Implementing Zonal Aquaculture Innovation Platforms in Uganda: Key Lessons Learned

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

first of all, thank you for your work. While the study appears to have potential value, several major concerns must be addressed to meet the standards for publication. I hope my comments may help you.

1. Structure: The current structure of the manuscript does not adhere to the conventional standards expected in academic publications. Typically, a clear division between sections such as Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion is recommended to guide readers smoothly through the research process and findings. I recommend reorganizing the manuscript to align with these standards, ensuring that each section is distinctly marked and contains the appropriate content.

2. Justification of methodology: The methodology is just briefly described. However, there is insufficient justification from the literature for this choice. It is crucial to provide a thorough literature-based rationale explaining why this particular methodology is suited to achieving the objectives of your study. This should include a discussion of how the chosen methods align with similar studies in the field or why they were preferred over alternative approaches.

3. Research gap and research questions: The manuscript lacks a clearly defined research gap and specific research questions, which are essential to contextualize the study within the broader field. Identifying a research gap not only clarifies the contribution of the study but also strengthens the manuscript's foundation by delineating what new information or understanding it intends to provide. I recommend revising the literature to explicitly state a research gap to be filled and to clearly articulate the research questions guiding the study.

4. Literature Review: Alongside these issues, the literature review could be enhanced to provide a more comprehensive background. This would not only support the justification of the methodology but also better establish the framework for the research questions and the identification of the research gap.

Best regards.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A revision of language is needed to fix minimal grammatical errors and enhance overall clarity.

Author Response

REVIEWER #1

 

 Structure: The current structure of the manuscript does not adhere to the conventional standards expected in academic publications. Typically, a clear division between sections such as Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion is recommended to guide readers smoothly through the research process and findings. I recommend reorganizing the manuscript to align with these standards, ensuring that each section is distinctly marked and contains the appropriate content.

 

Reply:  Thank you for this comment. Although the abstract follows the style of structured abstracts, it should be without headings. This is contained in the Instructions for Authors regarding this journal, and can be accessed on; https://www.mdpi.com/journal/platforms/instructions

 

We have tried to follow the key ingredients as highlighted by the Journal. For instance, in the introduction, we tried to briefly place the study in a broad context and highlighted why it is important. We defined the purpose of the work. The current state of the research field was reviewed carefully and key publications cited.

 

 

 Justification of methodology: The methodology is just briefly described. However, there is insufficient justification from the literature for this choice. It is crucial to provide a thorough literature-based rationale explaining why this particular methodology is suited to achieving the objectives of your study. This should include a discussion of how the chosen methods align with similar studies in the field or why they were preferred over alternative approaches.

 

 Reply: We have tried to add few sections in the materials and methods. In this section, established methods were briefly described and appropriately cited. We included another figure 1, which describes the whole process of innovation platform formation.

 

 

  Research gap and research questions: The manuscript lacks a clearly defined research gap and specific research questions, which are essential to contextualize the study within the broader field. Identifying a research gap not only clarifies the contribution of the study but also strengthens the manuscript's foundation by delineating what new information or understanding it intends to provide. I recommend revising the literature to explicitly state a research gap to be filled and to clearly articulate the research questions guiding the study.

 

Reply:  This is already highlighted in the introduction.

 

  Literature Review: Alongside these issues, the literature review could be enhanced to provide a more comprehensive background. This would not only support the justification of the methodology but also better establish the framework for the research questions and the identification of the research gap.

 

Reply:  This is already highlighted in the introduction in red

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer #2

Abstract

Replace with linkages

Reply: This has been fixed.

 

 

Introduction

Replace equitable development with” growth”

Reply: This has been fixed.

 

Materials and Methods

 

How will the sustainability of the IPs at the end of the project?

Reply:  The comment is helpful, and this was addressed.The new revised text reads as follows:

Relatedly, operational guidelines for the zonal innovation platforms were developed by the stakeholders under the guidance of innovation zonal coordinators. To enhance IP sustainability, business models were developed and membership subscription sys-tems were established to create a sense of ownership and belonging.

 

Results and Discussion

 

Gender and Composition of Participants

The discussion part is missing:

Reply: We agree with this suggestion and our reply has been integrated into our revisions related to this section 3.1. We cited some literature to support our findings.

 

Is there a way the innovation platforms are connected to each other for information sharing?

Reply: Thank you.

Different social media platforms were established to ensure information flow between actors from different zones.

 

Comments in the tables

Reply: This has been fixed to avoid missing text in the tables.

 

Conclusion

Reply: Suggestions in the conclusion section have been addressed as indicated in the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper, titled: "Implementing Zonal Aquaculture Innovation Platforms in Uganda: Key Lessons Learned" discusses pertinent aquaculture issues but can be improved by addressing the suggestions indicated in the attached PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of text required.

Author Response

Reviewer #3

 

Abstract

Comment 1: List of constraints to be named

Reply: Thank you for this, by the According to guidelines for authors, the abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum therefore,  naming all the constraints would make the abstract lengthy and above 200 words.

 

Comment 2:  Conclusion should come from your results

Reply: We agree with this suggestion, and this was addressed in the abstract section.

 

Materials and Methods

 

Comment 3: Delete “The before 2.1”

Reply: This has been fixed.

 

Comment 4: How many participants in the workshop

Reply: A total of 438 participants were part of the IP formation process .The number of participants in each zonal aquaculture innovation platform (AIP) during workshops held across Uganda from September 2022 to January 2023 are indicated in Figure 3.

 

Results and Discussion

Comment 5:

Rework on the sentence.

Reply: This has been fixed

 

Comment 6: Tables should come immediately or the next page after you mention them.

Reply: This has been fixed.

 

Comment 7: ‘’Many hatchery operators are unaware of the feeding requirements of their broodstock’’. This wasn’t reflected in your findings.

Reply: We agree with this suggestion. This statement has been removed.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work's biggest issue is its structure and the lack of clear research gaps. The previous review highlighted the main issues to be fixed, but they still remain in the current version of this manuscript.

Indeed, the paper needs a clear literature frame from which research questions and research gaps arise.

Moreover, the structure of the document does not meet scientific standards.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1:

Our study is based on workshops conducted to gather information on innovation platforms in aquaculture across the country. This is the first study of its kind and the aquaculture platforms did not exist previously. We established these platforms and collected information through focus group discussions. We have not yet conducted impact studies on the aquaculture innovation platforms.

We believe that our manuscript addresses all the key elements necessary for publication in this journal. The structure and approach of our manuscript align with the requirements of the journal, and we disagree with the reviewer's assertion that we did not follow the structure.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that similar aquaculture studies following our approach have been successfully published in other renowned journals, including:

Bush, S.R., Pauwelussen, A., Badia, P., Kruk, S., Little, D., Luong, L.T., Newton, R., Nhan, D.T., Rahman, M.M., Sorgeloos, P., Sung, Y.Y., 2021. Implementing aquaculture technology and innovation platforms in Asia. Aquaculture 530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735822.

Schut, M., Klerkx, L., Rodenburg, J., Kayeke, J., Hinnou, L.C., Raboanarielina, C.M., Adegbola, P.Y., van Ast, A., Bastiaans, L., 2015. RAAIS: Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Innovation Systems (Part I): A diagnostic tool for integrated analysis of complex problems and innovation capacity. Agric. Syst. 132, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2014.08.009

Joffre, O.M., Klerkx, L. & Khoa, T.N.D. Aquaculture innovation system analysis of transition to sustainable intensification in shrimp farming. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 38, 34 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0511-9.

We hope that these points address the concerns raised by the reviewer, and have our paper published.

Thank you.