Strategy for the Appropriation of a DSS in Small Bovine Producers Using Simulation and a Serious Video Game

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript dealing with methodological strategy for the appropriation of a DSS in small bovine producers with simulation and a serious video game, but I am not convinced that the topic suggested is enough novel that will be deserved to publish in the Journal of MDPI Information.

First, the section of introduction is too weak to support the point of the authors that must be improved. It should include a section of research objectives clearly. All these overview sections must be well organized, which the current version is giving too much confusion to the journal readers.

Second, the results deduced by the method are not convinced as the new approach or outcome for the information research.

Third, please improve the conclusion together with proper discussion sections that will compare and implicate the findings of the authors with previous researches published. The more critical perspective is required on the results obtained such as a more sophisticated account of the implications of the findings and a more advance on the conclusions.

Fourth, the current figures and tables are really difficult to read that the authors should improve their quality for the general journal readers.

Fifth, if there is no patent for the article related, please delete the section 6.

Sixth, please follow the regulations of author contributions.

Seventh, a more updated references would be recommended to supporting the specific studies the authors proposed that are even not formatted by the proper journal guidelines.

Finally, the authors clearly need some help with translation of the work into appropriate English. This is more than a matter of occasional errors as a number of phrases and whole sentences actually do not make sense or mean something different from what is intended.

Author Response

Respected evaluator

Journal Information

I hope you are very well.

 

On behalf of the other authors and myself, express that we appreciate your comments. We consider that our work is new because it is aimed at small producers and because it allows to mitigate gaps in IT in the rural sector. All observations were received, we value them very much and therefore the adjust were carried out.

 

The following table specifies the number and the observation made by you and the explanation of the adjustment made. We will keep improving if necessary.

 

Note that:

1. Figures 2 and 3 (the level and behavior flow diagram) and three equations were added to better explain the model, for this reason the figure of the influence diagram was adapted, therefore, I added a new source of information to talk about modeling software, is presented in green color.
2. The third paragraph of the results chapter was in section 3.2 so that the explanation of section 3.1 is better understood, it is presented in blue.
3. The last paragraph of the discussion was moved to the last conclusion by adding some details, it is presented in blue.
4. I hope with the adjustments made to comply with the guidelines of the journal (Only those corresponding to each evaluator are presented)
5. Figures with sections a and b were divided

 

#	Evaluator observation	Response
1	First, the section of introduction is too weak to support the point of the authors that must be improved. It should include a section of research objectives clearly. All these overview sections must be well organized, which the current version is giving too much confusion to the journal readers.	It was included a clarification of the objectives in the sixth paragraph. Three subtitles were added in it and the organization improved in chapter 3.1 and 3.2, the methodology was improved and more of the model was added, among other adjustments.
2	Second, the results deduced by the method are not convinced as the new approach or outcome for the information research.	I hope with the adjustments made to comply with the guidelines of the journal
3	Third, please improve the conclusion together with proper discussion sections that will compare and implicate the findings of the authors with previous researches published. The more critical perspective is required on the results obtained such as a more sophisticated account of the implications of the findings and a more advance on the conclusions.	The last paragraph of the discussion was moved to conclude with some changes and we added one more discussion paragraph and changes in the conclusions
4	Fourth, the current figures and tables are really difficult to read that the authors should improve their quality for the general journal readers.	Two figures of the model in two other languages and their explanation were added to improve the understand it, two figures were separated into four to facilitate understanding.
5	Fifth, if there is no patent for the article, please delete the section 6.	Done
6	Sixth, please follow the regulations of author contributions.	Done
7	Seventh, a more updated references would be recommended to supporting the specific studies the authors proposed that are even not formatted by the proper journal guidelines.	We added four new sources of information and improved the mention of the magazine format
8	Finally, the authors clearly need some help with translation of the work into appropriate English. This is more than a matter of occasional errors as a number of phrases and whole sentences actually do not make sense or mean something different from what is intended.	Two English revisions have been made, please excuse my mistakes. I will request the edit review.
9	This manuscript dealing with methodological strategy for the appropriation of a DSS in small bovine producers with simulation and a serious video game, but I am not convinced that the topic suggested is enough novel that will be deserved to publish in the Journal of MDPI Information.	I hope with the adjustments made to comply with the guidelines of the journal

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall comments:

I like the idea of the paper, and I support the overall exercise that it tries to do.  However, I think the authors’ description and analysis fall short.

I think the authors need to rethink how they explain what they did.  They need to give a fuller description of the group modeling process they followed.  They need to give a fuller description of the DSS and whatever training they did.  And they need to give a better explanation of why, after all this effort, they only got about 40 percent of their collaborating farmers to use a DSS.  I think it would also be good to talk about whether the DSS led to better farm performance.

Detailed comments:

Page 1: this phrasing makes me think that the authors are not native English speakers.  I would recommend that they pass this manuscript past a native English-speaking editor.

Page 4: Rational Unified Process.  I had to Google what this was.  For readers unfamiliar with software development, I think the authors should give a brief description here.

This sounds more like group model building process, not a result.  If the authors used a group model building process, they should give a full description of how they did it.

Page 5: Why were Feed and Hydrate left out of the DSS?  I would think these would be important, almost daily, activities with which a DSS could be helpful....

Page 7: Are there correct answers? The implication is that the "tutor" knows more about running a farm than the farmers do.  Is that plausible?

I think we need more information on the elements of this DSS.  I'm getting confused between the "serious game" and the DSS.  I think they are two different things, but since I don't know what the DSS looks like, I can't say for sure.

Page 8: “To show the DSS to the farmers and motivate them to check reports about the decisions made while playing the serious video game.” This only adds to my confusion about the distinction between the game and the DSS.

Page 9: Caption for Figure 4: I'm completely unclear about what columns a and b are showing.  Is one the game and the other the DSS?  Which is which? If part of this exercise is to make the farmers independent DSS users, why is there a tutor in both columns?

Page 11: “… percentage of appropriation of every appropriated farmer 349 for each community.” I’m not sure what this means, here or in Table 5.

Page 12: I think we need a fuller explanation of what the various functionalities of the DSS are.  We need a full description of what the DSS looks like and how it works.

Author Response

Respected evaluator

Journal Information

I hope you are very well.

 

On behalf of the other authors and myself, express that we appreciate your comments. We consider that our work is new because it is aimed at small producers and because it allows to mitigate gaps in IT in the rural sector.

 

All observations were received, we value them very much and therefore the adjust were carried out.

 

The following table specifies the number and the observation made by you and the explanation of the adjustment made. We will keep improving if necessary.

 

Note that:

 

1. Figures 2 and 3 (the level and behavior flow diagram) and three equations were added to better explain the model, for this reason the figure of the influence diagram was adapted, therefore, I added a new source of information to talk about modeling software, is presented in green color.
2. The third paragraph of the results chapter was in section 3.2 so that the explanation of section 3.1 is better understood, it is presented in blue.
3. The last paragraph of the discussion was moved to the last conclusion by adding some details to it, it is presented in blue.
4. I hope with the adjustments made to comply with the guidelines of the journal (Only those corresponding to each evaluator are presented)
5. Figures with sections a and b were divided

 

#	Evaluator observation	Response
	I like the idea of the paper, and I support the overall exercise that it tries to do.  However, I think the authors’ description and analysis fall short	I hope with the adjustments made to comply with the guidelines of the journal
1	I think the authors need to rethink how they explain what they did.  They need to give a fuller description of the group modeling process they followed.	It was clarified with a description of the group co-construction process of the model, in item 1, of numeral 3.2.
2	They need to give a fuller description of the DSS and whatever training they did	A description of the training was made in item 2 of numeral 3.2
3	And they need to give a better explanation of why, after all this effort, they only got about 40 percent of their collaborating farmers to use a DSS	The row was eliminated and the clarification in item 3.4 was added before table 5
4	I think it would also be good to talk about whether the DSS led to better farm performance:	The study did not cover that part, it is expected in another work to do it
5	Page 1: this phrasing makes me think that the authors are not native English speakers.  I would recommend that they pass this manuscript past a native English-speaking editor.	it has already been passed by two natives who offer the proofreading service. I will request the edit review.
6	Page 4: Rational Unified Process.  I had to Google what this was.  For readers unfamiliar with software development, I think the authors should give a brief description here.	It was explained.
7	This sounds more like group model building process, not a result.  If the authors used a group model building process, they should give a full description of how they did it.	It was clarified in item 1, of numeral 3.2, what was done was the validation
8	Page 5: Why were Feed and Hydrate left out of the DSS?  I would think these would be important, almost daily, activities with which a DSS could be helpful....	It was clarified, before item 3.1: “it was left for a new version because the farmers, as found out in [45], they do not have control of it “
9	Page 7: Are there correct answers? The implication is that the "tutor" knows more about running a farm than the farmers do.  Is that plausible?	A description was added after table 3 in item 4 of the list of phases 6 and 7
10	I think we need more information on the elements of this DSS.  I'm getting confused between the "serious game" and the DSS.  I think they are two different things, but since I don't know what the DSS looks like, I can't say for sure.	A description of the alignment between the three was added before section 3.2 and the description of the tools before figure 1 was improved.
11	Page 8: “To show the DSS to the farmers and motivate them to check reports about the decisions made while playing the serious video game.” This only adds to my confusion about the distinction between the game and the DSS.
12	Page 9: Caption for Figure 4: I'm completely unclear about what columns and b are showing.  Is one the game and the other the DSS?  Which is which? If part of this exercise is to make the farmers independent DSS users, why is there a tutor in both columns?	Third level titles were added to improve the explanation of those phases in which the tutor provides accompaniment, therefore the figures were separated
13	Page 11: “… percentage of appropriation of every appropriated farmer 34% for each community.” I’m not sure what this means, here or in Table 5.	It was explained how it was calculated in the paragraph before the table and was complemented with what had been mentioned in the introduction
14	Page 12: I think we need a fuller explanation of what the various functionalities of the DSS are.  We need a full description of what the DSS looks like and how it works.	Added a general explanation of what the DSS required subtitles 3.1.1., 3.1.2., 3.1.3 were placed and therefore the leaks were listed again

Reviewer 3 Report

• Abstract: "This study, the result of doctoral research..." doesn't need to be explained.
• I feel like the background shouldn't discussed about the IT because it's way too broad, whilst the paper focused on the serious game only. In my opinion, the authors must discuss the aspects of serious game and how it informs pedagogy.
• Line 65: please fix "ap2020propriate"
• In Section 2. Would you be able to justify the investment of IT in the Colombian agriculture sector? You may search article regarding the techno-economic assessment of specific IT.
• Could you please provide a simplified version of the system dynamics model?
• Please elaborate more on the explanation of the system dynamics model.

Author Response

Respected evaluator

I hope you are very well.

 

On behalf of the other authors and myself, express that we appreciate your comments. We consider that our work is new because it is aimed at small producers and because it allows to mitigate gaps in IT in the rural sector.

 

All observations were received, we value them very much and therefore the adjust were carried out.

 

The following table specifies the number and the observation made by you and the explanation of the adjustment made. We will keep improving if necessary.

 

Note that:

 

1. Figures 2 and 3 (the level and behavior flow diagram) and three equations were added to better explain the model, for this reason the figure of the influence diagram was adapted, therefore, I added a new source of information to talk about modeling software, is presented in green color.
2. The third paragraph of the results chapter was in section 3.2 so that the explanation of section 3.1 is better understood, it is presented in blue.
3. The last paragraph of the discussion was moved to the last conclusion by adding some details to it, it is presented in blue.
4. I hope with the adjustments made to comply with the guidelines of the journal (Only those corresponding to each evaluator are presented)
5. Figures with sections a and b were divided

 

#	Evaluator observation	Response
1	Abstract: "This study, the result of doctoral research..." doesn't need to be explained.	done
2	I feel like the background shouldn't discussed about the IT because it's way too broad, whilst the paper focused on the serious game only. In my opinion, the authors must discuss the aspects of serious game and how it informs pedagogy.	It was added in 3.1. that the three IT tools unify knowledge, the tools align the way of carrying out the processes and thanks to this they allow to develop the training sessions with farmers and planning production strategies on the farm
3	Line 65: please fix "ap2020propriate"	Done
4	In Section 2. Would you be able to justify the investment of IT in the Colombian agriculture sector? You may search article regarding the techno-economic assessment of specific IT.	Two sources were added in a new paragraph of the introduction, the fourth
5	Could you please provide a simplified version of the system dynamics model?	It was improved in 3.1 The model, in the language of Flow-Level and in its equations in finite differences, is presented with figure 2 and 3
6	Please elaborate more on the explanation of the system dynamics model.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

It is widely known that there are many limitations to the successful adoption of IT in agriculture.  The paper shows a strategy to overcome some constraints to the adoption of DSS in one farming sector, namely bovine production.

Several IT tools are involved in this strategy.

While reading the article, some questions arise.

First is the title. Why do you use the term “Methodological Strategy”?

The definition of Methodological Strategy is: “Methodological Strategy - Mechanism used by the teacher to be applied in class as to obtain a specific goal”. [ https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/methodological-strategy/84389]

Here it is more appropriate to use "Methodology" instead, I think. Since "Methodology" is a

“the general research strategy that outlines the way in which research is to be undertaken and, among other things, identifies the methods to be used in it” [Howell K. An introduction to the philosophy of methodology, SAGE, 2013]. A methodology is a system of methods and principles for doing something, in this sense, section 2.7 needs to be revised - are design and development research one methodology (line 161)? Some terms and approaches are used in a less common sense, perhaps due to some cultural differences.

A more explanation of what type of DSS is used would be worth mentioning.

It would be interesting to understand some of the temporal characteristics of this guided learning process.

Some critical notes:

It is not right reference to the source ‘20’ on line 88, it is not cited correctly.

Тhe colors on Fig. 1 are indistinguishable and disappear in black and white.

It is not shown what is on the ordinate axis in Fig. 3. The last graph in Fig. 3 should be explained - which curve is for what?

The quality of the screenshots is not sufficient (fig. 5, for example).

Author Response

On behalf of the other authors and myself, express that we appreciate your comments. We consider that our work is new because it is aimed at small producers and because it allows to mitigate gaps in IT in the rural sector. All observations were received, we value them very much and therefore the adjust were carried out.

Please note other changes, such as:

1. The limitation of the small product in its bovine system was better explained.

2. The Figures adjustments and References were adjusted

3. I improved something in the second paragraph of the conclusions

4. A description was added that improves the presentation of the model (3.1.1)

 

Comment 1:

First is the title. Why do you use the term "Methodological Strategy"? The definition of Methodological Strategy is: "Methodological Strategy -Mechanism used by the teacher to be applied in class as to obtain a specific goal". [ https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/methodological-strategy/84389] Here it is more appropriate to use "Methodology" instead, I think. Since "Methodology" is a "the general research strategy that outlines the way in which research is to be undertaken and, among other things, identifies the methods to be used in it" [Howell K. An introduction to the philosophy of methodology, SAGE, 2013]. A methodology is a system of methods and principles for doing something, in this sense, section 2.7 needs to be revised - are design and development research one methodology (line 161)? Some terms and approaches are used in a less common sense, perhaps due to some cultural differences.

Response 1:

It was left "strategy", Thanks a lot for the suggestion

 

Comment 2:

A more explanation of what type of DSS is used would be worth mentioning.

Response:

From line 282 to 307. The explanation of the DSS in section 3.1.3 was expanded by adding the requirements and something else was placed in figure 3

 

Comment 3:

It would be interesting to understand some of the temporal characteristics of this guided learning process.

Response 3:

The total of sessions per community was added in table 3

 

Comment 4:

It is not right reference to the source '20' on line 88, it is not cited correctly.

Response 4:

Done

 

Comment 5:

Тhe colors on Fig. 1 are in distinguishable and disappear in black and white.

Response 5:

The cycles were marked with numbers to identify them when in black and white

 

Comment 6:

It is not shown what is on the ordinate axis in Fig. 3. The last graph in Fig. 3 should be explained - which curve is for what?

Response 6:

The names and units of the Y axis were placed and the graph was better explained

 

Comment 7:

The quality of the screenshots is not sufficient (fig. 5, for example).

Response 7:

It was done again

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all, I appreciate to the authors for making efforts to carry out the changes by the referees. I think the authors did a good job in clarifying the queries that this manuscript is substantially improved. However, only some improvements would be acknowledged:

1. Please improve the quality of figures presented. They are still difficult to read some texts inside of the figures that are not clear enough for the general journal readers.
2. Please well format the text and references following the journal guidelines.
3. It is necessary to have a professional language editing because this is more than a matter of occasional errors as a number of phrases and whole sentences actually do not make sense or mean something different from what is intended.

 

Author Response

On behalf of the other authors and myself, express that we appreciate your comments. All observations were received, we value them very much and therefore the adjust were carried out.

Please note other changes, such as:

1. The word "Methodological" was eliminated, it was left alone "Strategy"

2. DSS requirements were added for a better explanation

3. The limitation of the small product in its bovine system was better explained.

4. The Figures adjustments and References were adjusted

5. I improved something in the second paragraph of the conclusions

6. A description was added that improves the presentation of the model (3.1.1)

 

Comment 1:

Please improve the quality of figures presented. They are still difficult to read some texts inside of the figures that are not clear enough for the general journal readers.

Response 1:

The Figures adjustments and References adjustments were made, but the Journal service will be requested

 

Comment 2:

Please well format the text and references following the journal guidelines.

Response 2:

Done

 

Comment 3:

It is necessary to have a professional language editing because this is more than a matter of occasional errors as a number of phrases and whole sentences actually do not make sense or mean something different from what is intended.

Response 3:

Some adjustments were made, we request a new language review

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall comments:

There are still awkward English usages in this manuscript, but I think the problem is deeper. It’s a problem of clearly stating what the authors did and why it mattered, and I think the manuscript, even in this revised version, misses the mark.

As I understand it, the authors recruited some dairy farmers, did a collaborative system dynamics model building process, used that model to create a somewhat slick computer simulation or “microworld,” had the farmers use the microworld/simulation/serious video game, created a DSS based on the microworld, and tried to get farmers to use the DSS to improve the performance of their dairy farms.

However, the authors cloak this somewhat simple enterprise in a very opaque explanation. Furthermore, they never really explain why they chose this sequence of methods, and what it is about the sequence that makes it the preferred approach. Lastly, they make many assertions without evidence, as I mention in my detailed comments.

Was the authors’ objective simply to create the model, the game and the DSS to show that they could do it?  If so, why?  And why did they not show how this approach improved the performance of dairy farms?

Detailed comments:

Page 1: This is one of many examples of incorrect English usage. Proper English would be "to produce," not "for to produce." Perhaps the use of "for" in front of an infinitive like "to produce" is common in Spanish, but it is very rare in English and is almost always incorrect.

Page 2: "Appropriation" can have so many meanings, but I don't know what you mean by it in this context.  Perhaps "adoption" would be a better word?

Page 3: Interesting.  So "appropriation" is "adoption plus "training in and liking of" what is adopted.  That's a new one for me....

I find it hard to believe that a dairy farmer with no more than 25 cows would have a hard time keeping track of the things listed here.  Perhaps an example, of the problem and how IT could solve it, would be helpful.

Page 4, lines 170-171: Good, thanks.

Line 177: This seems like an odd "main result."  The "result" is a methodological strategy? Usually a method yields data (either quantitative or qualitative) and is not itself the "result."

Maybe what the authors really meant is that the methods outlined in section 2.7 led to the adoption of a structured approach to application of the methods.  I still think there had to be some sorts of data/information that were the "results" of the application of the methods discussed....

Page 5, lines 207-208: I still find it hard to believe that dairy farmers don't provide food and water to their herd. I further find it hard to believe that a DSS would be useless to helping determine proper amounts of food and water.

Page 6: I don't know why I didn't notice this the first time through, but your causal loop diagram has no polarities on the arrows.  That is not good practice.

Page 7: I'm not clear about what the Figure 3 graphs represent.  Are they graphs of table functions that you then use in the system dynamics model? 

I also don't understand the scaling, from zero to 1.  One would think that if the charts represent entire herds, there would not be fractions and a maximum of 1.

Page 8, lines 260-261: A birth is certainly an event, but expected weight and expected milk production are not events.

Caption to Figure 5: This is far from clear, especially to a reviewer not familiar with Spanish.

Page 10, lines 308-309: I am surprised that experienced dairy farmers don't know the correct answers to these questions, especially the one about ideal birth time.

Page 13, line 410: What was he threshold?

Page 14, line 426: Kind of useful for a Decision Support System....

Page 15, line 443: What does "Animals Management" mean in Figure 12?  That seems like a very broad category....

Page 16, line 463: Do you mean a "third party"?

Lines 485-492: The authors obviously wanted to use system dynamics as the basis for their "serious video game," which is fine.  I like SD, too.  But did the farmers actually care?  I can see how the video game would have piqued their interest, but did they really care that it had an SD basis?  If so, the authors have not provided any evidence that the farmers were in any way influenced by the SD nature of the video game.

Page 17, lines 516-517: I'm not convinced that the authors have proven this assertion.  If the authors have statements or other evidence from the farmers that they, the farmers, found that the SD model changed their thinking or improved their understanding of how a dairy farm works, they should provide it.

 

Author Response

On behalf of the other authors and myself, express that we appreciate your comments. All observations were received, we value them very much and therefore the adjust were carried out.

Please note other changes, such as:

1.The word “Methodological” was eliminated, it was left alone “Strategy”

2.DSS requirements were added for a better explanation

3.The limitation of the small product in its bovine system was better explained.

4.The Figures adjustments and References were adjusted

5.I improved something in the second paragraph of the conclusions

6.A description was added that improves the presentation of the model(3.1.1)

The following table specifies the number and the observation made by you and the explanation of the adjustment made. We will keep improving if necessary.

 

Comment 1:

As I understand it, the authors recruited some dairy farmers, did a collaborative system dynamics model building process, used that model to create a somewhat slick computer simulation or "microworld," had the farmers use the microworld/simulation/serious video game, created a DSS based on the microworld, and tried to get farmers to use the DSS to improve the performance of their dairy farms.

Response 1:

Affirmations were added and the one located at 512 was removed

 

Comment 2:

Was the authors' objective simply to create the model, the game and the DSS to show that theycould do it? If so, why? And why did they not show how this approach improved the performance of dairy farms?

Response 2:

The work does not have that objective because it is about appropriation of a DSS, the improvement of the productive results will be measured in another project

 

Comment 3:

Page 1: This is one of many examples of incorrect English usage. Proper English would be "to produce," not "for to produce." Perhaps the use of "for" in front of an infinitive like "to produce" is common in Spanish, but it is very rare in English and is almost always incorrect.

Response 3: Thank you very much, please excuse our mistake

 

Comment 4:

Page 2: "Appropriation" can have so many meanings, but I don't know what you mean by it in this context. Perhaps "adoption" would be a better word? Page 3: Interesting. So "appropriation" is "adoption plus "training in and liking of" what is adopted. That's a new one for me....

Response 4:

Yes sir, as you describe it, it is because it is sought is the autonomous use by training, it is also mentioned in the first paragraph of the discussion

 

Comment 5:

I find it hard to believe that a dairy farmer with no more than 25 cows would have a hard time keeping track of the things listed here.Perhaps an example, of the problem and how IT could solve it, would be helpful.

Response 5:

Yes sir, that is the problem, that the farms give them usefulness but they can improve the administration with better information. An explanation of the problem was added in the second paragraph of the introduction to clarify that it is in agreement with what was expressed regarding the VS items.

 

Comment 6:

Page 4, lines 170-171: Good, thanks.

Response 6:

Ok

 

Comment 7:

Line 177: This seems like an odd "main result."The "result" is a methodological strategy? Usually a method yields data (either quantitative or qualitative) and is not itself the "result."

Response 7:

You are right, the work presents the proposed appropriation methodology and the approval result obtained with the five communities, the paragraph was moved and clarified.

Comment 8:

Maybe what the authors really meant is that the methods outlined in section 2.7 led to the adoption of a structured approach to application of the methods. I still think there had to be some sorts of data/information that were the "results" of the application of the methods discussed....

Response 8:

Yes sir, although "Methodological strategy" was removed, "Strategy" was left, that gives clarity. What you express we have in section 3.4 as a result of applying the appropriation strategy that is proposed in this research

 

Comment 9:

Page 5, lines 207-208: I still find it hard to believe that dairy farmers don't provide food and water to their herd. I further find it hard to believe that a DSS would be useless to helping determine proper amounts of food and water.

Response 9:

1. This is sought is that they use the DSS so that they have information.

2. A description was added, that was not planned because the farmers have extensive livestock and do not control the food

 

Comment 10:

Page 6: I don't know why I didn't notice this the first time through, but your causal loop diagram has no polarities on the arrows.That is not good practice.

Response 10:

Done

 

Comment 11:

Page 7: I'm not clear about what the Figure 3 graphs represent. Are they graphs of table functions that you then use in the system dynamics model?

Response 11:

Done and the names and units of the Y axis were placed

 

Comment 12:

I also don't understand the scaling, from zero to 1. One would think that if the charts represent entire herds, there would not be fractions and a maximum of 1.

Response 12:

Done

 

Comment 13:

Page 8, lines 260-261: A birth is certainly an event, but expected weight and expected milk production are not events.

Response 13:

Done

 

Comment 14:

Caption to Figure 5: This is far from clear,especially to a reviewer not familiar with Spanish.

Response 14:

Done

 

Comment 15:

Page 10, lines 308-309: I am surprised that experienced dairy farmers don't know the correct answers to these questions, especially the one about ideal birth time.

Response 15:

Improved

 

Comment 16:

Page 13, line 410: What was he threshold?

Response 16:

Improved

 

Comment 17:

Page 14, line 426: Kind of useful for a Decision Support System....

Response 17: Improved

 

Comment 18:

Page 15, line 443: What does "Animals Management" mean in Figure 12?

Response 18:

Improved

 

Comment 19:

Page 16, line 463: Do you mean a "third party"?

Response 19: Improved

 

Comment 20:

Lines 485-492: The authors obviously wanted to use system dynamics as the basis for their "serious video game," which is fine. I like SD, too. But did the farmers actually care? I can see how the video game would have piqued their interest, but did they really care that it had an SD basis? If so, the authors have not provided any evidence that the farmers were in any way influenced by the SD nature of the video game.

Response 20:

Improved and descriptions about it were added in rows 218 and in row 7 of table 3

 

Comment 21:

Page 17, lines 516-517: I'm not convinced that the authors have proven this assertion.If the authors have statements or other evidence from the farmers that they, the farmers, found that the SD model changed their thinking or improved their understanding of how a dairy farm works, they should provide it.

Response 21:

Yes sir, you are right, the appreciation was modified

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no further suggestions for the authors.