Barriers to the Adoption of Innovations for Sustainable Development in the Agricultural Sector—Systematic Literature Review (SLR)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript “sustainability-2207512” entitled “Barriers to the adoption of innovations for Sustainable Development in the Agricultural Sector - Systematic Literature Review (SLR)” by Restrepo et al. provides a comprehensive overview of identifying and analyzing the global barriers that exist in the agricultural sector to implement innovative practices that lead to a transformation towards sustainable agriculture.
For publication in the “Sustainability” journal, the topic and content are appropriate. The subject of the review is interesting and topical, with high scientific and practical importance. The introduction is in accordance with the subject and correctly presented. Numerous scientific articles of recent date and in concordance with the topic of the study were consulted. The methodology of the study was clearly presented, and appropriate to the proposed objectives. The obtained results have been fully analyzed. The scientific literature, to which the reporting was made, is recent and representative in the field. The editing and linguistic quality are good. In addition, it is easy to follow by the reader, the figures and tables give good summaries and the text editing to a thoughtful conclusion part. However, there are some points that need attention in order for the article to be published. I would like to recommend the publication of this article, and a (very) minor revision is required for the reasons listed below:
· The abstract is too long (255 words when the limit is about 200 words) and descriptive.
· Keywords: Please change some keywords. The title and keywords must not contain the same words
· Be consistent with the formatting of references and cross-references. This has to be standardized across the paper. (e.g., line 459: The correct is: “Redick [31] studied the ….”)
· Finally, the reviewer recommends the authors carefully check and revise the references back matter section manuscript according to the “Instructions for authors”.
Thank you for your consideration.
Author Response
Initially we thank you for your valuable contributions, we are sure that these comments/suggestions will allow our article to have a higher level in terms of quality and impact on future readers, thank you again.
1. According to the reviewer's suggestion, the correction was taken into account
2. According to the suggestions keywords were changed
3. We have revised the citation rules according to the journal's policy "In the text, reference numbers should be placed between square brackets [ ] and placed before punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1, 3] "In this case the author should not be placed.
4. According to the reviewer's suggestions, “Instructions for authors” was revised.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The objective of the research on which this study is based is of great interest and is expressed very clearly:
- an epistemological purpose, to systematically review the scientific literature on the object of study to identify and analyze the global barriers that exist in the agricultural sector;
- another applied purpose to help implement innovative practices that facilitate progress towards sustainable agriculture;
- a complementary but also valuable objective to stimulate future scientific research on this topic.
However, I think that the development of this article has some shortcomings that should be corrected before publication:
1.- The theoretical framework, which should be one of the fundamental elements of this study, seems to be a heading that is poorly focused on its specific objective. It's confusing. This theoretical framework, an essential pillar of an epistemological review study, is based on no more than four bibliographical references (9 to 12) in contradiction with the first proposed objective.
2.- Section 3, dedicated to the explanation of the materials used and the methods applied, consists of a concise exposition of a little innovative methodology since it is the type of method traditionally used in this class of academic works.
3.- The presentation of the results is limited to a very poor description of the references used.
4.- The discussion is practically non-existent and essentially consists of reproducing the extensive table prepared to characterize the bibliographical references used. Authors should reflect on whether this table should not be placed in the results chapter.
Author Response
We want to thank you for the comments and recommendations, this definitely helps us improve the quality of our paper, according to your suggestion on the theoretical framework we have included seven additional references specifically related to barriers to the adoption of innovations in the agricultural sector, this is carried out using again the search equation in Scopus and selecting the seven studies in the period 2021 - 2023 that effectively contributed to the issue of barriers.
The proposed methodology has been used and satisfactorily evaluated by Q1 and Q2 journal peers such as: Business Strategy and the Environment ; Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems; International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change; International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy; Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity among others.
• https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bse.2261#:~:text=The%20barriers%20that%20hinder%20the,environment%2C%20and%20lack%20of%20awareness.
• https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2021.761297/full
• https://www.ijicc.net/images/vol10iss6/10621_Sossa_2019_E_R.pdf
• https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJFIP.2021.118801
• https://www.mdpi.com/2199-8531/7/2/161
For this reason we decided to apply the same methodology in this paper.
We have complemented the discussion by comparing our results with the barriers found in the studies by Dorst et al (2022) and Toxopeus, Polzin (2021).
The new paragraphs added to the discussion were:
Taking into account the update of results for the period 2021 - 2023, several reviews were found, however, only two of them mention specific barriers in the adoption of innovations for sustainable development in agriculture, Toxopeus, Polzin (2021) identified two barriers. for urban nature-based solutions (NBS): coordination between public and private funders and integration of NBS benefits into valuation and accounting methods, they also discussed strategies found in the literature that address these barriers. Our paper also found 9 financial barriers: Uncertain and long-term return on investment, Little investment in R&D, Difficulty access credit, complex financing, Farmer's investment power, High implementation costs, Few subsidies for peasants, Null perception of benefits, Investment power, some of these barriers are more related to the findings of Toxopeus, Polzin (2021) in financial barrier 2, on barrier 1 of the authors no similarities were found.
In this same period of time, the paper by Dorst et al (2022) was found, in which seven barriers were identified: Limited collaborative governance, Knowledge, data and awareness challenges, Low private sector engagement, Competition over urban space, Insufficient policy development , implementation and enforcement oriented at NBS, Insufficient public resources (incl. maintenance challenges), Citizen engagement challenges. In the results of our paper, 9 barriers directly related to those identified by Dorst et al (2022) were found, these are summarized as: Lack of policies, Lack of Farmer knowledge, data security paradigm, Internal policies of companies not compatible with the change, strategic management of companies, Lack of policies, Few subsidies, Little investment in research and Badly formulated policy in the Citizen engagement challenges grouper we did not achieve a relationship with our paper
We have decided to leave the table in its current position to serve as a reference source for future readers.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
- Modify the abstract so that it better reflects the results of the research, and give the methodology and the research method very concisely.
- At the end of the abstract, add a sentence referring to the Conclusion.
- The conclusion should be modified, i.e. avoid unnecessary listing of results, but focus more on the practical benefits of research. What did we conclude based on the results of the research and discussion? How to overcome barriers to the introduction of innovations and in which direction should research continue?
- In the paper itself, some suggestions are written in bubbles, which should be paid attention to.
- The Guidelines for Authors should be consulted, especially the References section.
Good luck in your further research!
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank you in advance for the suggestions and recommendations made, without a doubt this will give our paper an increase in quality and interest in the future reader. The adjustments made in the article were:
Added an extra conclusion in the summary
The writing and presentation of some conclusions was improved
The suggested format "Instructions for Authors" related to references was revised
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Very good article. Apart from minor corrections related to the figures edition, I think it is flawless. A very good introduction to the topic, a broad approach to innovation, a communicative discussion. Ready to publish.
Figure 2 - data not visible, the title in the graph is duplicated.
Minor punctuation errors - line 224.
Figure 3 - wrong proportions of the graph, stretching.
Figure 4 - illegible description in the drawing, can the descriptions be enlarged?
Author Response
As the correspondent author of this paper, I thank you for all your comments/suggestions, we are sure that all these aspects allow us to deliver a paper with superior quality for the peace of mind of all authors and future readers. Again thank you very much
In front of figure 2 we modify the title so that it is no longer duplicated
We review the entire document in order to avoid punctuation errors.
Faced with the comments related to the figures, they were slightly expanded, this type of graphics does not allow to be modified in its entirety because it is a direct image generated by the software, however, we made our best effort in the edition.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
The abstract is good providing all the information needed to make a decision whether the reader needs to read the article or it is out of scope of his expertise or interest. The only thing - while mentioning number and type of innovations please either take away 26 that are not related to technology - just not mention them - or give the type - saying 26 is not technology is not good.
Introduction
The first paragraph (1 sentence) is not coherent - please check the grammar - it is not logically ok
FAO is not given the full title at least I didn't find it
In general the introduction is good, sufficiently an ethically referenced and provides the background for the research goal.
Section 2 is ok and relevant with some context for the research however the title of the section seems irrelevant - of course it deals with the ThF - however if you don't provide any particular methodology as a framework and elaborate on a theoretical framework as the background then this is too short and general. Probably theoretical context or background will sound better - this is just a suggestion.
Section 3 is detailed and very clear which proves the logic of the experiment however the yeas involved in the search are not stated. Were they identified - the time period? With the rapidly developing technology and a technological cycle getting shorter it is important to put a time period before doing a selection. Probably the authors did but didn't mention it. Please check. Wht about 2020+ literature?
Section 4 is brief and clear.
I am not sure if figures 3 and 4 would be readable in that resolution please check.
Discussion section is the biggest one and provides and extensive table on innovation, its type, barrier and two other points. I guess it would be good to clarify that the innovation mentioned aims at overcoming barrier, the authors just say - barrier as a separate point - please unite them logically
The table is big however this can be justified if it is used as a general resource for ideas, data, information, direction and etc. In my view the barriers are identified in a way of notes or comments of the reader or writer - they are not clear and sound strange sometimes - as if to be understandable just for those who wrote them. For example - Greater work effort, Investment power, Lack of policies that pro- mote and some others- please name them properly so that they can be borrowed and used further in other research as this is supposed to be a review - if the barriers’ titles sound good out of context of this article - this would strengthen the value of the results.
The whole section is very detailed and provides authors' analysis of the results obtained and some more descriptive aspects after the table 1 which probably can be shortened as they go into the detail of every source
The conclusion is good however some points lack the insight for example the conclusion From the 43 cases found, 33 were Process Innovation, 6 as Product Innovation and 4 as Organizational Model - what does it mean in terms of your review? there are only 3 types of innovation mentioned so it is not difficult to pull some more insights from this conclusion and try to figure out and say here why33 are process and just 4 are organizational and none marketing?
the same about the next sentence - it is given just as a statement - there is definitely need to open up the fact - The innovation that had the highest number of related articles was Organic Agriculture with 7 publications, followed by Genetic Engineering with 5 and Precision Agriculture with 4
The rest of it is much more insightful
There are some style and spelling issues - some capital letters out of place and grammar inconsistences - please check
The review in general and the methodology is good - I like the way it was performed and the approaches used. I am surprised there are no sources 2020+ - that is my main major concern here.
Author Response
We want to thank you for the comments and recommendations, this definitely helps us to improve the quality of our paper, according to your suggestion.
Regarding the time period, there was no preference for specific time ranges, that is, the results range from the first document found in Scopus to 2020, the date on which the search was carried out in the database, now, in order to After taking into account the recommendations on the inclusion of the most recent results, a new search was made in Scopus, obtaining dozens of other results between 2021 and 2023, but of which only seven documents were directly related to barriers, so we made the decision in the theoretical framework and references, we also include two additional reviews from 2021 and 2023 to further deepen the discussion
We have decided to leave the paragraphs with the explanations below the table, in order to provide qualitative elements to future readers.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have added appropriate modifications to the original manuscript based on most of the suggestions and directions made in the review report.
