Open Peer Review. Vol. 17 N.2
Searching for sustainability in the digital agriculture debate: an alternative approach for a systemic transition
Section: Literature reviews
Reviewer A:
Please, comment on the most relevant aspects (positive points and areas to improve) of the reviewed article.
The topic is timely, relevant, and important. The article, as currently written, does not fully cover the topic, and presumes that the worst existing exploitative aspects of monopoly capitalism will inevitably remain the norm as the reach of agricultural information and control infrastructures expands, without discussing the viability and characteristics of existing and emerging alternatives to that default model.
Would you suggest any changes or make any recommendations to improve the quality of the article? Please see the above comments
Recommendation: Revisions Required.
Reviewer B:
Please, comment on the most relevant aspects (positive points and areas to improve) of the reviewed article.
The paper discusses the possibilities of Digital Agriculture making an introduction to the informational era and connecting digitalization, sustainability and agriculture. The author takes a systemic approach to analyze the performance of different transnational agriculture digital platforms in the global South. It concludes that the centralizing tendencies of the platform models have the power to locking-in global unsustainability. Overall, it is a well structured and very pertinent discussion that raises important questions about the impact of TICs in food production and climate change
Would you suggest any changes or make any recommendations to improve the quality of the article?
The article does not explicitly say that it was the result of a research project. However, the author´s knowledge of the performance of different transnational agriculture digital platforms seems to be the core of the methodology used. The paper needs to state the methods used in the introduction and make clear the research questions. It also needs a better geographical contextualization and to clarify concepts such as technological sublime, global South, green (re-green, green green), algorithm and others. Conclusions could be stronger and more connected to those powerful concepts. The structure needs minor changes in paragraphs and section titles. The author abuses of quotation marks and capital letters along with the text and sometimes criteria changes, it should be just one. References do not follow APA rules and they need to be modified. I have detected disconnections between the text and the references list. The specifications of all of these suggestions are pointed as comments along with the text. In my opinion, it does not meet the conditions of being admitted to the Karpeta section, it seems to be rather a text for the Revisión temática section since it is a literary review and exposition of the main debates of a specific field of knowledge. As it has been presented the extension of the paper (10.133 words) exceeds the rules of the magazine (8,000 words for the Thematic Review section).
Recommendation: Revisions Required
Reviewer C:
Please, comment on the most relevant aspects (positive points and areas to improve) of the reviewed article.
El artículo está correcto en todos los aspectos. Dejo algunas sugerencias y "typos": However, current market concentration in agriculture will perpetuate existing inequalities between large farmers and agribusinesses, and poorer (empoverished?) smallholders; Agri(u)culture is no different. Subsequent globalisation and financialisat(i)on of the food value chain meant that (Araghi, 1995) (.) Recent concerns, In fact, studies by World Bank researchers argue that many of these new technologies will tend to help (already) entrepreneurial farmers who have enough savings to invest in productivity; in other words, those already following the industrial approach to agriculture (Deichmann et al., 2016). This is often a voluntary process, facilitated by (S)tate (state?) interventions, they are unlikely to do so if multi(o)nationals are the first to access the large pools of data in rural environments.
Would you suggest any changes or make any recommendations to improve the quality of the article?
Not included
Recommendation: Revisions Required
The text included modifications before publication
