Coconut Value Chain Analysis: A Systematic Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The authors of manuscript agriculture-2434854 have revised their manuscript according to my comments. For this reason, in my opinion, it is suitable for publication in its current form.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our paper. We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work. We are pleased to hear that you agree with the amendments we made based on your previous comments. Your suggestions have significantly contributed to improving the quality of our paper.
We are particularly encouraged by your suggestion to publish the paper in its current form. This validation from an expert in the field is a strong affirmation of our research and its readiness for publication. We believe that the revisions we have made have addressed any concerns and strengthened the overall impact and clarity of the paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The authors have answered most of the questions of the reviewers and have also corrected most of the errors in the article. The quality of the article has improved after the revision.
But n=16 articles selected for the review (from all record =237+160) is still very low. We cannot call it a Systematic Review. Please extend the sources with additional databases or change the method of screening to have a higher number of articles included for analysis. Google Scholar or other databases (Science Direct, Springer Link etc) should be used.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing our paper and providing valuable feedback. We greatly appreciate your time and effort in evaluating our work. We are glad to hear that you have acknowledged the improvements we made based on your previous comments.
Regarding your concern about the number of sources used for the systematic literature review, we have taken your suggestion seriously and expanded our search for relevant papers. We have utilized additional databases, including Sopus, WOS, Google Scholar, Proquest, Science Direct, and Springer, to broaden our search and include more relevant studies. As a result, we have successfully identified and included 37 additional papers that significantly contribute to the depth and comprehensiveness of our literature review.
By expanding our search keywords and incorporating the newly found sources, we believe that we have addressed your concern and enhanced the credibility of our study. The additional references strengthen the foundation of our research and provide a more robust context for our findings.
We hope that these revisions demonstrate our commitment to improving the quality and rigor of our paper. We sincerely hope that you find the current revised version of the paper to be satisfactory and suitable for publication. We are grateful for your guidance throughout this review process.
Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The quality of the paper improved. I accept the revision.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I suggest to re-organize the first section. I suggest to re-organize this paragraph is sub-sections: Research background, Research gap and aim, Implication and contribution. In this way will be more clear why this problem is important, how the study relates to previous work in the area, and what is the originality of the study. The Methodology is adequate for the proposes of the paper. It is suggested to highlight the research question and the relative gap that we intend to fill through this contribution. It is suggested to highlight the originality of the work with respect to research already existing in the literature. Is necessary the authors present a Discussion of the Results where the authors present the comparison of the paper results with the results obtained in the other previous papers. Is also necessary the authors present the implications of the paper and the principal limitations.
Reviewer 2 Report
The proposed paper is well designed and justified. The topic is relevant for research activities. The proposed material provides an interesting overview of the coconut value chain. The scientific value of the paper is limited and the paper does not provide any really new findings. On the other hand, the paper is nice attempt to provide the overview of current level of knowledge in the field under the investigation. There are only few problems reducing the quality of the paper. The knowledge gap should be specified more in deep. The objectives of the research overview analysis should be also more specific. There is missing more relevant discussion and final conclusion summary. I would suggest expanding the conclusion for existing limits and weaknesses. It would be also beneficial to expand the conclusion and to provide some suggestion for future/up coming research activities.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper suffers from serious methodological and analytical weaknesses. Only 10 studies were included in the literature review (130 are excluded), which is a very few numbers. It makes no sense to name it a systematic literature review. Many more relevant studies should be included/selected for the final review, therefore, the search should be reconducted, and the manuscript should be rewritten. The time horizon selected is also very narrow (2017-2022), it should be extended for at least 10 or more years.
