Possible Actors in Local Foodscapes? LEADER Action Groups as Short Supply Chain Agents—A European Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting article that reads well and consists of logically consecutive chapters. The Authors clearly defined the purpose of their work and the correct research methods were selected. The research results are described in an understandable and concise way. I have only a few small comments that I think should be taken into account.

I would suggest extending the methodological chapter and describing the research procedure in more detail.

Figure 2 is not very legible/clear. Its quality should be corrected.

Figure 4 - the legend overlaps the drawing, this should be corrected.

I suggest splitting chapter 4. Discussion and conclusions into two separate chapters.

As I wrote above, the text is easy to read and understand. 

Author Response

Response to the Comments of the Honourable Reviewer

Thank you for reading and evaluating our article. Here we would like to respond to your comments.

The methodological chapter - as you advised - was extended. The strengths and weaknesses of the chosen method are mentioned now. Additionally, a broader explanation of the elaborated website indexing system is given. In order to make the method more valid, the Fleiss' kappa inter-rater agreement index was calculated from the interim data.

Figure 2 was edited out from the text as the theoretical chapter was remarkably modified. (Major changes in the text can be seen in red colour.)

Figure 4 (now Figure 3) was formally modified according to your remark.

We totally agree with your recommendation to separate the "Discussion and conclusions" chapter. In a partitioned form, the "Conclusions" chapter can be elaborated in a more specific form.

Thank you again for your help and supportive ideas. We hope, the implemented changes have raised the quality of the article.

Yours sincerely,

Csaba Patkós 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Please find attached my Comments and Suggestions for your Article.

Good luck!

Kind regards,

The Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to the Comments of the Honourable Reviewer

Thank you for reading and evaluating our article. Here we would like to respond to your comments.

Firstly, we would like to thank you for giving general overview of our article and highlighting the strong points!

Secondly, we would ike to react your proposal about the correlation between possible actors of local foodscapes, sustainability and corporate social responsibility. Your proposal was suggestive for us. As the theoretical chapter was significantly modified and extended towards the phenomena of social innovation, CSR and the substantial article you recommended was included. In the future our research project is planned to be followed by a questionnaire examination too.

Thank you again for your help and supportive ideas. We hope, the implemented changes have raised the quality of the article.

Yours sincerely,

Csaba Patkós 

Reviewer 3 Report

Good article on important issue, congrats!

Author Response

Response to the Comments of the Honourable Reviewer

Thank you for reading and evaluating our article. Thank you for considering the topic and the article relevant. We hope, the implemented changes (in red) have raised the quality of the article.

Yours sincerely,

Csaba Patkós 

Reviewer 4 Report

The topic of a manuscript is interesting and is especially relevant under the current conditions. Although the are some drawback, that must be addressed before publication:

1. the literature review has to be extended significantely. The prevailing theoretical streams in a researched are should be mentioned, indicating its discrepancies and deficiences. Such a work would help to better justify the research question and to specify the scientific vacuum this paper is aimed to fulfil.
2. I have serious doubts about the validity of the research and, especially, the methodology applied. The extensive justification of selected research method has to be provided. The clear description of the research method must be included into manuscript.
3. The main idea to draw far reaching conlusions about LAG impact on short food supply chains only from the analysis of websites seems questionable.
4. The conclusions part must be more precise and specific.

Author Response

Response to the Comments of the Honourable Reviewer

Thank you for reading and evaluating our article. Here we would like to respond to your comments. The major modifications in the article are signaled with red color.

1. In order to position the topic to the existing literature, the theoretical part was significantly modified. The main specialty of our recent research is the transnational approach, covering LEADER LAGs of different member states. The scope of processed literature was expanded (+33 items) concerning examples of sustainable rural development and social innovation.
2. We agree with you that the chosen methodology contains subjective elements. In the improved version, a broader explanation of the elaborated website indexing system is given. In order to make the method more valid, the Fleiss' kappa inter-rater agreement index was calculated from the interim data.
3. We are aware of the weaknesses of the chosen method. In the future, we intend to extend the research with questionnaires and in-depth interviews.
4. The "Discussion and conclusions" chapter is divided and in a partitioned form, the "Conclusions" chapter can be elaborated in a more specific form.

Thank you again for your help and supportive ideas. We hope, the implemented changes have raised the quality of the article.

Yours sincerely,

Csaba Patkós 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your new version of your work, your valuable comments and notes!

Good luck with all your projects!

Kind regards,

The Reviewer

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors made a good job polishing the paper. Although one still could expect a more sophisticated research techniques involved.