer that the behavior of the technological capacities is expressed by the states as units of analysis.

 

• The study variables are to be derived here. For this purpose, Trendov et al. 2019 is taken as reference. However, this framework is not fully considered in the subsequent selection of the independent variables (4) and 5) are missing; 3) only in parts). The argument that one takes "closest to what was found" is also not helpful here. It seems that the variables were selected according to the availability of data. Perhaps it would be possible to elaborate the framework a little better (e.g. why the inclusion of the economic indicators in the analysis etc.). Since some indicators are at farm level and some at state level, this would also need to be checked. Another question is whether multicollinearity does not distort the outcome of the cluster analysis. Hierarchical cluster analysis is very fuzzy if the cluster variables used are not properly selected.

Actually all the variables are at the state level.

Multicollinearity does not distort the results for this analysis.

In the case of the cluster analysis and the selection of variables, they were carried out considering the references on the analysis of technological capabilities and the results are consistent with this.

still not convinced on the validity of the selected cluster variables derived from the framework

The explanation in the methodology was further expanded

 

• 208: “Normality”

They were analyzed and did not meet the assumptions to perform parametric statistics, so it was decided to use non-parametric statistics. In this case, it is possible to carry out this type of analysis.

 

• Why was a significance level of 0.1 chosen for the Kruskal-Wallis test? Why not the usual 0.05 level?

Because the highest degree of confidence for this analysis is obtained at 0.1

this is no justification for a higher assumed significance level

If the significance level is increased, no significant difference is obtained in the ANOVA.

 

• It is not quite clear what is included under "Agri-food sector companies. Is this about farms or is it also about processing, distribution and marketing companies? Marketing companies are involved. Please describe.

Suggested adjustments were made.

 

Results:

• Table 1 and 2 are illustrations from secondary statistics (without direct reference). To be more meaningful, a suggestion would be that the authors divide the federal states ad hoc into discrete production regions and assign the federal states (the different production regions should be better described in the introduction anyway). Then it would be possible to provide overall and average data by region (with different prerequisites and characteristics). Tables 1 and 2 can then be inserted as supplemental material or appendix to the paper.

The suggestion of dividing the states would be contradictory to the method and objective of the investigation.

Regarding inserting the tables as supplementary material, I consider it important to show the reader the behavior of all the variables. They can even serve to compare with the behavior of other countries.

I am still not convinced that the two large tables (taken only from secondary statistics, and only minimally explained in the text) can be sold as own results. An own achievement would be to identify regional clusters and to address their individual situation.

The tables were added to the appendix and the map with regions according to the results was added.

 

• Table 1: what is meant by use of satellite navigation systems? The technologies are used in different ways; to which totals do the percentages refer?

The use of satellite navigation systems was clarified.

The percentages refer to the percentage of companies out of the total that use or have the technologies (analysis variable).

GPS, OK; still the absolute number of companies per state is missing (percentage of how many farms?)

The number of economic units sampled in the methodology was indicated. Also, other elements on data collection were added. I hope that solves this point.

 

• L-246-247: The “uneven historical developments” should have been described in the introduction

Suggested adjustments were made.

 

The explanation was expanded a little more

 

• Table 3: Units are missing (is export unit counted really in 1,000 of dollars?); variance is not relevant; standardized values go into the Hierarchical Cluster Analysis anyway, as previously described.

Yes, those are the correct units.

Yes, the data is normalized to avoid inconsistency in the statistical analysis.

Units are still missing, no changes made in all the tables!

The units in the tables are correct. We cannot modify them arbitrarily. Standardized values are used for statistical analysis only.

With the modifications in the methodology, this is further clarified.

 

• Classification of the clusters: a look at the map of Mexico does not always show a blanket assignment of the states to north, south, central. Here, too, it makes more sense to assign them to predefined regions so that the results can be better interpreted on the basis of their characteristics.

Yes, it is true that the classification is not exact. However, that is an important part of the results. They have different behavior and that is the result of the method.

The heterogeneity in the country has already been proven in other studies (see Introduction), so what is the originality of this study? Here, the strength would have been to identify distinct regions on the basis of the data.

The map was added where the contribution can be seen more clearly: the regionalization of technological capacities in the agri-food sector.

 

Discussion/conclusions:

• 286-341. the discussion is mainly concerned with general statements on how digitization can be improved and supported nationally. There is little reference to the actual results. Neither the individual variables selected for the cluster analysis nor the regions and states with their specific context in agrofood production are discussed. Again, much Spanish-language literature is incorporated.

Suggested adjustments were made.

Not really

Further adjustment was made as suggested.

 

• 332: To what extent has the pandemic contributed here. How much, then, are the results from the 2019 data still relevant?

It is not known how much the pandemic has contributed. There is no data. It would be excellent if data were available and even a comparison could be made. However, it is not possible.

 

• 390-402: In the introduction much was written about sustainable agrifood production, only at the end of the discussion reference is made. The recommendation to investigate and apply regional innovation systems is very successful and could be expanded to discuss the second promised research question of the paper, the prediction to improve the technical possibilities and to derive the design of policies, e.g. to also support small producers.

Suggested adjustments were made.

where?

This idea was expanded upon a little further in the discussion. I hope that's enough.

 

The changes made are indicated in the document, the above in order to facilitate its review. I consider that the changes made comply with the suggestions, observations and comments made by the reviewers and the recommendations of the editor.

 

Any questions or comments I am at your service.

With Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Unfortunately, the authors failed to answer my previous comments, in particular, the following.

First, it is not appropriate to simply mention the concepts of new technologies. It is noted that these concepts (e.g., IoT, AI, robotics, etc.) were not considered as variables in Table 4. Meanwhile, the authors misunderstood what is technology and what is an application domain. For instance, AI is a technology, which can be applied to an application domain, like smart agriculture.

Second, the authors still did not explain their clustering methods and the authors stated that 'no supporting experimental data is available'. So, how the conclusions drawn in this manuscript could be supported?

Third, the variables defined in Tables 1 and 2 could not be measured in a quantitive manner.

Lastly, the authors did not re-organize the discussion section and made no improvement.

In conclusion, the manuscript does not meet the publication requirement of the journal at all. I suggest rejecting this manuscript.

Author Response

24/05/2023

 

Dear Editor Supanooch Poungchawanwong

Dear Reviewer 2

Agriculture

 

In relation to the research work entitled “Technological Capabilities for the Adoption of New Technologies in the Agri-food Sector of Mexico”, I am infinitely grateful for the observations made, which undoubtedly gave the work greater solidity and helped to improve it substantially.

It is convenient to mention that he tries to respond to the observations and harmonize the reviewers' perspectives in the document and this generates important changes.

 

As for the corrections, they were made trying to give you concrete answers to your instructions and are described below:

 

1. First, it is not appropriate to simply mention the concepts of new technologies. It is noted that these concepts (e.g., IoT, AI, robotics, etc.) were not considered as variables in Table 4. Meanwhile, the authors misunderstood what is technology and what is an application domain. For instance, AI is a technology, which can be applied to an application domain, like smart agriculture.

The observation is correct. The corresponding adjustments were made.

 

2. Second, the authors still did not explain their clustering methods and the authors stated that 'no supporting experimental data is available'. So, how the conclusions drawn in this manuscript could be supported?

The analysis method was specified step by step in SPSS. There are no more steps to execute and there are no omissions. That includes the clustering method.

There are no experimental data. However, they are real data of the economic units. It was expanded how the information was obtained in the methodology. Now it is much more explicit.

 

3. Third, the variables defined in Tables 1 and 2 could not be measured in a quantitive manner.

The variables were measured quantitatively. With the changes in the previous point in the methodology, this observation is resolved.

 

4. Lastly, the authors did not re-organize the discussion section and made no improvement.

The discussion was reorganized and expanded. Now it is more choerente and congruent.

 

The changes made are indicated in the document, the above in order to facilitate its review. I consider that the changes made comply with the suggestions, observations and comments made by the reviewers and the recommendations of the editor.

 

Any questions or comments I am at your service.

With Best Regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf