Agricultural Production Optimization and Marginal Product Response to Climate Change

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

1)     Title: in some way, “climate change” must be included in the title

2)     Abstract: it is too concise; the proxy used to “simulate” the effect of “climate change” is/are not clear: what climate change means in this article? I suggest you rearrange it in a more explicit and less generic way.

3)     Introduction:

a.      Importance and clarity of research hypothesis: the hypotheses of the work are not well specified.

b.     Importance and clarity of research objectives: it is not clear how the three study goals specified in the introduction are methodologically linked among themselves.

4)     Literature review: the review is satisfactory and well done. All the analytical elements that emerge from it are then well taken up by the subsequent analysis, therefore it is also well connected to the analytical framework.

5)     Method: ok

6)     Originality of work: both the analytical structure and the aims of the study are essential. However, the results are very useful and interesting also for possible comparisons with other areas of the world.

7)     Interpretation of the results: clear but subject to questioning (which is not necessarily a defect)

8)     Conclusions: the conclusions paragraph maybe is a little too synthetic, you could try to develop it better.

9)     Writing style and figure/table presentation: really essential but still adequate

10)   General impression of the quality of the work: Good job

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment，thank you！

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please find my comments below.

1. What knowledge gaps would you like to address as the purpose of this article? 

2. The presentation of technical research results may not be appropriate to fill knowledge gaps in your field of study. Please clearly address the main challenges of your research topic and new contribution(s) to your field and in the context of your study.

3. I could not identify any hypotheses highlighted in the text.

4. Line 76 "This study introduces a nonparametric method to estimate the marginal product of each input resource and efficiency in prefecture-level cities in Jiangsu province from 2001 to 2018.”

Please consider enriching this part of the text with a map/figure, to help localize the provinces. Top scientific journals pay special attention to visual presentation of the research work. 

5. I would recommend adding some references to the recent thematic literature (including web of science and Scopus articles).

 I also think that the catalogue of cited literature is rather poor. I suggest expanding the literature list to include 2021-2022.

6. I am not fully qualified to evaluate your English, but it seems that a professional native speaker needs to be involved to improve your writing

Author Response

Please see the attachment，thank you！

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made the appropriate corrections.

I wish you success in your research work.

Author Response

Thank you for your review！