Family Net Income, Input Factor Prices and Agriculture Services Selection Behavior of Maize Farmers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting article on the use of agricultural services by Chinese maize producers. This research is relevant given the small scale farms in China.

Remarks

1. The theoretical framework is weak. There is no reference at all towards behavioral theories although these are well established in literature

2. Although the introduction claims that besides economic factors also social factors may be important, the model mainly focuses on economic factors (prices of services, income and land and labor prices). There are some other farmer variables tested but these are not really discussed. The same for the village factors. However real social factors such as belonging to a community (e.g. level of social interaction), access to extension, etc. are not included. This may provide a bias in the conclusions.

3. Authors should be prudent in the direction of influence of variables; For some of them the relationship can be the opposite (e.g. income can be dependent on the level of services used and vie versa or the level of service demand and availability of services in the village).

4. The price of factors is not the only variable but also the availability of a factor in particular for labor. This is not considered; the same counts for the ratio labor/land as maybe the bigger the size the less labor available and so the higher the necessity to use services.

5. The introductory explanation of the system is not very clear and should be improved

6. English is sometimes weak and should be improved.

7. other remarks see annotated text

8. Maybe text can be shorter as you explain all details of the tables again in the text. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

see annotated text. Best to review the text by a native speaker

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

the topic chosen for your article seems interesting and, therefore, potentially publishable in this magazine but, first of all, it requires a little further effort to make it really captivating. In my opinion, in some passages of your manuscript it is better to simplify the text to make reading easier and more fluid. I am thinking, for example, of the part relating to the presentation of the results. In fact, when commenting on the tables it is sufficient to provide the potential reader with a key to understanding and/or interpretation without having to comment on every single result represented in them.

Here are some suggestions that I hope will help improve your work:

In my opinion the title can be written without using capital letters for each word, only the first one is enough. Please check;

Review the form in which the affiliations and e-mail contacts of all authors are provided;

Please check the spaces (especially when indicating bibliographical references), the capital letters after the 2 points (:), etc. In general, review the editing of the manuscript;

line 69: (1,2) must be [1,2]. This always applies;

The introduction appears long, I would suggest dividing it into 2 parts: in the first a real introduction which highlights the topic under analysis, its evolution and its importance/current relevance. In the second part, I would propose an analysis of the existing literature. In some passages you have the feeling that bibliographical references are missing, please check. However, there is no indication of how the paper was structured and, furthermore, both the objective of the work and its added value must be better explained compared to what already exists in the literature;

Line 218: I think there is a repetition, please check; (also in other parts of the document);

add a map of the area under investigation. This would help a non-Chinese reader a lot;

line 254, 262: you need to number the equations. However, in my opinion, the explanation of both equations should be improved. Please check;

bibliographical references should be added to the methodological part;

when the numbers exceed 3 digits it is good to add the thousands indicator. So, for example, line 281 1035 should be 1.035;

provide conversion of yuan into dollars;

tables and figures are separated from the text by a blank line (both before and after). Please check;

review editing tables, so it is difficult to read them;

with the exception of the chi-square no “goodness test” on the 2 analysis models used is provided;

there is a lack of discussions;

the conclusions are really sparse, they should be expanded. Furthermore, they exactly reflect the text already reported in the abstract;

the limits of the present work and its possible future developments should be highlighted;

at the end of the article the attribution of the paragraphs and everything else is missing. Check according to the journal guidelines.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing in English is quite good but some things could be corrected/reviewed. Furthermore, in some passages the text could be simplified. Try to write in simple, concise English.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf