Talk:WikiJournal of Science/E-extension in Nepal: brief overview in Nepalese agriculture
WikiJournal of Science
Open access • Publication charge free • Public peer review • Wikipedia-integrated
Previous
Volume 1(1)
Volume 1(2)
Volume 2(1)
Volume 3(1)
Volume 4(1)
Volume 5(1)
Volume 6(1)
This article has been through public peer review.
First submitted:
Accepted:
Article text
PDF: Download
DOI: 10.15347/WJS/2020.006
QID: Q99485817
XML: Download
Share article
Email
| 
Facebook
| 
Twitter
| 
LinkedIn
| 
Mendeley
| 
ResearchGate
Suggested citation format:
Keshab Magar (8 September 2020). "E-extension in Nepal: brief overview in Nepalese agriculture". WikiJournal of Science 3 (1): 6. doi:10.15347/WJS/2020.006. Wikidata Q99485817. ISSN 2470-6345. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiversity/en/3/32/E-extension_in_Nepal_brief_overview_in_Nepalese_agriculture.pdf.
License: 
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original author and source are credited.
Hemachander Subramanian 
(handling editor) contact
Thomas Shafee (handling editor) contact
Uttam Khanal
Anoj Chhetri
Article information
Author: Keshab Magar
Plagiarism Check
Pass. The article was sent submitted as a PDF and was checked for plagiarism by TurnItIn, with none detected outside of the references. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 08:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
First peer review
Review by Uttam Khanal , Agriculture Victoria, Australia
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
Thank you for the opportunity to review the interesting manuscript “E-EXTENSION IN NEPAL: BRIEF OVERVIEW IN NEPALESE AGRICULTURE.” The paper addresses an important issue and is timely given the need of development and promotion of e-extension services in Nepalese agriculture. However, some critical issues need careful attention.
In the introduction section, the author/s highlighted that the past extension approaches in Nepal were costly in terms of human and financial resources, hence failed. I suggest to briefly review and discuss some of the major past extension approaches before highlighting the limitations. Extension approaches such as ‘Tuki system’ and ‘Group approach’ have been mentioned as successful approaches in the literature.
Page 2, para 1: The author/s mentioned that the there are more than 39.6 million phone users in Nepal. I suggest rechecking this data. It seems there are more people using phone than the total population of Nepal which is around 30 million.
Figure 1. A possible model for e-extension in Nepal looks incomplete. Also, please discuss the model in text for clarification.
There are instances of grammatical errors and inconsistency in the referencing style.
Overall, the article clearly discusses the need, importance and advantages of e-extension approaches in Nepal. However, it is also necessary to discuss the past extension approaches and associated learnings. It is equally important to discuss the limitations of the modern e-extension in the Nepalese context, given the low level of education of the farmers, thus the technical know-how of the ICT could be a challenge. In addition, most farmers are of subsistence type and are poor, thus another issue could be affordability of the modern e-extension services. These issues need further discussion.
I thankyou for the valuable review. I want to clarify that the purpose of the article is to review current development in e-extension in Nepal. With this, I want to address your review accordingly:
1. Past approaches of agri. extension in Nepal (Intro.): The article, in general, views the past agricultural extension as little successful. There sure are issues in the extension pg 13 but the major factors as viewed by the article has been the two major reasons as mentioned. Furthermore, the 'Tuki Extension System' in particular cannot be considered as the successful past approach (pg 22-23, [1]). In similar consideration, 'group approach' as a successful approach in the the article's context is not that relatable. AGREED that the Group Extension in Nepal has been found to be successful [2]. Group approach may be effective to expand the agri-extension which requires another discussion. However the discussions of both the extension system (or other extension system in terms of success or failure with past approaches), relating with the article's purpose, seems to be inappropriate with the contextual manuscript.
2.Phone users in Nepal: The total mobile phone users in Nepal is according to Nepal Telecommunications Authority. Discussions on number of mobile phone users in Nepal has been done here. The users are surely increasing.
3.Model for e-extension: I believe the model to be easier to comprehend. It shows the involvement of Government, Private agencies and stakeholders in developing apps, moocs, portals etc. (with further points) which they can further develop with continuation of their initiation. If highlighted by other reviewers, the brief discussion will be included.
4.Further Discussions: Limitations of the e-extension in the Nepalese context, I believe, is similar to the context of the global trend. The current development of e-extension has emerged as the newer topic not from Nepal alone; thus the issues listed can/may be common with other countries. The issues pointed: "the low level of education of the farmers", "affordability", and other pointed areas needs further literature review in other ways. How to make it easily accessible and farmer friendly in Nepal is surely a further discussable topic. The current article has focused on the recent ongoing progress and does not aim to discuss on solving the possible existing (or existed) issues faced by the e-extension in Nepal. The prime objective, previously highlighted, has been to illustrate that the e-extension in Nepal is not new in the current contest.
5. Grammatical Errors has been worked upon as much as possible. Inconsistencies in the referencing style has been tried to be minimized as well. These issues will be worked more on further upcoming revisions.
I am very thankful for the review that has been done. It helped me to further understand the meaningful purpose of the article, and understand the other possible topics related to my article's title.
Please, excuse my any grammatical errors within this reply.
Thankyou!
13:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
'Changes from the Suggestion'
- Few issues related to 'e-extension in Nepal' will be explored.
- Brief Explanation of model will be provided.
Thankyou
09:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Review by Uttam Khanal ,
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
The author has addressed my comments and I am happy with the revision.
Second peer review
reviewer-annotated pdf
Review by Anoj Chhetri , Agrculture and Forestry Univesrity, Kathmandu, Nepal
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
- Detailed comments in attached pdf
I think that the article needs revision and re-written. It needs improvement in the presentation of language, logic and argument. I see problem with words and spelling. Better if APA style of referencing is used.
Thankyou for the valuable review. Your review really helped in refining the article. I have tried working on the highlighted issues.
- 1. Abstract: Rewrote accordingly answering 6WH questions. I am sure the abstract will answer the questions now.
- 2. Agreed and corrected the word in the current context; 'municipality' as the correct word.
- 3. Agreed in highlighted issue: 'migration' as the problem added now;
- 4. Corrected the paragraph order, the definition paragraph is moved above as the correction.
- 5. Conclusion is now shorter and has been revised. I am sure the it to have capture the article's main purpose.
- 6. The model is the author's own preparation. Now a short paragraph briefs the model. There sure can be objection with the model. But it sure presents the possible approach.
- 7. I have tried working in the referencing. Mendeley was used for the commonness within the article referencing. I will take assistance form the journal for the correction regarding the issue.
I thankyou again for your purposeful review. I have worked in your comments as much as possible. Excuse my grammatical errors within this reply.
Thankyou
10:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Review by Anoj Chhetri ,
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
Thank you for sharing the revised manuscript. While the revised document is certainly in better shape now, the English editing is yet to be undertaken by author. The words that I had marked last time are still there. For instance, on the first page under Introduction, the "hoped results" can be replaced by "expected results". I suggest author to ask senior colleagues to read the manuscript and ask them to correct English expression as long as it is possible. Otherwise, it is fine with me for publication.
Copyediting and proofreading
Comments by Thomas Shafee ,
These editorial comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
After the two peer reviews, the author made several updates and editors have gone through to proofread the language (diffs). The reviewers were re-contacted to check that these hadn't changed the meaning or introduced errors:
- "I have gone through the article. It’s a good read and I do not have any edits." - Uttam Khanal
- "It reads well now although there are still issues with articles. In the very first sentence of abstract "an approach" is better than "the approach". This is just an example." - Anoj Chhetri
These last article issues have now been fixed.
Translation
The author has now translated this article so that it it is also available in Nepali in addition to English: