Savior or Distraction for Survival: Examining the Applicability of Machine Learning for Rural Family Farms in the United Arab Emirates

Reviewer 1 Comment Number

Reviewer 1 Comments

Authors’ Response

Reviewer 1 Comment 1 (R1 C1)

The abstract should be shortened and re-worked. It should present the objectives, method, results, and conclusions very clearly.

This has been addressed in page 1 of the manuscript.

Reviewer 1 Comment 2 (R1 C2)

I would recommend deleting the paragraph: "This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents a literature review involving a review of worldwide studies and a discussion on rurality. Section 3 will provide an outline of the research methodology for this research. The findings from this research will be presented in Section 4. A discussion based on the key findings from this research will be provided in Section 5. The final section will discuss the key findings in terms of policy, practical and theoretical implications, the problems and limitations encountered in the research, and recommendations for future researchers and businesses."

This has been addressed on Page 2 of the manuscript document.

Reviewer 1 Comment 3 (R1 C3)

What is the research question of the study?

This has been addressed in page 1 of the manuscript.

Reviewer 1 Comment 4 (R1 C4)

I appreciate the attempt to systemise the research on drivers and barriers for rural businesses. However, the Authors can specify the locations in Asia (eg. European countries are listed). I am absolutely sure that the drivers and barriers are specific for every Asian country.

Updates made in Table 1 and Table 2.

Reviewer 1 Comment 5 (R1 C5)

Why is the order of columns (Authors and Locations) in the Tables 1 and 2 different?

Changes made to Table 2

Reviewer 1 Comment 6 (R1 C6)

There is no data on the Arabic countries in the review section. Have you carefully checked the publications on this topic? Is this the 'gap'?

Studies added in Table 1 and 2. However, there is limited research based in Arab countries.

Reviewer 1 Comment 7 (R1 C7)

I would recommend limiting the analysis of these barriers and drivers since it is mostly focused on the experience of other countries (not Arabic samples).

As Arab countries have been included in Table 1 and 2 then the analysis has become relevant. Tables 1 and 2 provide an insight to ICT adoption drivers and barriers amongst all rural businesses. Therefore, a background discussion on the difference between ICT adoption drivers and barriers between family and non-family businesses is required to demonstrate an understanding of the literature related to differentiating adoption of ICT between family and non-family businesses.

Reviewer 1 Comment 8 (R1 C8)

I really did not understand why the section "Defining Rural" is necessary for this paper.

This section has been removed and the rural dimensions table has been added to the methodology section to explain the sampling process.

Reviewer 1 Comment 9 (R1 C9)

"Conceptual Framework" needs references.

References have been included in the section wherever appropriate. The only parts with no references in the section are due to the work being exclusive to this paper. The sources are as follows:

Abend (2018), Patel (2016), Lederman and Lederman (2015), and Gilani (2021).

Reviewer 1 Comment 10 (R1 C10)

Please, check the Figures 1 and 2. Possibly, they need extended legendas and explanations after them.

Figure 1 has been explained in detail after it emerges in the manuscript where the same applies to Figure 2 which is also mentioned in the manuscript.

Reviewer 1 Comment 11 (R1 C11)

The questions of the survey do not correspond the previous sections. Why did the Authors make a review of barriers and drivers before? However, there are no questions covering it in the questionnaire.

Changes made in Table 6.

Reviewer 1 Comment 12 (R1 C12)

The main findings are not specified. Please, add them.

These have been now highlighted in the Findings and Final sections.

Reviewer 1 Comment 13 (R1 C13)

The discussion of the results should be improved.

Data in terms of numbers related to the semi-structured interview findings have been included in the writing within the discussion section.

Reviewer 1 Comment 14 (R1 C14)

Fig. 5 and 6 should be moved to the Results.

Figures 5 and 6 have been relocated to the Findings section.

Reviewer 1 Comment 15 (R1 C15)

Conclusions should not just resume the text. This section addresses the objectives of the study.

This has now been restructured.

Reviewer 1 Comment 16 (R1 C16)

I would recommend moving limitations section to the Discussion.

Limitations have been relocated to the discussion section.

Reviewer 1 Comment 17 (R1 C17)

In general, the text is very unfocused on the main ideas. The authors did not follow the main line. What are the main findings? Are they connected with the objectives? They should be proved in the results and discussed in the follow-up sections. 

These are now reflected in the Abstract, Findings, Discussion and Final sections.

Reviewer 2 Comment Number

Reviewer 2 Comments

Authors’ Response

Reviewer 2 Comment 1 (R2 C1)

The article could be improved. For instance, it is not clear enough about which scholarly conversation you engage.  I believe that in the paper there are so many goals that it is not clear the most and the question/questions-to-answer of this interesting and useful research. The overarching research question are not clear.

This has been addressed in the Abstract section.

R2 C2

There are more questions related to the work. I have to guess about the characteristics of the environment/region/country where it is settled this work. Please, contextualize.

Responses have been given in the Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology and Discussion sections.

R2 C3

Why is important to differentiate between family farms and not family farms? It is needed a section related to family farming and family business.

This has been addressed in the introduction section.

R2 C4

It is needed to add some literature related to the process of innovation in family firms, authors as De Massis or Arzubiaga can help you to improve your work.

The related literature has been updated in the introduction and literature review sections.

R2 C5

Please, try to define all key concepts.

All key terms related to this research study have been clearly defined in the paper, e.g. Machine Learning, Rural, Farms, Family businesses and Adoption.

R2 C6

Figure 1 is not quite clear

Figure 1 has been corrected in the manuscript.

R2 C7

In page 10, at the bottom of the page you expose this “Convenience sampling was implemented by accessing the Datantify (2022) database to identify 553 farm businesses in the UAE. Then, 20 interviewees were identified through the dimensions of rurality (Gilani et al., 2022), and initial contact via email/phone to confirm farm owners’ participation and ensure equal representativeness of all rural farm regions in the UAE.” Could you to explain better the process to identify them. Why 20 and not another sample..?

The discussion on the sampling during the research has now been updated in the methodology section.

R2 C8

The paper is settled by the farmers responses, how did you analize them? What kind of methodology?. You should clearly state the all of the steps which are taken to produce the findings.

This has been clarified in the methodology section in the manuscript. I have highlighted the related part via labelling it as R2 C8.

R2 C9

The reported findings offer more intuitive insights than non-intuitive insights, especially related to the condition of family business-non family business. Moreover the findings, that could open ip new avenues for future research, should be more concise and clearly stated.

The final section has been restructured.

Reviewer 3 Comment Number

Reviewer 3 Comments

Authors’ Response

Reviewer 3 Comment 1 (R3 C1)

I recommend shortening the abstract with more focus on the methodology, objectives, tools of analysis and findings.

This has been addressed in page 1 of the manuscript.

R3 C2

The article is not as per the MDPI writing style, the author has followed the APA hence, they must amend the writing style.

This has been addressed and corrected.

R3 C3

The introduction section needs more improvement, authors need to focus on the problem of the study first of all and then switch to the ML. the main issue is the farmers and we are solving their issues with ML. therefore, we need to first explain what is the problem of the study? What is context of the study? How can ML help in solving this problem? Introduction section should also show the motivations of the study, research gap and organization of the study.

The introduction section has been updated as per the requirements of this comment.

R3 C4

The article despite having an interest topic still it is presented badly, tables, and figures are not drawn nicely.

This has been addressed.

R3 C5

Authors need to add a separate section for the practical implications of the study to show what the benefit of the method applied is.

Practical implications added in final section.

R3 C6

Author need to proofread the article.

The article has been run through Grammarly.

Reviewer 4 Comment Number

Reviewer 4 Comments

Authors’ Response

Reviewer 4 Comment 1 (R4 C1)

The introduction should be improved with more literature. The problem is not clear.

This has been addressed in the introduction section.

R4 C2

Figure 3 is too simply and large without any content. It would be better deleted it or improve it.

Figure 3 was removed, and was replaced with summarized points and short descriptions.

R4 C3

The research in this paper contributes to knowledge by investigating the drivers and barriers to the adoption of ML by farm business owners in rural UAE. So what is the relation between the investigation results in this paper with the sustainability of this journal? It should be address in more detail in all the paper.

A discussion linking the research to sustainability has been added in the introduction section

R4 C4

What is ML, the detail model or principle  should be addressed in this paper.

Highlighted the ML process and potential applications (introduction section), added a more defined scope with regards to the ML point of view, and added more clarification under the methodology section.

R4 C5

Abstract and conclusions should be improved to adopt with the sustainability.

Abstract and the Policy Implications section in the final section have been added with points related to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

Reviewer 5 Comment Number

Reviewer 5 Comments

Authors’ Response

Reviewer 5 Comment 1 (R5 C1)

Abstract required some quantified results

This has been addressed in page 1 of the manuscript.

R5 C2

First 6 lines in introductions required related references, you can use the following references: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2022.107457 ; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14223647 

This has been addressed through adding the following citations,

Attia et al., 2022; Kheir et al., 2022

R5 C3

Novelty, hypothesis and objectives not presented clearly in the paper

This has been addressed in Page 1 of the manuscript.

R5 C4

Add a flowchart explains the methods used in the review and steps

Please refer to Figure 5 in the manuscript.

R5 C5

Add conclusion and future directions

The final section has been restructured to respond to this comment.