State of Agricultural E-Government Services to Farmers in Tanzania: Toward the Participatory Design of a Farmers Digital Information System (FDIS)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, To enhance the clarity and specificity, consider the following suggestions:

1.The study is timely and addresses the pressing issues faced by farmers, as noted in your conclusions. I recommend adding a "Future Work" section that discusses the potential of blockchain technology in agriculture for enhanced governance and transparency. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12091333

2.Regarding the output screens, it would be beneficial to include improved visual representations to replace Figure 2. Please consider adding high-resolution images or more detailed illustrations that could better convey the intended information.

3.In your discussion of technology accessibility challenges, could you provide specific examples from regions such as Songea? It would be insightful to learn about any obstacles like network coverage or other technological barriers that hinder the effective use of ICT in these areas.

4.It would be valuable to include a table that outlines the following details: | Region | Area | Major crop | Major type of query to the call center |. This would enrich Table 3 and provide a clearer overview of the regional agricultural landscape and the information needs of farmers.

5.The decision-making processes in Figure 3 are currently not depicted clearly, as the decision points are left blank. Please clarify these decisions in the diagram. Additionally, assess whether there is one centralized Datastore or multiple data stores utilized across the various process flows.

6.Figure 3 The "Send feedback" step following "Receive advice/information" should either be connected to an end point or another process to avoid any confusion. If feedback is the final step, please indicate this clearly in the flowchart.

7.Figure 3 There is an ambiguous loop from the "Sell" process back to "Meet buyers." Please provide clarity on what conditions trigger this loopback, as this will help readers understand the intended flow of the process.

8.Figure 3 The "Collect market data and display products" step is currently isolated from other processes. Please clarify if this is an independent function or if it should be connected to other steps within the system.

9.Figure 3 With a thorough revision, the manuscript has the potential to significantly contribute to the understanding of the current state and advancements in agriculture governance in Tanzania. This will undoubtedly serve as a valuable resource for future research in this field.

10. Also Figure 3 can sub labelled for easy reference. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor revisions are required , authors can proof read again. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, We are grateful for the constructive comments which we believe have improved our paper. Kindly find our responses to each of your comment below. 

1. The study is timely and addresses the pressing issues faced by farmers, as noted in your conclusions. I recommend adding a "Future Work" section that discusses the potential of blockchain technology in agriculture for enhanced governance and transparency. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12091333

Authors response

We have added the “Future work” sub-section in the conclusion and mention the future possibility of integrating blockchain technology which seems promising in agriculture sector (see line 459-468).

2. Regarding the output screens, it would be beneficial to include improved visual representations to replace Figure 2. Please consider adding high-resolution images or more detailed illustrations that could better convey the intended information.

Authors response

We have replaced Figure 2 with another high-resolution image for better visual representation. We have also added a translation of the image content which is in Swahili language for detailed understanding of the readers.

3. In your discussion of technology accessibility challenges, could you provide specific examples from regions such as Songea? It would be insightful to learn about any obstacles like network coverage or other technological barriers that hinder the effective use of ICT in these areas.

Authors response

We have added a paragraph in the discussion section (4.1), discussing challenges of technology accessibility and specific examples from wards and districts from the study areas (see line 338 to 348).

4. It would be valuable to include a table that outlines the following details: | Region | Area | Major crop | Major type of query to the call center |. This would enrich Table 3 and provide a clearer overview of the regional agricultural landscape and the information needs of farmers.

Authors response

Indeed, the details suggested would enrich Table 3. However, the system used at the MoA of Tanzania does not filter these details. It only shows the total calls and calls back.

5. The decision-making processes in Figure 3 are currently not depicted clearly, as the decision points are left blank. Please clarify these decisions in the diagram. Additionally, assess whether there is one centralized Datastore or multiple data stores utilized across the various process flows.

Authors response

We have labeled the decision-making processes in Figure 3 for clarity. We have also modified Figure 3 to show services that uses a centralized data store.

6. Figure 3 The "Send feedback" step following "Receive advice/information" should either be connected to an end point or another process to avoid any confusion. If feedback is the final step, please indicate this clearly in the flowchart.

Authors response

Of course, “Send feedback” is connected to the feedback receiver and to an end.

7. Figure 3 There is an ambiguous loop from the "Sell" process back to "Meet buyers." Please provide clarity on what conditions trigger this loopback, as this will help readers understand the intended flow of the process.

Authors response

Indeed, we have solved the ambiguity by showing a logical flow from “Market products” to “Meet buyers” and finally “Sell products”. We have also clearly labeled relationships between the sellers and buyers in the process.

8. Figure 3 The "Collect market data and display products" step is currently isolated from other processes. Please clarify if this is an independent function or if it should be connected to other steps within the system.

Authors response

We removed the “collect market data” and display product step and replace it with communication with the data store to retrieve the data instead. Now farmers can market their products into the database and buyers can search and retrieve this information from the database, later on direct communication can happen.

9. Figure 3 With a thorough revision, the manuscript has the potential to significantly contribute to the understanding of the current state and advancements in agriculture governance in Tanzania. This will undoubtedly serve as a valuable resource for future research in this field.

Authors response

Indeed, we have thoroughly revised Figure 3 as per reviewer’s comments.

10. Also Figure 3 can sub labelled for easy reference. 

Authors response

All service pools are well labelled.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your study addresses a highly intriguing topic, albeit with some noteworthy issues that merit consideration.

 

The introduction section of the article effectively sets the context for the study by highlighting the critical challenges faced by low- and middle-income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. This section is well-structured, thereby laying a solid foundation for the research.

 

The document does not contain a dedicated section explicitly addressing the Literature Review. Typically, a literature review section provides a comprehensive overview of existing research and publications relevant to the topic of the paper, highlighting gaps that the current study aims to address. It is missing.

 

Furthermore, the document fails to specify the date when the data was collected. While there is reference to "Field data" (Reference 15) and "field data on January 16, 23 (15)" in various tables' footnotes within the results section, this approach is suboptimal. It is imperative to elucidate the details concerning the utilized data and methodologies in the materials and methods section.

Additionally, although the paper mentions employing qualitative analysis and presents demographic data in Table 1, this analysis is absent from the results section.

Moreover, there is a lack of elucidation regarding the procedures utilized in conducting the qualitative analysis. The study primarily focuses on describing ICT-based services and referencing the MoA of Tanzania. The direction to pursue within a qualitative analysis varies depending on the scientific field. Nevertheless, it was expected that the study would incorporate techniques such as interviews, observations, and content analysis to comprehend human behavior, attitudes, and experiences. This vital information is either absent or insufficiently developed, which is crucial for the discussion and conclusions.

 

Additionally, a brief description of the significance of USSD codes is warranted. Following the paper's text, it appears to refer to Unstructured Supplementary Service Data codes. However, a brief elucidation on its utility would be beneficial.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, we appreciate your time and wonderful comments that have enriched our manuscript. Kindly find below our responses to each of your comment.

1. The document does not contain a dedicated section explicitly addressing the Literature Review. Typically, a literature review section provides a comprehensive overview of existing research and publications relevant to the topic of the paper, highlighting gaps that the current study aims to address. It is missing.

Authors response

Indeed, literature review is an important section. However, their inclusion depends on the specific context and goals of each research article. We have added a paragraph in the introduction section showing that this paper is part of the larger study, mentioning a comprehensive literature review conducted in a series of papers in this project (see line 81-90). This will now enable the readers to understand the focus of this paper and connect to other related works in the project. otherwise, this paper fits well in the template provided by this journal.

2. Furthermore, the document fails to specify the date when the data was collected. While there is reference to "Field data" (Reference 15) and "field data on January 16, 23 (15)" in various tables' footnotes within the results section, this approach is suboptimal. It is imperative to elucidate the details concerning the utilized data and methodologies in the materials and methods section.

Authors response

Reference [15, now 17] is the field data used in this study. Reference 17 contain all the dates when this data was collected. Furthermore, we have added in the method the period during which the data was collected (Line 105-106). Moreover, the data used in this study (Reference 15, now 17) is deposited in a general open repository.

3. Additionally, although the paper mentions employing qualitative analysis and presents demographic data in Table 1, this analysis is absent from the results section.

Authors response

We adopted thematic analysis which identifies three themes (M-Kilimo, a call center, DFSDS) each one specifically analyzed in section 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. The themes capture the demographic data presented in the result section.

4. Moreover, there is a lack of elucidation regarding the procedures utilized in conducting the qualitative analysis. The study primarily focuses on describing ICT-based services and referencing the MoA of Tanzania. The direction to pursue within a qualitative analysis varies depending on the scientific field. Nevertheless, it was expected that the study would incorporate techniques such as interviews, observations, and content analysis to comprehend human behavior, attitudes, and experiences. This vital information is either absent or insufficiently developed, which is crucial for the discussion and conclusions.

Authors response

We specified in the result that we used a thematic analysis and clearly mentioned the three themes which were already there. We clearly explained the procedures utilised in conducting the qualitative analysis, see line 98 which mention the use of interviews to gather the opinions of stakeholders (see line 108). Refer to line 125, which mentions the thematic analysis used in this study making it a qualitative analysis. Using ICT based services as themes, we analysed stakeholder’s opinions, attitudes and experiences collected through interviews. Indeed, we have provided all vital information which sufficiently support the discussions and conclusions.

5. Additionally, a brief description of the significance of USSD codes is warranted. Following the paper's text, it appears to refer to Unstructured Supplementary Service Data codes. However, a brief elucidation on its utility would be beneficial.

Authors response

We have added a paragraph in the discussion section describing the significance of USSD codes (see line 372-383).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper focusing on the importance of ICT-based information system among farmers and key stakeholders in Tanzania. 

From the abstract, it is quite obvious that key findings of this study are missing. Authors are expected to present a concise background information on this study especially in the aspect of food security globally and with special focus on Tanzania. The gap(s) in knowledge as regards this study was not well articulated. Why is this study very important to the Tanzanian farmers and its economy?

From line 87, what influences that data collection method adopted in this study? The sampling provide for this study was not well presented. How did you arrive at 22 farmers used for this study?

Kindly justify the the purposive sampling method later mentioned in the method section.

In the M-Kilimo app, is it only available in Tanzania? Can it be accessed from other parts of the world especially in Africa.

It is important that authors provided a background information on the state of e-government services to farmers globally, especially in Africa before focusing on Tanzania.

Before the conclusion section, authors should present a sub-section with the heading "limitations of the study" and "areas for further research"

Thank you.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Fine

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your time, to read and comment to our manuscript for improvement. We have worked on your comments and changed the manuscript where necessary as suggested. Kindly find the responses below.

1. From the abstract, it is quite obvious that key findings of this study are missing. Authors are expected to present a concise background information on this study especially in the aspect of food security globally and with special focus on Tanzania. The gap(s) in knowledge as regards this study was not well articulated. Why is this study very important to the Tanzanian farmers and its economy?

Authors response

We clarified the findings in the abstract (Line 21-24). The remaining information mentioned in the comment is well elucidated. Refer to line 33-36 explaining the aspect of food security globally. Also refer to line 40 which mentions the importance of agriculture to Tanzanian farmers and its economy. See line 77-80 articulating the gap(s) in knowledge and line 91-96 elucidating why this study is important.

2. From line 87, what influences that data collection method adopted in this study? The sampling provide for this study was not well presented. How did you arrive at 22 farmers used for this study?

Authors response

We have clarified the rationale behind the choice of the farmers and other stakeholders (line 103-105).

3. Kindly justify the purposive sampling method later mentioned in the method section.

Authors response

The later mentioned purposive sampling method in the method section is line 114, which we consider as justified. We changed the sentence it now reads “Extension workers were purposively selected because they are the unique source of information of digital services performance to farmers at the level of wards and villages”.

4. In the M-Kilimo app, is it only available in Tanzania? Can it be accessed from other parts of the world especially in Africa.

Authors response

This study focused on the state of e-government agricultural services in Tanzania. Therefore, the services investigated such as M-Kilimo, a call center and DFSDS are only available in Tanzania. This is mentioned in the main text see line 438.

5. It is important that authors provided a background information on the state of e-government services to farmers globally, especially in Africa before focusing on Tanzania.

Authors response

Refer to line 64-72 which provides examples of e-government services to farmers globally, including Africa. We mentioned e-government services in Bangladesh, China, India and Kenya. Moreover, we highlighted some findings and referred to a comprehensive literature review conducted in the series of large project which covered all digital services to farmers globally, Africa and Tanzania (see line 83-86).

6. Before the conclusion section, authors should present a sub-section with the heading "limitations of the study" and "areas for further research".

Authors response

We have added “Limitations of the study” sub-section before the conclusion as suggested (See line 434-440). We have also added “Future work” describing areas for further research as suggested (see line 459-468).

Thank you.

Thank you.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for sending the revised version. The editor can make final publication decision on this version. However, authors should move the section "future work" to immediately after the limitations of the study section. 

Congratulations!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Fine

Author Response

The manuscript has been edited by our colleague fluent in English language.