Spatiotemporal Heterogeneity of Total Factor Productivity of Grain in the Yangtze River Delta, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

  This study analyze the spatiotemporal Heterogeneity of Grain Total Factor Productivity in Yangtze River Delta, China. Overall, I thank the authors for this very interesting manuscript and for sharing these valuable research results. However, the quality of the English writing was weak. Partly sentences were not understandable. The authors must once again go carefully through the entire manuscript and improve the English writing. In addition, please improve the resolution of images.  

 

 

Line 8, Line 20: What is “DEA”、“GDP”, please use full name for first occurrence.

Line172-Line258: Overview (or summarize) rather than piling up literature.

Line290-292: sentences were not understandable.

Figure 4 and Figure 6: Please give the labels and the units of the axis coordinates. Furthermore, please improve the resolution of images.

Figure 5 and Figure 7: please improve the resolution of images.

The quality of the English writing was weak. Partly sentences were not understandable. The authors must once again go carefully through the entire manuscript and improve the English writing. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper analyzed the grain’s total factor productivity in Yangtze River Delta, China with the DEA-based Malmquist Index. It is a good job. However, some terms and sentences are hard to understand. The structure of this paper needs improvements. Extensive language editing is needed, and the writing quality needs to be improved. Here are some comments.

[1] Use one terms for "grain total factor productivity" and "total factor productivity of grain".

[2] "Food" and "grain" are not the same thing.

[3] Avoid some words which repeat the same thing. This is the biggest issue of writing. Native language editing is needed.

[4] “Food total factor productivity” and “grain total factor productivity” appear several times in Abstract. “Food” and “grain” are not the same thing. It should be clear what this paper is talking about.

[5] In line 9 “…use DEA Malmquist index method…”, “method” could be deleted.

[6] In line 17-19 “there is a large spatial heterogeneity, and the spatial distribution of total factor productivity of grain in the region is not centralized…”, what has a large spatial heterogeneity?

[7] In line 19 “…such as the level of grain economic development…”, what is “grain economic development? It is hard to understand.

[8] In line 22 “…unit area grain yield…”, what does it mean? Yield is calculated in unit area.

[9] In line 29 “…grain yield per unit area”, what does it mean? It is the same case as in the above comment.

[10] I think the Keywords could be like “total factor productivity, grain, Spatiotemporal heterogeneity, DEA-based Malmquist Index, Yangtze River Delta”.

[11] In line 50-51 “This research therefore, studies food productivity…”, “food” doesn’t equal to “grain”. “...research studies…”, this sentence is hard to read.

[12] In line 53 “This study takes the Yangtze River Delta region of China as the research object…”, the Yangtze River Delta is the research area, not research object.

[13] In Introduction, it is not necessary to talk about food security. This paper is discussing total factor productivity.

[14] The literature review could be included in Introduction. And the writing of literature review needs improvements, including focusing on research progress on grain’s total factor productivity, summarizing the key points of current studies, showing what is needed to be investigated on this topic and what this paper is going to do.

[15] It is better to show the paper’s structure in Introduction.

[16] In line 260 “3.1 Study framework”, I think “research design” is better than “study framework” for the section title.

[17] Figure 2 looks too complicated. This paper is a research article, not a project.

[18] “Total factor productivity of grain” and “grain total factor productivity” appear more often in this paper. Can one term be used instead of these two?

[19] The section of Methodology needs improvement. Usually, Methodology includes Data and Method. Data preparing or processing could be included in the section of “Data”.

[20] Some words are not needed.  For example, in line 325 “3.5.1. DEA-Malmquist index method”, “method” could be deleted. In line 452 “This study selected data on total factor productivity…”, “data on” could be deleted. Such issues can be seen in the whole paper.

[21] Can all figures be clearer?

[22] In line 395 “Results and discussions” and line 490 “5. Discussion”, it looks like two sections have discussions.

[23] “Analysis of…” in those section titles could be deleted.

[24] Section 5.3 “Study Prospects” could be included in Conclusion as the last paragraph.

Native language editing is needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, the research topic of this general paper is very concentrated and the logic is very clear. Please check the following suggestions:

 

1. The introduction, literature review, and method introduction of the manuscript are too long, please simplify and highlight key information or draw more frame logic diagrams to enhance understanding.

2. The number of references in the manuscript is not enough, only 38, which does not match the length of the manuscript. Please increase the number of references.

3. Figures' resolution of the entire manuscript is too low to read clearly. Please increase the resolution of Figures.

Moderate editing is required for the English language.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The second version looks better. However, it could be improved by addressing some more comments.

[1] In line 41-42 “The Yangtze River Delta locates in the lower reaches of the Yangtze River, including in Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Anhui provinces, with…”, it doesn’t look correct. Based on Wikipedia, “The Yangtze Delta or Yangtze River Delta (YRD, Chinese: 长江三角洲 or simply Chinese: 长三角) is a triangle-shaped megalopolis generally comprising the Wu Chinese-speaking areas of Shanghai, southern Jiangsu, northern Zhejiang and northern Jiangxi. ” Why is Jiangxi not included in this study? Be careful about the introduction of the research region.

[2] In line 44 “CNY 24.5 trillion”, use the full name “Chinese Yuan” of “CNY” for its first appearance.

[3] In line 65-67 “Therefore, this study attempts to answer the following questions: how to measure the TFPG? What are the spatiotemporal evolution characteristics of the TFPG in the Yangtze River Delta?”, it is better to show the purpose of this paper with declarative sentences.

[4] The literature review could be improved. Do not copy and paste the anthers’ names and their results. It could be summarized by research area, indicators, models, etc. For example, “Zhang Q et al. (2018) used the three-stage DEA model and the Tobit regression model to analyze the influencing factors of China’s grain production efficiency, based on the provincial panel data of the main grain-producing areas from 2006 to 2016 [16]. Linn Maenhout et al. (2019) used descriptive statistics and DEA to analyze the profitability and efficiency of rice production…”

[5] In line 224 “This study used the DEAP to calculate the TFPG…”, use full name for “DEAP”.

[6] This article requires further revisions to enhance its accuracy and clarity of expression.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The low resolution of Figures 4 and 6 makes the content completely unreadable, and I believe readers are also unable to read it. Please increase the resolution of Figures 4 and 6 to make them as clear as Figure 1.

Please have native speakers polish the entire text

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf