Dear Dr. Tilahun,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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 by Sep 21 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 plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic 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.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Cataldo Pulvento

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Impacts of Agricultural Machine Renting on Cereal Crop Productivity and Commercialization in West Gojjam Zone, Ethiopia

Reviewer comments:

The paper's overall structure needs work. There is no research gap in the abstract, and it is rather superficial. The introduction briefly explains the necessity of undertaking this research but does not provide a clear picture of the investigation.

Before the methodology, it should be necessary to conduct a literature review, both theoretical and empirical, and the authors should clarify how the conceptual framework guides the study.

The area of the description part is shallow, and it needs more explanation in terms of agricultural machines renting on cereal crop productivity and commercialization in West Gojjam Zone, particularly in your selected districts.

To determine the sample size, you should not show the sampling techniques and procedures. Which random sampling techniques were employed to select the sample respondents? What are the benchmarks—192 households adopted and 208 households non-adopted? Please support it with empirical evidence. From Table 1, how did you calculate the sample households?

From the data collection methods, you stated that the major data collection methods included observations and visual aids. I have not seen photos in the discussion part. What is important for setting the data collection method?

The methods of data analysis, particularly the descriptive statistics part, were not clearly explained, and why not consider other alternative methods like inferential statistics (chi-square test and t-test)? The chi-square test and t-test should be used to determine statistical differences and the association between agricultural machine adopters and non-adopters on independent variables.

Under the econometric model, you should separately explain the theoretical and analytical framework, and then you should specify the model and the conditional expectations, treatment, and heterogeneity effect.

Measurement of market participation: It is so shallow; it needs more explanation with supporting theoretical and empirical literature reviews.

Under equation 4 the authors stated input factors (labour, land, fertilizer seed and herbicide) for production function. In addition to these variables, why not incorporated agricultural machines (like tractor, combiner, and Sheller) as inputs for the production of cereal crops?

The impacts of agricultural machine rental on productivity and commercialization: The specification of the endogenous switching regression model should not be well organized. So, please specify the ESR model while supporting the theoretical and empirical literature review.

Under the definition of variables, not only list the independent variables; you should define each independent variable and hypothesize based on the literature review.

Under the discussion part, specifically the descriptive results, the authors simply show the number rather than the implication of the numbers. What are the implications of your results or numbers (percent, mean, standard deviation, min, and max)?

Under the discussion part, specifically the impacts of agricultural machine renting on productivity and commercialization, the investigation needs deeper and more detailed discussion of the implications of the findings and how to relate them to the existing literature.

The paper's major contributions and their consequences for practice and policy are not succinctly summarized in the conclusion, which comes off as hurried. It is necessary to have a more thorough conversation about proposed policies.

Reviewer #2: 1. What is the contribution of this study to the existing literature?

2. Adding the description, measurement and expected hypothesis of the independent variable in the methodology section with citation.

3. If the farmers are used more than two machines, why not use multinomial logit model?

4. What are the diagnostic tests that you conducted?

5. Support your finding by more empirical evidence.

6. Policy implication is too general, so make it specific to the concerned body.

7. Generally this paper lacks of consistency.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[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: PONE-D-24-08983.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer report.docx

Dear Dr. Tilahun,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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 by Jul 25 2025 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 plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic 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 applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Miquel Vall-llosera Camps

Senior Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

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.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1:  As you can see from the reviewer's main document, the writers address the majority of the comments; nonetheless, they did not address some of them.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[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

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-08983_R1- Second review.pdf

Impacts of Agricultural Machine renting on Cereal Crop Productivity and Commercialization in West Gojjam Zone, Ethiopia.

PONE-D-24-08983R2

Dear Dr. Selam Tilahun,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets, on the one hand the minor revisions suggested by reviewers 1 and 3 and, on the other hand, all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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 onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Serge Svizzero, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewer #1:

Still two questions were not addressed: "What are the benchmarks for the 192 households that adopted and the 208 households that did not adopt? Please support it by empirical evidence.""In addition to labor, land, fertilizer, seed, and herbicide variables, why not incorporate agricultural machines (like tractors, combines, and shellers) as inputs for the production of cereal crops?"

Reviewer #3:

As I have seen both the original and revised paper (PONE-D-24-08983R2), the paper is original and creative and covers machine renting, a relatively recent Ethiopian farming practice. The paper presented valuably research output by considering critical gaps in the literature and can be used in the future as a reference source in the newly developing field of study in Ethiopia.

1. The Study Presents the Results of Original Research

The paper reports a new result using data from three potential districts in west Gojjam Zone for the stated technology renting practice. The finding is supported with adequate and reliable data according to the statement of the research ethics, and the study focussed on Ethiopian farming section which is hot issue i.e., agricultural machine renting.

2. Results reported have not been published elsewhere

The results are primarily new and logical. The method of sample determination and sampling producers are scientific and concrete. Yet, there is a bit idea repetition in Table 5: Major agricultural machine renting in the study area (from the previous authors published paper: determinant of adoption of agricultural machine renting in West Gojjam zone, Ethiopia). So, minor sections of the methods and Table 4.Major agricultural machine used in the study area should be modified by authors to improve the paper quality. If Table 5 adopted from the previous paper the author should add citation under Table 4. This will make the paper contribution to be more scientific, concrete and readable.

3. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.

Statistical analyses and validity tests are done well and presented in a clear order. The paper would improve more by adding hypothesis testing prior to each models result interpretation. Additionally, a table summarizing each variable, definition of the variable, unit of the variable, expected sign of the variable would make the paper more clear and scientific rather than putting in sentence form.

4. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.

The conclusions are relevant and justified by the data. The implications of policy are well-framed and timely in the Ethiopian mechanized farming. It can benefit more by focusing on main results and detailing the scientific basis of relationships amid variables in a logical order. Moreover, inclusion of study limitations and future research direction will enhance the paper further in terms of quality and replication.

5. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in Standard English.

The writing is well-structured and clear overall but needs again some readability improvements and typing errors and technical terms improving.

6. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.

The study follows to ethical standards and research integrity. So, minor revisions to the structure of headings and subheadings numbering is required to ensure comprehensive flow of idea more.

7. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability.

The presentation or attachment of the raw cross-section data in excel is notable. It gives support to the strength of transparency, replication, and validate the results.

Recommendation: the paper is suitable for publication by considering the proposed revisions specifically paraphrasing idea redundancy, clarifying hypotheses, sharpening conclusions, and readability issues as stated above.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Still two questions were not addressed: "What are the benchmarks for the 192 households that adopted and the 208 households that did not adopt? Please support it by empirical evidence.""In addition to labor, land, fertilizer, seed, and herbicide variables, why not incorporate agricultural machines (like tractors, combines, and shellers) as inputs for the production of cereal crops?"

Reviewer #3: Review report (date: 31.8.2025)

Impacts of Agricultural Machine renting on Cereal Crop Productivity and Commercialization in West Gojjam Zone, Ethiopia with Manuscript Number: PONE-D-24-08983R2

General issues (considering seven guiding principles): As I have seen both the original and revised paper (PONE-D-24-08983R2), the paper is original and creative and covers machine renting, a relatively recent Ethiopian farming practice. The paper presented valuably research output by considering critical gaps in the literature and can be used in the future as a reference source in the newly developing field of study in Ethiopia.

1. The Study Presents the Results of Original Research

The paper reports a new result using data from three potential districts in west Gojjam Zone for the stated technology renting practice. The finding is supported with adequate and reliable data according to the statement of the research ethics, and the study focussed on Ethiopian farming section which is hot issue i.e., agricultural machine renting.

2. Results reported have not been published elsewhere

The results are primarily new and logical. The method of sample determination and sampling producers are scientific and concrete. Yet, there is a bit idea repetition in Table 5: Major agricultural machine renting in the study area (from the previous authors published paper: determinant of adoption of agricultural machine renting in West Gojjam zone, Ethiopia). So, minor sections of the methods and Table 4.Major agricultural machine used in the study area should be modified by authors to improve the paper quality. If Table 5 adopted from the previous paper the author should add citation under Table 4. This will make the paper contribution to be more scientific, concrete and readable.

3. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.

Statistical analyses and validity tests are done well and presented in a clear order. The paper would improve more by adding hypothesis testing prior to each models result interpretation. Additionally, a table summarizing each variable, definition of the variable, unit of the variable, expected sign of the variable would make the paper more clear and scientific rather than putting in sentence form.

4. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.

The conclusions are relevant and justified by the data. The implications of policy are well-framed and timely in the Ethiopian mechanized farming. It can benefit more by focusing on main results and detailing the scientific basis of relationships amid variables in a logical order. Moreover, inclusion of study limitations and future research direction will enhance the paper further in terms of quality and replication.

5. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in Standard English.

The writing is well-structured and clear overall but needs again some readability improvements and typing errors and technical terms improving.

6. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.

The study follows to ethical standards and research integrity. So, minor revisions to the structure of headings and subheadings numbering is required to ensure comprehensive flow of idea more.

7. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability.

The presentation or attachment of the raw cross-section data in excel is notable. It gives support to the strength of transparency, replication, and validate the results.

Recommendation: the paper is suitable for publication by considering the proposed revisions specifically paraphrasing idea redundancy, clarifying hypotheses, sharpening conclusions, and readability issues as stated above.

**********

**********