Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 on the Italian Agri-Food Sector: An Analysis of the Quarter of Pandemic Lockdown and Clues for a Socio-Economic and Territorial Restart

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors thank you for a very interesting and complex analysis of the impact of Covid 19 on the Italian agri-food sector. Your multidisciplinary team has drawn on sources of information to describe the immediate outcome of the current pandemic on several sectors and identified  scenarios for future of these sectors and the research opportunities for universities. I have inserted queries in the text available in the attached pdf for you to review.

I have a major issue with your proposed publication. It appears that your multidisciplinary team includes Directors of departments of the School of Agriculture and that this paper is a major outcome and possibly a presentation of "Post COVID-19; Ideas for Recovery". My concern is the total lack of referencing throughout the document, with only 15 references in the reference section. This is not the work of academia, this may be a blue sky musing, but is not suitable in the present form for  publication in a journal. As there are 4 disciplines involved discussing implications on many different sectors, I would expect many references to be included in this piece. 

Another main concern is that there is much speculation presented as fact without referencing,  hence the paper would be better served if conjectures are supported by referenced documents. 

Many Blue Sky ruminations are presented, with particularly biased recommendations that the University can solve all problems.

A complete re-write of referenced useful information is required in standard academic form, with a condensed discussion, eliminating many of the rambling discussion would immeasurably improve your document and prepare it for another submission. Liaison of content from the 4 departments with academic rigour and general tightening of the document through review is necessary before this document can be reconsidered.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We have completed the revision of our article and finalized its submission.

The manuscript was carefully revised and completely reorganized as suggested by the reviewers. Here we would like to emphasize that we implemented a re-write of referenced useful information in order to meet a standard academic form. In particular, we performed a scientific literature review and selected more than 50 additional papers to support specific results, statistics and statements.

The title was shortened to make it more concise and impactful. Moreover, as requested by the reviewers, this new version of the manuscript is arranged in sections and subsections, and includes 5 new figures and 1 table.

We realized that our first version of the review manuscript, mainly based on our individual expertise and direct knowledge, was a bit reductive and incomplete. Now we are confident to have improved the overall quality and readability of the manuscript. For this reason, we wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their careful and critical reading of our manuscript, and insightful comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with a subject of major importance, the analysis of the first quarter of Covid-19 pandemic in Italy, and its consequences on Italian agri-food sector. The paper suffers from many weaknesses, probably due to the few information at disposal at the moment of writing.

The main problem is in the setting, which makes the paper resemble more to a journalistic report, than to a scientific research.

The paper results difficult to read, and synthesis information (e.g., tables and figures) are totally lacking.

Scientific literature review is not sufficiently rigorous, and needs to be deepened.

The aim of the paper is not clear, together with the methods, and in particular a Section devoted to Dataset and Methods is lacking.

Section 3, “Ideas, guidelines and strategies … “ is narrative, with no scientific sound, with considerations of a general nature, valid for any circumstances, not only for the Covid-19 evenience.

As a consequence, the conclusions have not particular meaning, if not that of being a mere repetition of what has been already said.

On the basis of former comments, I propose a deep revision of the paper.

• The titles (both that of the paper, and those of Sections) have to be much more concise and impactful;

• The same is valid for the Abstract, which needs to be cut;

• Any scientific paper must contain a Section named “Dataset and Methods”, or something like “Methodology”;

• The only sources seem to be websites, journal articles and reports: this is a bit reductive;

• The insertion of Subsections might improve the readability of Sections, which are too long and often verbose

• Conclusions should be rewritten, on the basis of clear results and discussions.

 

Minor comments:

• Line 145: ISTAT is an acronym, defined only later. Any acronym has to defined the first time it appears in the paper;

• Many definitions do not make sense: what are Assindustria Venetocentro, Confindustria Veneto, Fondazione Cariparo and Unioncamere Veneto (lines 423-424) ?

• I do not know the meaning of the acronyms DOP, IGP, DOC, DOCG and IGT (line 449), they have to be clearly defined.

 

Author Response

We have completed the revision of our article and finalized its submission.

The manuscript was carefully revised and completely reorganized as suggested by the reviewers. Here we would like to emphasize that we implemented a re-write of referenced useful information in order to meet a standard academic form. In particular, we performed a scientific literature review and selected more than 50 additional papers to support specific results, statistics and statements.

The title was shortened to make it more concise and impactful. Moreover, as requested by the reviewers, this new version of the manuscript is arranged in sections and subsections, and includes 5 new figures and 1 table.

We realized that our first version of the review manuscript, mainly based on our individual expertise and direct knowledge, was a bit reductive and incomplete. Now we are confident to have improved the overall quality and readability of the manuscript. For this reason, we wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their careful and critical reading of our manuscript, and insightful comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I appreciate your specific attention to placing references throughout the document and breaking the paper into sections.

The use of several diagrams also improve the paper for the reader and increase interest. Can you check the sources of all figures and the table is notes.

One of the sections title (3) is repeated in the text.

You also need to review the use of "z" or "s" in specific words throughout the manuscript.

 I enjoyed reading your revised manuscript.

Author Response

We have completed the minor revision of our article as requested.

The figure sources were checked and further detailed were provided in their legends. The subsections titles were also checked. The form of specific terms was verified.

We wish to thank once more the anonymous reviewers for their careful and critical reading of our manuscript, and insightful comments and suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been thoroughly reviewed.

Author Response

We have completed the minor revision of our article as requested.

The figure sources were checked and further detailed were provided in their legends. The subsection titles were also checked. The form of specific terms was verified.

We wish to thank once more the anonymous reviewers for their careful and critical reading of our manuscript, and insightful comments and suggestions.