Financial Support Program for Small Farmers, and Its Impact on Local Food Security. Evidence from Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the article examines how the microfinance program addresses the activity of small farms in Indonesia and is not relevant at the major level, the way the authors analyze production, marketing and consumption and its impact on food security is interesting. The methods of analysis used are correctly applied and the conclusions are adequate.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, many thanks for your comment.

This study discusses a context-specific field (and discussions), which may not apply to many other contexts and areas. However, despite some shortcomings, we tried our best to present the result of this study so that the reader can understand it easily.

The results of this study can still be applicable and used as a reference for the context of implementing KMP programs aimed at three specific regions in Indonesia: communities in Papua and West Papua, communities in border areas between countries, and communities living in archipelagic areas. Alternatively, be a reference for other studies related to microloan programs and food security.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper describes a loan program for small farmers in Indonesia. The paper is very interesting and nice to read. However, this kind of paper would be more appropriate as a case study than as a research paper. I understand, real life implementations and studies must be encouraged in refereed journals but at the same time, scientific rigor is a must.

Essentially the study describes the situation and provides some data and opinions from the interviewed e.g., “In light of marketing aspect, some factors affected the farmers’ decision, mostly on the best price, along with relation and commitment. A farmer informed that if they could reach the border line between the two countries to gain better price, they would do it.” Or “In measuring the diverse dietary in the communities, 7 food groups were assessed among the households in average for one month based on the standard 14-day measurement explained previously. In Ruis hamlet, the eating patterns at household level did not change much from 5 years ago, except for the quantity. They saved excess money for other needs, especially for their children's school or college needs, rather than supplementing food.” How they assess the validity of “did not change much” or “saved money”?

The authors provide some information about the study such as number of participants, who they were and so forth. However, the questions in the interview and the way the responses were processed are missing. One can understand that with such a variety of stakeholders is difficult to setup interviews and focus groups, but some information is required at this point.

The study requires some more analysis as to why the program was successful or failed. What are the factors and how these factors were measured? How they weigh the responses and so forth.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Many thanks for your valuable comments and suggestion. I have associated most of your suggestions to the draft, which in detail can be seen in the file that I have submitted together with this note.

However, there is an issue that I want to let you know, which is related to my funding. I am a Ph.D. student with a scholarship that provides funds for publication. The issue is that they (the scholarship provider) will approve a fund for publication at the latest in the last week of my study period, which is between the 24th-30th of this month. This month is the last period of my study based on the contract with the scholarship.   Hence, I hope that (after I send the revision) I will be able to get a letter of acceptance before the scholarship deadline to request the funds from them. If I miss the deadline, I am afraid that I will not be able to pay the APC, even if my paper gets accepted.   Nevertheless, this is not a pressure. You are free to accept my point-to-point responses or not. I just want to communicate the dilemma that I face in this paper process.   Best regards, The 1st author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Title paper - The author mentions microfinance and the authors did not give any overview of the total approved funds, division by purpose or farms, or any other presentation. Adapt the title to the essence of the research.

 

The authors did not review the literature in accordance with the topic. A decision needs to be made whether to talk about the success of a program, or microfinance, or what.

 

The subject of research, goal and hypothesis should be defined. The research method is only a description of the interview, without quantitative representations (huge shortcoming), in fact, neither descriptive statistics, nor correlation, nor regression were applied ... the impact of microfinance on Local Food Security has not been shown, proven and measured.

Due to the importance of the topic, I suggest that the authors turn all statements into numbers and make corrections.

 

Other, but no less important objections:

 

Page 76 ........... interview for the primary data - should be described in detail

Pages 79-81 .... food availability, food access, and food utilization, based on indicators to assess both food availability and food accessibility at household level .... detailed description of indicators

--- The theory of change, if it is the main method, should be described in detail and similar studies should be referred to, why the chosen method, advantages, disadvantages, .....

Pages 113-125 should be shown in a table, not in the text to make it clear what happened

Pages 144-148 authors should show the tabular use of funds, so it is known how many plywood participated and then state the purpose of spending, this description is not adequate for scientific work, as well as an earlier description of the necessary documentation for obtaining a loan - This is not a description of the project.

Pages 191-193 it is clear that climate and weather conditions affect agriculture, but the author did not describe how productivity was measured and it is not enough just to say that it has decreased, thus proving it, showing

Pages 199-204 will be in the literature review segment, not in this part of the paper. The author was supposed to offer specific data on the price, etc.

Pages 210 -215 authors say we used the money to buy machines. It is necessary to find a way to show with a scientific presentation from all respondents how much someone spent and for what purposes. Not per individual farmer.

Page 229 selling at a better price ... in relation to what and what is a reasonable price. The author must understand that there must be some quantitative indicator and comparison in order to show the tendency

Page 238-239 .. “A farmer said,“ Rice is sold directly to consumers, relatives, and colleagues ”... one should unify and compare answers, e.g. Answer I sell rice directly, 20% of respondents, etc.

 

The author mentions the factors in food consumption, somewhere he has to systematize and explain them all, then give quantitative indicators for each

266 -267 The author says: "Hence, we can say that the program did not influence farmers household consumption, except when the selling price of crops was better, as discussed in the next section".

The conclusion in the scientific paper is performed as a confirmation of the hypothesis and statistical indicator ...

271 - 289 the author confuses the terms productivity, sales, consumption and production volume. He says they have increased productivity, and it has not been shown how to prove it. Explains consumption (not said how it is measured) and sales.

298 Food access increased when two conditions were present; increased productivity and reasonable selling price of crops - explain what is a reasonable price, which measures productivity.

307-308 Instead of saving money, they were spending their savings accumulated from several years ago when the prices of latex, palm, and pepper were still reasonable. - explain, what is a reasonable price, by which it measures savings, whose data it uses except said by the respondent, it is not a scientific indicator

338, 342-343 At that time, they consumed more fruits legumes and nuts .... the other communities, show what is more.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Many thanks for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have associated most of your suggestions to the draft, which in detail can be seen in the file that we have submitted together with this note. We hope that we have provided satisfactory responses to all points that you have addressed.

However, there is an issue that I (the first authors) want to let you know, which is related to my funding. I am a Ph.D. student with a scholarship that provides funds for publication. The issue is that they (the scholarship provider) will approve a fund for publication at the latest in the last week of my study period, which is between the 24th-30th of this month. This month is the last period of my study based on the contract with the scholarship.

Hence, I really hope that (after I send the revision) I will be able to get a letter of acceptance before the scholarship deadline to request the funds from them. If I miss the deadline, I am afraid that I will not be able to provide the APC, even if my paper gets accepted.

Nevertheless, this is not a pressure. I just want to communicate the dilemma that I face in this paper process.

 

Best regards,

The first authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been improved in a large extent. I hope this paper can be extended by using more statistics and other formal research methods.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your acknowledgment of our efforts and responses. We could do this thanks to your valuable comments and suggestions.

For the methodology section, I am afraid that we do not have enough time to associate other statistics and other formal research methods to this draft due to the limitation of the deadline of my scholarship fund, where I have to apply for it (in order to provide APC for this draft) at the latest 30th November.

However, we have added the currency information (Dollars and Euros) in the table (4-7). On top of that, we have also changed figure 2 (program’s timeline), where the additional information about Dollars and Euros have also been associated. Due to a technical editing problem, we could not move the previous figure (2). Hence, we hope that the editor will remove the previous one.

The conversion of the currency was also made based on the year of the implementation, such as:

• 2014 rates 1 dollar=12,440 rupiahs and 1 euro=15,746 rupiahs
• 2015 rates 1 dollar=13,795 rupiahs and 1 euro=15,070 rupiahs
• 2016 rates 1 dollar=13,436 rupiahs and 1 euro=14,722 rupiahs
• 2018 rates 1 dollar=14,481 rupiahs and 1 euro=16,560 rupiahs)

I hope this draft could be accepted in time both from the journal and from the fund provider for the APC.

 

Best regards,

The first author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors made a significant effort and responded to most of the comments.
The author should consider showing tables 4-7 in the attachment or systematizing them where they are now. In addition to the national currency, I ask the authors to show the in Dollars / Euros and Rupiahs.

It is not a practice for the author to address reviewers on another occasion. I understand the author’s concern about the scholarship, and we were students.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your acknowledgment of our efforts and responses. We could do this thanks to your valuable comments and suggestions.

For table (4-7), we keep them where they are now; however, we have added the currency information (Dollars and Euros) in the table (4-7). On top of that, we have also changed figure 2 (program’s timeline), where the additional information about Dollars and Euros have also been associated.

Due to a technical editing problem, we could not move the previous figure (2). Hence, we hope that the editor will remove the previous one.

The conversion of the currency was also made based on the year of the implementation, such as:

• 2014 rates 1 dollar=12,440 rupiahs and 1 euro=15,746 rupiahs
• 2015 rates 1 dollar=13,795 rupiahs and 1 euro=15,070 rupiahs
• 2016 rates 1 dollar=13,436 rupiahs and 1 euro=14,722 rupiahs
• 2018 rates 1 dollar=14,481 rupiahs and 1 euro=16,560 rupiahs

Last but not least, I am sorry for communicating another issue besides the content of the paper—however, many thanks for your understanding.

 

Best regards,

The first author.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject undertaken by the Authors is very much on time and well founded. In my opinion the work can be published after taking into consideration some corrects according to comments below.

Comments:

TITLE: corresponds to the work’s content.

ABSTRACTS: line 16 - explain the abbreviation  FGD

KEYWORDS: correct

OBJECTIVES: they were properly established and were fulfilled

INTRODUCTION:  line 48 – explain the abbreviation MDG

RESEARCH  METHODS: Materials  are described correctly.

RESULTS: line 270 - explain the abbreviation CGAP

CONCLUSIONS: properly formed.

REFFERENCES:

• They are not prepared according to the editors’ requirements and need to be corrected.
• no page number in item 18
• different fonts in item 23
• As much as 58.6% of sources consist of literature older than a decade. More recent publications need to be referenced.

 TABLES: Under table number 4 explain how Household dietary diversity score was calculated

FIGURE 1-3: correct, good quality, legible, understandable

Reviewer 2 Report

The idea for the paper is interesting and the topic of food security is always green. It is a good start, but the article lacks the scientific soundness to be published as a journal paper. When you do qualitative research, it can't be limited to storytelling. Even qualitative research has a well-established methodology. Actually the methodology section is too modest. The author's lack of experience in publishing in international journals can be clearly seen.

English requires extensive check and editing. For example, in abstract line 20, if you use the construct 'not only', then, later on, you have to continue by writing 'but also' etc. But in the whole text, there are sentences and expressions which do not sound like proper academic language, there are grammar mistakes, missing or redundant words. 

The Introduction section lacks logic. It is difficult to follow and understand the motivation. What is your contribution to scientific literature? Your aims are good for the report but not for the journal paper. And the last paragraph (lines 69-75) is confusing and repetitive. 

There is a lack of proper literature review, especially that authors say that one of the research methods is the literature review. Additionally, most of the cited articles are rather old (besides few reports). Not all of the references are prepared in line with the author's guide.

The conclusions are loosely related to the considerations and refer to the work of another author, not authors' own.

Some detailed comments:

line 16 (and also line 48) - when you use an abbreviation for the first time (FDGs), you have to give the full name first,

line 80 - who are key informants