Popular and Solidarity Economy: Policies and Realities in the Local Context—The Case of the Agricultural Productive Associations of El Valle, Ecuador
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for revising the article. The authors addressed most points. However, I suggest that authors cite a few basic literature (e.g. action research) in the methodology section. Also, it is necessary to revise the article to ensure consistency of formatting e.g. bullet points, see page 9 etc.
Author Response
Content on the Research-Action methodology was included in the corresponding section.
The signaling in relation to the format was observed and adjusted according to requirements.
The results are organized according to the research questions.
Reviewer 2 Report
There is no aim of research in the text and in the Summary;
The quality of Figure (especially) Legend is not good.
Some suggestions I wrote in the Article.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The research objective was reformulated in the abstract
Research questions were adapted (Introduction)
A sharper image was placed (p. 8)
Reviewer 3 Report
The processed paper is devoted to interesting and attractive topic. The problem of Popular and Solidarity Economy is relevant for scientific discussion. The processed paper is suffering because of several following problems.
- The title of the paper does not really reflect the real content of the paper.
- Literature review is too broad and it is not really focused on issues under the investigation.
- The need of the research and existing knowledge gap are not properly specified.
- The character of paper’s objectives is not clear.
- Methodology of the paper is also not properly specified and explained. Especially, the choice of research methods and approaches is not discussed.
- There is missing relevant evidence related to data representativeness.
- The character of individual outputs and also discussion is very general one and there are no really new findings. The paper just confirms well-known reality.
- The final conclusion could be consider as disappointment as it does not provide any really new finding. At least, no really new finding is not highlighted.
It is necessary to revise significantly the submitted paper before its possible publishing.
Author Response
The argumentation is detailed in the annex
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised paper is still suffering at least because of one problem:
Methodology of the paper is also not properly specified and explained. Especially, the choice of research methods and approaches is not discussed. Please focused your attention on the issue of data sample representativeness.
Author Response
The methodological procedure is detailed (Page 9), which makes it possible to clarify the form used to organize the results in correspondence with the evidence that supports the answers to the research questions. The information collected and its processing demonstrates the existence of the problem addressed in the research, based on the findings found in this process, based on this, the discussion was carried out focusing points of view and comparing results that support the conclusions.
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
A significant improvement of the writing is needed, and not only due to the unsatisfactory quality of the English used. Sentences are too, long; there are words repetitions in the same sentence;; the "main results" should be presented in the conclusions and not in the introduction; a map of where the region analyzed is will be useful for non-Ecuatorian readers.
Political opinions, irrelevant for the object of the article, on capitalism, periphery versus central countries... (even if I personally agreed with many of them) should be removed from a scientific article.
Acronyms such as UNDP, SPSE, FARPSE, FIFA should be specified before use.
I am surprised that no reference is made in the discussion or the conclusion to the possibility to add value to the products, despite the fact that the exemple of jams is presented in the results.
,
Author Response
The wording was revised The expressions indicated were based on from the perspective of economic theory, scientific perspective Arguments were added to the discussion
Reviewer 2 Report
Must be "The aim of research" and main results in "Abstract" (line 28);
The aim of research can not be as questions; The aim must show result of your proposal. What do you want to propose? (line 69);
It is difficult to understand the structure of peasant agriculture. Maybe it better to show in Figure or Table. (line 120);
Quality of map is not good. I can not read the Legend (line 261);
Not clear table (figura 7). It is table or Figura? (line 442-444);
There are not clear conclusions; There are not proposals for small producers as well for their associations; How Associations can take care for small producers (line 603-653);
Some proposals are in article.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
File with answers is attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper addresses questions related to a new economic policy (popular and solidarity economy) and its impact on the farmer organization, especially for changes in socio-economic situations and organizational capacity development. The topic is interesting and related to the broader scholarship of the journal. The paper used mixed methods and described it as a reflective process that includes an action research component. The paper has the potentials to contribute to the knowledge domain related to sustainable agricultural practices. However, there are few issues that the authors should take into consideration for improving the article.
- The justification of the research has not been well articulated. In the introduction, the authors introduced the policy, which they call PSE, without proper references to it (page 1). The issues related to persistent poverty were introduced, followed by the research on farmers' organizations. There is a gap in justifying the reason for looking into socio-economic situations of farmers organization, as well organizational capacity development.
- In the conceptural framework, the author discussed the concept of poverty, economic policy and solidarity economy. There is a missing link with the organization development, especially for farmers' organization. How farmers’ organization is embedded within the new economic system? Why should we investigate the questions posed in the paper? This section needs to be re-organized. Also, I suggest including concepts/literature (recent) related to family farming/farmers organization. Consider searching the following platform and key resources, including FAO documents.. http://www.fao.org/family-farming/resources/en/ and https://tapipedia.org/resources#tabs-0-contentmain2
- The methodology is not clear. More specially, the action research component was not clearly articulated. What specific components of the research do authors want to claim as action research? Data analysis needs to be clearly described.
- The findings are descriptive and lack analytical rigour, mainly due to lack of well developed conceptual frame and plan for data analysis.
- The discussion includes random concepts, such as governance, market factors, aids and rural policy etc. These topics are disconnected from the existing conceptual framework and do not align with the research questions. I would suggest organizing the discussion according to the themes related to the research questions and re-write the conceptual framework.
- The conclusion should be written reflecting the key discussions (say the most important themes under each question), and highlighting the contribution of the paper for policy and scholarship.
Author Response
A response to the proposals made by the reviewer is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The text can be published in its present form
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised version did not address comments on methodology. It is necessary to clearly differentiate the 'action' component if the authors want to claim the methodology to be action research. As per the current description, any qualitative or mixed-method can be defined as action research. Why action research is necessary in this case? and what specific change does the research aim at? behavioural, practice, or different ways of thinking?
How did the author incorporate findings from observation, focus groups? The data analysis part is missing. Therefore, the paper reads like a survey report, especially when reading the findings and discussion.
