PONE-D-23-25144Technology in Farming: Unleashing Farmers’ Behavioral Intention for the Adoption of Agriculture 5.0PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Devkota,

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 Mar 01 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.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• 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,

Md. Monirul Islam, PhD

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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified 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.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

At this time, please address the following queries:

a)        Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b)        State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c)        If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d)        If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

6. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: “All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.”

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access."

7. We note that Figure 3 in your submission contain map 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:

    a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 3 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].”

    b. 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/

[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?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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 ONE 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: No

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

Hi,

P.10: If Survey is used, why the sampling technique is purposive? It should be random. Please check and provide justifiable reasons.

p.11: why 14 respondents? please explain clearly in the research method section.

p.13: Figure 4. n=???. add the amount of n.

p.18: The references of "Zarafshani et al., 2020, did not exist in the final reference list of the paper.

p.19: Conclusion is weak and need to be strengthened.

p.19: Please add some applicable suggestions based on the research findings.

p. 20-25: References list should be check with the guidelines of PLOS ONE. some references did not report correctly. some information was missed.

There are some mistakes in in-text citation of the manuscript as well that it need to be double checked and revised due to the PLOS ONE guidelines

Reviewer-2

The study titled Technology in Farming: Unleashing Farmers’ Behavioral Intention for the Adoption of Agriculture 5.0' aimed to explore the factors influencing farmer’s behavioral intension for Agriculture 5.0, identifies implementation obstacles and provides managerial solutions to promote Ag 5.0 in Madhesh Province, Nepal, using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and

Structural Equation Model (SEM). The findings reveal that farmers perceive training programs, government assistance, and subsidies are helpful in overcoming challenges associated with adopting Ag 5.0. In my opinion, the study lacks in certain major ways that cast doubt on the validity of the results. My criticism centres mostly around the statistical result of the research study, the over generalisation of the findings, and unfounded claims (as discussion section is missing !).

A result statistically presented as relevant with a p-significance greater than 0.050 (e.g., “Individual innovativeness also affects the perceived usefulness (β =0.004, p>0.05) and perceived ease of use (β =0.281, p>0.01)” is definitely a major flaw that leads to misinterpretation of the final results. The authors definitely lack basic knowledge in interpreting statistical data, which is a pity because the chosen topic is of interest. In my opinion this study cannot be published in any respectable journal, especially PlosOne.

Reviewer-3

The manuscript deals with an intriguing and valuable subject matter. Overall, the article is well-written and well-structured. The research investigates farmers' behavioral intentions towards adopting Agriculture 5.0, identifies influencing factors, explores implementation obstacles, and proposes some management-level solutions to promote Ag 5.0. However, the article will benefit from the following suggestions:

1. I feel that the empirical analysis is weak. In particular, the author does not conduct sufficient robustness checks to test the sensitivity of the key findings. For SEM analysis, data must be normally distributed, which is not the case in the article.

2. The author recognizes that the adoption of latest farming technologies is low in Nepal. However, this needs to be elaborated with data and statistics to justify this research. In addition, only mentioning a lack of literature does not fully justify this research. The author needs to further highlight the novelty and contribution of this work aligning with policies and programs concerning Ag 5.0 and food security. A separate literature review section can be tried.

3. The manuscript largely deals with farmers’ attitude for adopting Ag 5.0 related technologies but does not draw significantly from the current literature. For this purpose, the author can draw some significant findings (in support of in contrast) with the popular assumptions. The articles listed below can be a good starting point.

4. Dataset was collected from 258 farmers. However, the research methodology did not justify the use of quantitative methods within a particular epistemological stream (i.e., positivism and quantitative). Why farmers’ perceptions and opinions/beliefs are theoretically best suited to address the research hypotheses needs to be mentioned. Why were managerial staffs were not included in the study?

5. The article is focused more on results but less on discussion. Discussion and implications of the results should be elaborated, especially in relation to Ag 5.0. It will also help to make the article relevant to the wider international readership of the journal.

6. The conclusion section is well-written and summarizes things up. However, the first paragraph says farmers have a fear of using new technology while the second paragraph says farmers are ready to adopt new technologies of Ag 5.0. This should be justified why these are not contradictory.

7. The manuscript does contain some typos and language errors. A careful revision, especially in the tables and figures, will improve its readability.

8. Please consider the literature below in your revision:

1. Tama, R. A. Z., Hoque, M. M., Liu, Y., Alam, M. J., & Yu, M. (2023). An Application of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to Examining Farmers’ Behavioral Attitude and Intention towards Conservation Agriculture in Bangladesh. Agriculture, 13(2), 503.

2. Hua, L.; Wang, S. Antecedents of Consumers’ Intention to Purchase Energy-Efficient Appliances: An Empirical Study Based on the Technology Acceptance Model and Theory of Planned Behavior. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2994

3. Tama, R.A.Z.; Ying, L.; Yu, M.; Hoque, M.; Adnan, K.M.; Sarker, S.A. Assessing farmers’ intention towards conservation agriculture by using the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 280, 111654

4. Alambaigi, A.; Ahangari, I. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) As a Predictor Model for Explaining Agricultural Experts Behavior in Acceptance of ICT. Int. J. Agric. Manag. Dev. 2016, 6, 235–247.

5. Amin, M.; Rezaei, S.; Abolghasemi, M. User satisfaction with mobile websites: The impact of perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU) and trust. Nankai Bus. Rev. Int. 2014, 5, 258–274.n

**********

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.

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

Reviewer #3: 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.

PONE-D-23-25144R1Technology in Farming: Unleashing Farmers’ Behavioral Intention for the Adoption of Agriculture 5.0PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Devkota,

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 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 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.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• 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,

Md. Monirul Islam, PhD

Academic 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Author

Thank you so much for your effort. The manuscript can be accepted after robustness check of your model. Thank you.

[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 #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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 #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

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: Hi,

Pleas double check the reference list that all of the references were cited correctly.

For example I saw that one of the references was not cited completely that is needed to be corrected as below:

Salehi, S., Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., & Ajili, A. (2012). Extension of grid soil sampling technology: application of extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Journal of Research in Agriculture. 1, 078-087.

Reviewer #3: Thank you so much for submitting the revised version of the manuscript. Previous comments have been mostly addressed. However, although the data normality test has been performed, the data robustness check still lacks sufficiency.

In the PLS-SEM approach, robustness check can be performed in three ways:

1. the non-linear effects

2. Unobserved heterogeneity

3. Endogeneity

Reviewer #4: Thank you very much for giving me the opportunit to review the paper!

I am sorry to say that ins current form the paper cannot be accepted for publication. In fact, I recommend the paper to be rejected. First of all, the paper does not provide a clear research gap or its contribution to the literature. Second, the framework is random and falsely used. In consequence, the implications given by the results are not valid. Hence, the addition of the paper to the literature is questionable.

Major points:

The introduction is not clearly written and understandable. The authors jump back and forth between various themes. For instance, they start explaining on page 2 the concept of Ag 5.0 and then go back to the Green Evolution and then again Ag 5.0. Hence, there is no clear structure in the introduction and therefore the research gap is unclear. I was not able to detect based on the literatur provided what is the research gap and what is the contribution of this paper. This needs to be backed up by literature. Furthermore, for the authors it is not of interest, what the authors belief (p. 3) regarding farmers' beliefs. This needed to be backed up by literature. Hence, the complete introduction needs to be rewritten.

The framework is very unclear. Why does the authors try to combine elements from the UTAUT (Facilitating conditions, Social Influence) and the TAM (Perceived Usefulness)? The UTAUT is already as stated by its name (Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology) the essence of 8 distinct theories, including the TAM. Hence. the framework feels random, even though back up by another reference. It is very questionable why the authors have not chosen to follow the path of the UTAUT and extend it with technology anxiety. To highlight this puzzling choice by the authors: According to the UTAUT, it is expected that Social Influence has an an effect on the Intention to use Technology. Here, it influences Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness.

The part on Structural equation modelling misses most important parts regarding interal and external validity of the model. Furthermore information is missing on the used statistical software.

Regarding the results, looking at the Cronbachs Alpha and Composite reliabiltiy. The values for Behavioral Intention exceed 0.95 which usually points semantically to close statements. Hence, these statements do not measure a common construct but just represent the same sentence all over again. For discriminant validity, it is always recommended to provide the CI95 value, which is missing. Effect sizes f2 are missing. Furthermore, the authors rely only statistical significance. Most effect sizes of the path coefficient can be considered to be very low. Hence, the practical relevance is missing and not discussed by the authors sufficiently. Lastly, as usual one should test for quadrat effects and endogeneity via Gaussian copulas in SEM. Both is missing.

Minor points

Term significant should only be used in connection with statistical significane and inference.

Figure 4: Barriers are not fully written out (Lack of Adquate Infrastructure &..).

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

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.

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: Yes: Kurosh Rezaei-Moghaddam

Reviewer #3: Yes: Riffat Ara Zannat Tama, PhD

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes: Nalini Arumugam

**********

[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: Review on TAM on Farmer Behahioral.docx

Technology in Farming: Unleashing Farmers’ Behavioral Intention for the Adoption of Agriculture 5.0

PONE-D-23-25144R2

Dear Dr. Niranjan Devkota,

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 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. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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,

Md. Monirul Islam, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Author

We greatly appreciate the effort and dedication you have demonstrated in addressing the reviewers' comments and making the necessary revisions to enhance the quality of your work. Your thorough and thoughtful responses have significantly improved the clarity, depth, and overall contribution of your manuscript to the field. Congratulations on this accomplishment.

Reviewers' comments: