Next Article in Journal
Multidimensional Typology of Mexican Farmers in the Context of Climate Change
Next Article in Special Issue
GIS-Based Evaluation of Soil Suitability for Optimized Production on U.S. Tribal Lands
Previous Article in Journal
Design and Experiment of a Garlic Orientation and Orderly Conveying Device Based on Machine Vision
Previous Article in Special Issue
Resilience of Agri-Food Systems
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 12
Issue 8
10.3390/agriculture12081078
Review Report
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Consequences of Ignoring Dependent Error Components and Heterogeneity in a Stochastic Frontier Model: An Application to Rice Producers in Northern Thailand

Agriculture 2022, 12(8), 1078; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12081078
by Kexin Li 1, Jianxu Liu 1,2,*, Yuting Xue 2, Sanzidur Rahman 1,3 and Songsak Sriboonchitta 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Alecos Papadopoulos
Agriculture 2022, 12(8), 1078; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12081078
Submission received: 24 May 2022 / Revised: 10 July 2022 / Accepted: 20 July 2022 / Published: 22 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Agriculture: 10th Anniversary)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attached .pdf for my comments and suggestions

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, 

Thank you for sending your manuscript. 

The following changes are require 

(a) The introduction needs to be redrafted to show the contribution of the study to literature. 

(b) The motivation of the work should be improved.

(c) The short form of the equations should be used.

(d) The author should include policy implications of their result and compare with previous literature. 

(d) The conclusion is poorly written and should not begin with questions. You have done the work and you need to summarise and provide policy strategy as well as direction for future research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for taking my suggestions seriously and for responding adequately.

Some small issues:

1. In line 234 you still write "four" models, but now they are more.

2. Line 408: You have subtracted the mean of the logarithmic variables, not the logarithm of the average, be careful with notation here, the "bar" should cover also the "Ln" symbol, not just "X".

Also perhaps you should mention this earlier, near eq. 18 which is the translog specification.

3. In the translog eq. 18 I do not see the (1/2) factor in front of the Interaction Terms component.

4. Equation  19 is missing in the file I received (I believe it shows how the inefficiency term is specified as a function of Z's).

5. A final round of text editing and continuing improvement of English will not hurt. In general, I detect a tendency to omit the definite article "the", e.g. line 501 should read "How do the independence assumption...", etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, 

Thank you for sending you revised paper. 

I see a slight improvement. 

I think this version can be publishable. 

Best, 

Reviewer

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks again for your valuable suggestions. Your preciseness improves the quality of our paper and makes our paper more perfect. Let us express our sincere thanks to you again.

Back to TopTop