A Systematic Review of Agricultural Sustainability Indicators
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled A review of agricultural sustainability indicators'' has been well written. It potentially can be published after some consideration. please see the comments below:
Line 21: keywords should be different from title words. Make them specific.
Line 17: Before abbreviation “WoS” please mention it.
Lines 26-27: There are problem with the structure of the sentence and should be corrected.
Lines 62-63: provide source(s)
Lines 68-69: “Ther many ….. in another” --> There are problem with the structure of the sentence and should be corrected.
The Introduction is not impressive. Authors should better explain the novelty of the study and what it offers in comparison to previous literature.
Lines 73-85: ''2.1. Sustainable agriculture''.--> this section contains some repetitive sentences and not well structured and should be modified.
Lines 120-121, 157-158: There are problem with the structure of the sentence and should be corrected.
The Method section (lines 213-261): The text isn’t justified, please corrected --> you can use the keyboard shortcut CTRL+ J to justify your text or you can also follow --> Home > paragraph > Justify.
Before line 253: Figure 1 Year of published papers is incorrect --> Figure 5 is correct.
The Discussion is not impressive and should be modified.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
I have changed and corrected them based on your comments.
Thank you
Line 21: keywords should be different from title words. Make them specific.
Response: Keywords were changed and highlighted
Line 17: Before abbreviation “WoS” please mention it.
Response: The Web of Science (WOS) replaced.
Lines 26-27: There are problem with the structure of the sentence and should be corrected.
Response: The corrected sentence was replaced.
Lines 62-63: provide source(s)
Response: Two references were added
Lines 68-69: “Ther many ….. in another” --> There are problem with the structure of the sentence and should be corrected.
Response: The corrected sentence was replaced.
The Introduction is not impressive. Authors should better explain the novelty of the study and what it offers in comparison to previous literature.
Response: The gap of study is added to this paper.
Lines 73-85: ''2.1. Sustainable agriculture''.--> this section contains some repetitive sentences and not well structured and should be modified.
Response: The repetitive sentence was deleted.
Lines 120-121, 157-158: There are problem with the structure of the sentence and should be corrected.
Response: The sentences were corrected.
The Method section (lines 213-261): The text isn’t justified, please corrected --> you can use the keyboard shortcut CTRL+ J to justify your text or you can also follow --> Home > paragraph > Justify.
Response: Corrected
Before line 253: Figure 1 Year of published papers is incorrect --> Figure 5 is correct.
Response: Corrected
The Discussion is not impressive and should be modified.
Response: Corrected
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Bathaei and Streimikiene wrote a useful systematic review. I believe this review should be rechecked for some minor things listed below:
- I believe the manuscript should check by a native speaker and increase the level of English.
- Graphical abstracts can be useful.
- Use Doi after each reference
- Reference style isn't true, check it once again.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
I have changed and corrected them based on your comments.
Thank you
I believe the manuscript should check by a native speaker and increase the level of English.
Response: Addressed
Graphical abstracts can be useful.
Use Doi after each reference
Response: Corrected
Reference style isn't true, check it once again.
Response: Corrected
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a good piece of research. The authors have undertaken the difficult task of sifting through a vast literature with adequate care and attention. Suggest the following:
1. Both the abstract and conclusion sections need to be more focussed and succinct.
2. the paper needs thorough editing to improve grammar and syntax.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
I have changed and corrected them based on your comments.
Thank you
- Both the abstract and conclusion sections need to be more focussed and succinct.
Response: Corrected
2. the paper needs thorough editing to improve grammar and syntax.
Response: Addressed
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
