PSTR-D-24-00050

Determinants of adoption of automation and robotics technology in the agriculture sector – a qualitative narrative knowledge synthesis

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

Dear Dr. Lemay,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Sustainability and Transformation. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Sustainability and Transformation's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days Jul 06 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at SustainTransform@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pstr/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jose Carlos Báez, Ph.D.

Section Editor

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

Journal Requirements:

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Sustainability and Transformation’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

--------------------

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: I don't know

--------------------

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

--------------------

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

--------------------

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The submitted manuscript provided insighful analysis about the current agricultural studies through limited literature review.

In regard to the research methodologies, while the study areas are limited only in North America, Europe and Australia, some of the dataset contains data from other regions such as China (Ping, H., Wang, J., Ma, Z., & Du, Y. (2018). Mini-review of application of IoT technology in monitoring agricultural products quality and safety. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 11(5), 35-45. doi:10.25165/j.ijabe.20181105.3092). The manuscript should be revised to reflect the given limitation, furthermore the manuscript title should also reflect the limited area of studies, as countries with developed agricultural sectors such as Japan, Brazil, and China is purposedly ommited.

With the utilization of ChatGPT in this research, a more in-depth explanation on the syntax or keywords to generate the proposed typology should be added.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript seems technically sound with a well represented methodology. All data underlying the findings in the manuscript has been made fully available by the authors. The language of the manuscript is comprehensible to general readers and is clear, correct and unambiguous.

Reviewer #3: This is an interesting article that synthesizes the application of automation and robotic technologies in boosting agricultural productivity while reducing emissions. The article describes various factors that determine the adoption of these technologies among farmers. These factors could either facilitate or hinder the adoption of automation and robotic technologies. Apart from public policy which is critical for adopting these innovations, authors drew attention to ‘‘risks, experience and adaptability’’ which can play an important role in deciding whether or not to adopt among farmers. Specifically, farmers with economies of scale are more likely to adopt automation and robotic technologies when compared to small-scale farmers. This reinforces their points that automation and robotic technologies will not be suitable for all types of farming practices. However, several issues should be addressed before this article can be deemed suitable for publication.

This article focuses more on how policies can influence the adoption and application of automation and robotic technologies as opposed to the characterization of issues that shape the adoption of these technologies either regionally or globally. While automation and robotic technologies offer significant potential benefits for the agricultural sector, the adoption of these technologies varies from country to country or from region to region. This requires careful planning, investment, and consideration of potential constraints are necessary to ensure successful adoption and integration into farming operations. Authors should provide as much information as possible on the three key points:1) the patterns of adoption regionally or globally; 2) the type of benefits; 3) and the types of constraints that have been reported across different regions or around the world. Authors should demonstrate their findings with the tables or figures on those three points. After this, authors can expand more on how policies and investment can address issues related to the regulatory environment, research and development, influencing trade dynamics, and promoting sustainability. This should be addressed from the perspective that effective policymaking requires a holistic approach that balances the needs of farmers, technology providers, consumers, and the environment.

--------------------

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

--------------------

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PSTR-D-24-00050R1

Determinants of adoption of automation and robotics technology in the agriculture sector – a mixed methods, narrative, interpretive knowledge synthesis

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

Dear Dr. Lemay,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Sustainability and Transformation. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Sustainability and Transformation's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 30 days Aug 24 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at SustainTransform@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pstr/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jose Carlos Báez, Ph.D.

Section Editor

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

--------------------

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Sustainability and Transformation’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

--------------------

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: N/A

--------------------

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

--------------------

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

--------------------

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors have adequately addressed the comments raised in a previous round of review. The manuscript seems technically sound and the conclusions are appropriately drawn based on the data presented. All the underlying data have been made available by the authors. The manuscript's language is comprehensible and easy for readers to grasp

Reviewer #4: Title: Determinants of adoption of automation and robotics technology in the agriculture sector – a mixed method, narrative, interpretive knowledge synthesis

It is suggested that the authors recheck the grammatical errors.

This manuscript needs a detailed review of automation and robotics technology in the agriculture sector. 

It is suggested that authors use the latest search strategy instead of a boolean operator. Do you think fuzzy logic is worse than a Boolean operator?

It is essential to include graphical representations that illustrate the concepts and architectures of automation and robotics technology, as they greatly aid in understanding complex ideas.

It is important to clarify what specific uncertainties are posing aggressive barriers to the adoption of automation, as this can help to address potential obstacles. 

This manuscript is not written for standard journals. Authors must concentrate on writing well and resubmit.

Reviewer #5: Introduction: The introduction successfully highlights the global challenges in agriculture, such as food security, climate change, and biodiversity, and links them to the need for innovative technologies like robotics and automation. However, The research question (line 128) could be more prominently placed. Currently, it is somewhat buried in the middle of the paragraph. Highlighting it could help in emphasizing the focus of the study.

The introduction of the problem regarding the low adoption rates of robotics and automation is crucial. It could be beneficial to provide some specific examples or data to illustrate this point more vividly.

Methods: While the article screening process is described, providing more detail on the predetermined inclusion criteria in Table 2 would be helpful. This could include specific examples of what was considered relevant or irrelevant.

The explanation of the coding process for thematic analysis could be expanded. Providing examples of deductive and inductive codes and how they were assigned to the articles would clarify this process.

Lines 179-183: The inclusion criteria for empirical case studies and literature reviews are clearly stated. Emphasizing why these particular regions were chosen for case studies would strengthen this section.

Results: The identification of technical concerns related to data—such as lack of standardization, data overload, and security—is well-presented. It would be useful to suggest potential solutions or strategies to address these concerns, which could add a forward-looking perspective to the analysis.

The importance of interoperability is well emphasized. The review should address potential solutions or ongoing initiatives to tackle interoperability issues in agriculture.

--------------------

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #4: Yes: adimoolam M

Reviewer #5: Yes: Syeda Saira Iqbal

--------------------

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments.docx

Determinants of adoption of automation and robotics technology in the agriculture sector – a mixed methods, narrative, interpretive knowledge synthesis

PSTR-D-24-00050R2

Dear Dr. Lemay,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Determinants of adoption of automation and robotics technology in the agriculture sector – a mixed methods, narrative, interpretive knowledge synthesis' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Sustainability and Transformation.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact SustainTransform@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Sustainability and Transformation.

Best regards,

Jose Carlos Báez, Ph.D.

Section Editor

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

***********************************************************

I have finally decided to accept the article, and not to go through another round of review. However, a final and recent reviewer has made some important comments that should be considered. Please include the reviewer's suggestions mentioned, and set out below:

I thank the authors for responding to the previous reviewers' comments (not me). Although I am not sure I have the prerogative to comment on the authors' responses to previous reviewers, I find them warranted.

Overall, I am positive about the need for and merit of this article. This is understandable, because it has already been through one round of review. However, the weakest part of the article is its (lack of) connection to the broader crisis of expanding robotic technology in agriculture. I understand that this is not the explicit aim of the study. Still, this connection should figure somewhere, perhaps in the Discussion section (since there is no Conclusions section).

I understand that the research question had to be introduced in response to one of the reviewers' comments. But, it seems a bit imposed at the end of the first paragraph. It could wait until the end of the Introduction section (which the authors have already recorded in L136-L137; there is no need to impose it on the first paragraph). Instead, the first paragraph could end with the concern that it is necessary to study the adoption factors of these emerging innovations.

The drivers of adoption of these emerging technologies are not discrete in nature, but constitute a complex interrelationship; he makes this argument (L68- L73) at the end of paragraph 2.

Given that robotic technologies have emerged more rapidly in recent years, I believe that the range of literature search between 2017-2021 needs a line of justification (or an explicit acceptance of limitation).

Even if they mostly fall outside the scope of the scanned literature, or the scope of the research question, you may consider consulting this literature for discussion (NOT a suggestion to cite them though) - Fabregas et al. (2019), Cook et al. (2022), Klerkx et al. (2019), Goswami et al. (2023).

Cook S, Jackson EL, Fisher MJ (In Memoriam), Baker D, Diepeveen D (2022) Embedding digital agriculture into sustainable Australian food systems: pathways and pitfalls to value creation. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 20(3), 346-367. doi:10.1080/ 14735903.2021.1937881

Klerkx L, Jakku E, Labarthe P (2019) A social science review on digital farming, smart farming and agriculture 4.0: new contributions and a future research agenda. NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90-91,1-16. doi:10.1016/j.njas.2019.100315

Fabregas R, Kremer M, Schilbach F (2019) Realising the potential of digital development: the case of agricultural advice. Science 366, eaay3038. doi:10.1126/science.aay3038

Goswami, R., Dutta, S., Misra, S., Dasgupta, S., Chakraborty, S., Mallick, K., ... & Majumdar, K. (2023). Where is digital agriculture going in India? Crop and Pasture Science. 74, 586-596.

Regarding the Results section, authors may please refer to the original article (if possible with its context) instead of citing only the article ID (L266 onwards). Especially since they have not used any citations in the Discussion section (which is unusual, but I accept it in principle).

I also suggest a Figure summarising the themes and sub-themes (or Code Groups and Codes). Since the Results section is not sharp enough to attract the attention of readers (due to the nature of the study, I know), a summary Figure will add value to the representation.

Upload Supplementary Tables S2 and S3 as a record. I have not found them.

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Sustainability and Transformation’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #5: Dear Editor and Author

I recommend this article for the publication as authors have carefully addressed all the comments.

Reviewer #6: I thank the authors for responding to the comments of previous reviewers (not me). Although I am not sure whether I have the prerogative to comment on authors' responses to previous reviewers, I find them justified.

Overall, I have a positive view about the necessity and merit of this article. This is understandable, because it has already gone through a round of revision. However, the weakest part of the paper is its (lack of) connect to the larger crisis of upscaling Robotics Technology in Agriculture. I understand that this is not the explicitly mentioned objectice of the study. Still, this connect should be somewhere as a takeaway, maybe in the Discussion section (since there is no Conclusion/ section).

I understand the research question had to be introduced as a response to one of the reviewers' comments. But, it seems a little imposed at the end of the first paragraph. It may wait until the end of the Introduction section (which the authors have already recorded in L136-L137; no need to impose that in the first paragraph). Instead, the first paragraph may end with the concern that the factors of adoption for these emerging innovations needs to be studied.

The factors of adopting these emerging technologies are not discrete in nature, but a complex interplay - bring this argument (L68- L73) at the end of paragraph 2.

Since robotics technologies have emerged more rapidly in the recent years, I think the range of literature search in between 2017-2021 needs a line of justification (or an explicit acceptance of limitation).

Even if they mostly fall outside the scope of the literature scanned, or the scope of the research question, you may consider consulting these literature for discussion (NOT a suggestion to cite them though) - Fabregas et al. (2019), Cook et al. (2022), Klerkx et al. (2019), Goswami et al. (2023).

Cook S, Jackson EL, Fisher MJ (In Memoriam), Baker D, Diepeveen D (2022) Embedding digital agriculture into sustainable Australian food systems: pathways and pitfalls to value creation. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 20(3), 346–367. doi:10.1080/ 14735903.2021.1937881

Klerkx L, Jakku E, Labarthe P (2019) A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0: new contributions and a future research agenda. NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91,1–16. doi:10.1016/j.njas.2019.100315

Fabregas R, Kremer M, Schilbach F (2019) Realizing the potential of digital development: the case of agricultural advice. Science 366, eaay3038. doi:10.1126/science.aay3038

Goswami, R., Dutta, S., Misra, S., Dasgupta, S., Chakraborty, S., Mallick, K., ... & Majumdar, K. (2023). Whither digital agriculture in India?. Crop and Pasture Science. 74, 586-596.

Regarding the Results section, authors may please refer to the original article (if possible with its context) instead of citing the Article ID only (L266 onwards). This is more so, since you have not used any citation in the Discussion section (which is unusual, but I accept that in principle).

I also suggest a Figure summarising the themes and sub-themes (or Code groups and Codes). Since the Results section is not crisp enough to attract readers' attention (due to the nature of the study, I know), a summary Figure will add value to the representation.

Upload the Supplementary Tables S2 and S3 as a record. I did not find them.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #5: Yes: Syeda Saira Iqbal

Reviewer #6: No

**********