Roadmapping as a Driver for Knowledge Creation: A Proposal for Improving Sustainable Practices in the Coffee Supply Chain from Chiapas, Mexico, Using Emerging Technologies
, Luis Miguel Contreras-Medina 2,*, Joaliné Pardo-Nuñez 1, Luis Alberto Olvera-Vargas 1 and Carlos Mario Rodriguez-Peralta 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of a paper is interesting, addressing the relevant issue, although the manuscript has some drawbacks and needs to be improved.
1) The introduction and literature review is mixed up together. It should be separated, as they serve different purposes. Introduction substantiates the necessity of a research and presents its aim and task, literature review creates a background for research and indicates the gap which the paper aims to fulfill.
2) Methodological part must be more precise and should more clearly indicate the research design. The substantiation of the particular choice of research design should be provided.
3) The reliability of research design and data used should be presented more thoroughly.
4) Results section is overcrowded with pictures, although the scientific depth is insufficient. It should be improved.
5) Conclusions are to general and almost could be reached without a research. Strengthening conclusions is necessary.
6) The formatting is done at unsatisfactory level (3rd part is mentioned to times, font size is varying and etc).
7) More general comment: I am not sure, that authors really achieved that they stated in introduction. Also a more detail analysis on supply chain is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors, congratulations on undertaking and conducting the research. I believe the topic of your work has been well chosen.
I do not find in the text extracted hypotheses.
It is worth defining and indicating the directions of further research
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors did a great job polishing this paper.
I would still mention some methodological issues:
1) methodology should be provided in a way, that other researches using it should be able to reach the same results, o replicate this methodology in other regions/areas. So it should be the transparent and provided step by step.
2) The substantiation of selected research method could be provided in a way, mentioning other research methods possible solving this research problem and showing its drawbacks.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
