Technology Transfer Model for Small-Scale Farms
, Cesar D. Guerrero * and Alexandra Espinosa CarreñoRound 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please improve your work based on the comments at PDF file
Best regards
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Greetings dear reviewer, In response to the observations made to the document called sustainability-2184585, the application of your comments and observations is attached, in a new version that we share with you. We hope this new version answers your concerns. We remain attentive to your suggestions to move forward in the process. Greetings, The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors!
The subject of the manuscript is relevant both for the region of study and for other regions. It is devoted to the problem of effective implementation of scientific developments in the practice of agricultural activities. The manuscript presents quite interesting results of the original study. However, there are a number of important comments. I recommend the authors to correct the article.
1. Abstract should be revised. In accordance with the requirements of the journal, it must correspond to the structure of the article and consistently reflect the content of all its sections.
2In the Introduction (p.2, l. 45-48), the thesis “efforts have been made to establish guidelines to promote the transfer and appropriation of technologies in the agriculture sector, with a clear focus on information and communication technologies (ICTs)” should be supplemented by reference links to articles on the subject.
3. In Introduction (p.2, l. 75-79) the thesis “According to Xuedong [14], technology transfer in the agriculture sector plays a crucial role in increasing farmers’ productivity and income generation. Technology transfer further aids the development of mechanisms that promote the transfer and appropriation of technologies among small-scale farmers, in which a full picture is taken into consideration for the relevant and timely development of this process [15]” should be moved up in the text – earlier than the various models proposed by other authors are considered.
4. At the end of the Introduction, the authors should more clearly formulate the goals and objectives of the study.
5. The first paragraph of Materials and Methods corresponds to the Introduction section rather than a description of the objects of study, the materials used, or the methods.
6. In Materials and Methods (p.3, l. 117) the authors mention the recommendations made by Tranfield et al. (2003), but do not cite the source.
7. In Materials and Methods (p.3, l. 119-122) the authors state: “The scientific contributions registered in databases considered to be of high level, <…>, which were considered for the study”. However, the results and references to the sources used are not given in the next part, or the emphasis is not placed in the Results and Discussion.
8. In section 2.2. the authors point to "systematic review of scientific documents, institutional reports, case studies, news, videos, and other information", but only 19 references are given in the list of sources, mostly mentioned in the Introduction.
9. (p.5, l. 173-176) Thesis “The phases of the ICT transfer and appropriation process were determined by consensus: presubmission, intellectual property disclosure, technology evaluation, strategy, protection, marketing, licensing, negotiation, commercialization, and loyalty" refers to Materials and Methods or Discussion rather than Results.
10. Figure 1 (p.6, l. 218) is hard to read. It needs to be made more distinct.
11. The content of the Discussion section refers partly to the Materials and Methods section, and mostly to the Results section.
12. In terms of content, Conclusions is more of a discussion of the results obtained. I propose to move this to the Discussion section, and to formulate it more clearly and briefly.
Author Response
Greetings dear reviewer, In response to the observations made to the document called sustainability-2184585, the application of your comments and observations is attached, in a new version that we share with you. We hope this new version answers your concerns. We remain attentive to your suggestions to move forward in the process. Greetings, The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors!
The subject of the manuscript is relevant both for the region of study and for other regions. It is devoted to the problem of effective implementation of scientific developments in the practice of agricultural activities. The authors took into account the comments and made the necessary changes to the text. I recommend the article for publication.
