Making Hemp Choices: Evidence from Vermont

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This report review primary concern is to evaluate the paper entitled “consumer demand for hemp: evidence from Vermont” and I am afraid the paper shortcomings far outweigh the strengths. To give some pointers to the authors, the main drawbacks and the corresponding solutions are as follows:

1. The introduction is too short because it is just one paragraph. In this paragraph, the authors address the legal context and set out a general objective. Please, expand the introduction so that you should find ground in the field of marketing. Similarly, let me suggest, the authors spot a research gap and try to justify the research need from a scientific point of view. Likewise, set out specific objectives or needs of information. Finally, the authors should advance the upcoming structure.
2. The review of the literature is misleading, disperse, reiterative and non-rigorous.
   1. It is misleading given that it does not deal with marketing. As far as demand and consumer are concerned, the correct approach should be from the marketing or management perspective.
   2. It is disperse because it touches upon a wide diversity of topics from history, environment, technology and business. In fact, there are too many lines of topics and the authors address all of them in a very shallow way.
   3. It is reiterative seeing that the authors repeat the general objective three times (lines 18-20, 95-97, 123-124), deals with the legal, environment and market issue twice (lines 29-92, 101-124).
   4. It is not rigorous because it is not a review of the literature. What do you mean by reviewing the literature? What literature? The vast majority of the references are consulting reports, institutional reports and news. Consequently, the current paper subject matter is beyond the marketing literature. Let me recommend that the authors review the scientific literature on consumer behaviour and demand because this is the principal cause of the paper failure. Once the authors review the literature, they can go on to put forward hypotheses.
3. Concerning the methodology, one might criticise two aspects:
   1. Although the authors describe the measuring instruments in terms of questions and range, the researchers do not utilise scales, just simple questions. What is more, these questions do not rely on bibliographical sources. Please, consider that the scientific quality of any questionnaire depends heavily on selecting tested measuring instruments and scales.
   2. I presume that the sampling procedure is probabilistic inasmuch as the authors calculate the error and the confidence interval. Nevertheless, the authors do not specify what kind of probabilistic sample procedure they employed. Is it at random? Is it by stratum?    
4. The analysis of the result is unorganised and poor. To be more specific, it is unsystematic due to the following:
   1. The sequence of the tables and the order of the explaining texts is not the same. Consequently, it is hard to follow the threat of thoughts. Please, be more systematic, strength the sequence of tables and comments.
   2. The explanations are short. What is more, there are tables without any mention in the text. For example, tables 6 & 7 are not even mentioned in the text. Similarly, the variables of income and location are not explained in the text either.
   3. The tables are not following the pace of the text. Why are all the tables at the end of the section? For the purposes of describing the obtained evidence, the authors should collate the results so that the tables and the corresponding texts are as close as possible.
   4. The findings are too obvious. For example, it is widely known that women and republicans are less familiar with hemp, cannabis, etc. Therefore, let me suggest the authors are more ambitious.
5. The discussion is devoid of insight. In fact, the vast majority of references are neither scientific nor academic. Please, go into your obtained results to illuminate the readers understanding of the hemp consumption by considering the most relevant literature on marketing and demand.
6. The conclusions are very poor. In fact, the main conclusion point out that people from Vermont show familiarity and hold a favourable attitude toward hemp, but I do not think this evidence justifies, deserves and merits a scientific paper. Moreover, although there is a future line of research, it is too generic and basic in that doing segmentation is something invented half of a century ago. Finally, there are no limitations. For this reason, let me recommend that the authors pose research questions and put forward hypotheses to cast light on unforeseen results, come up with ground-breaking theories and instigate new lines of research.
7. The list of bibliographical references is not in line with marketing and consumer behaviour literature. It is a little of everything in terms of format and subject. There are reports, news, books and articles, there are legal, environmental, business, industrial, agricultural and so forth. Hence, let me suggest that the authors consider more scientific contents from the marketing literature.

I hope these comments can be of help in improving the paper and encourage the authors to move forward.

Author Response

Thank you for your review.  We have taken steps to improve the paper based on your input.  Please see below for our responses to your specific points.

 

Point 1: The introduction is too short because it is just one paragraph. In this paragraph, the authors address the legal context and set out a general objective. Please, expand the introduction so that you should find ground in the field of marketing. Similarly, let me suggest, the authors spot a research gap and try to justify the research need from a scientific point of view. Likewise, set out specific objectives or needs of information. Finally, the authors should advance the upcoming structure.

 

We have edited the introduction, identified our objectives, and set up an outline for the paper.

 

Point 2: The review of the literature is misleading, disperse, reiterative and non-rigorous. It is misleading given that it does not deal with marketing. As far as demand and consumer are concerned, the correct approach should be from the marketing or management perspective. It is disperse because it touches upon a wide diversity of topics from history, environment, technology and business. In fact, there are too many lines of topics and the authors address all of them in a very shallow way. It is reiterative seeing that the authors repeat the general objective three times (lines 18-20, 95-97, 123-124), deals with the legal, environment and market issue twice (lines 29-92, 101-124). It is not rigorous because it is not a review of the literature. What do you mean by reviewing the literature? What literature? The vast majority of the references are consulting reports, institutional reports and news. Consequently, the current paper subject matter is beyond the marketing literature. Let me recommend that the authors review the scientific literature on consumer behaviour and demand because this is the principal cause of the paper failure. Once the authors review the literature, they can go on to put forward hypotheses.

 

We have expanded the literature review significantly and realize our former review was more appropriate as background on the subject.  Because there is no literature on consumer demand for hemp in the U.S., given it has been an illegal substance since the 1930s, we included research on consumer demand for sustainable products for which hemp can be used as an input. We respectfully disagree that the review must be developed with the specific approach of marketing.  Ours is more of a consumer behavior approach.  That said, the bibliography now includes a variety of peer-reviewed research citations surrounding sustainable consumption. We believe that some background in the history of hemp is necessary, but have moved this portion up to the introduction.

 

Point 3: Concerning the methodology, one might criticize two aspects:

 

Point 3a: Although the authors describe the measuring instruments in terms of questions and range, the researchers do not utilise scales, just simple questions. What is more, these questions do not rely on bibliographical sources. Please, consider that the scientific quality of any questionnaire depends heavily on selecting tested measuring instruments and scales.

 

Because there is no current information on consumer awareness, knowledge and use of hemp-based products, we start with simple frequencies, move into bi-variate analysis and then conduct some multi-variate analysis.  Because this is a study based on describing hemp consumers, we use appropriate measures.  We have one scale, which identifies level of support.  Because so many respondents were supportive of hemp, further analysis necessitated collapsing of categories.  Indeed, future research should go beyond demographics and examine attitudes and motivations, which we more clearly express in the discussion—for future research, we agree that scales will be necessary.

 

Point 3b: I presume that the sampling procedure is probabilistic inasmuch as the authors calculate the error and the confidence interval. Nevertheless, the authors do not specify what kind of probabilistic sample procedure they employed. Is it at random? Is it by stratum?

 

We have added a description of the sample and how it was generated, as well as expanded on data collection methods.

 

Point 4: The analysis of the result is unorganised and poor. The sequence of the tables and the order of the explaining texts is not the same. Consequently, it is hard to follow the threat of thoughts. Please, be more systematic, strength the sequence of tables and comments. The explanations are short. What is more, there are tables without any mention in the text. For example, tables 6 & 7 are not even mentioned in the text. Similarly, the variables of income and location are not explained in the text either. The tables are not following the pace of the text. Why are all the tables at the end of the section? For the purposes of describing the obtained evidence, the authors should collate the results so that the tables and the corresponding texts are as close as possible. The findings are too obvious. For example, it is widely known that women and republicans are less familiar with hemp, cannabis, etc. Therefore, let me suggest the authors are more ambitious.

 

We have taken your suggestion and reorganized the presentation of the results. Each Table has accompanying text. While you find the findings obvious, previous research into sustainable products is quite varied.  Because there has been no research about consumers and hemp for over 75 years, in order to move forward, simple results must be published first.  This will provide a foundation for future research. If basic, preliminary results are not published, there can be no future research.  Markets for hemp based sustainable products are not likely going to be a trigger for new marketing/segmentation methodologies. Instead, the reintroduction of this crop will utilize methodologies that are tested.  Not all research creates new knowledge.  What is new is that there is a new ingredient in the market basket of sustainable products.  It will depend on what we know about consumers as to whether there should be any investments in hemp across the supply chain, from growers, to processors, to manufacturers and retailers.

 

Point 5: The discussion is devoid of insight. In fact, the vast majority of references are neither scientific nor academic. Please, go into your obtained results to illuminate the readers understanding of the hemp consumption by considering the most relevant literature on marketing and demand.

 

We have expanded included literature and have referred back to it in the conclusions and discussion.  We also highlight limitations and areas for future research.

 

Point 6: The conclusions are very poor. In fact, the main conclusion point out that people from Vermont show familiarity and hold a favourable attitude toward hemp, but I do not think this evidence justifies, deserves and merits a scientific paper. Moreover, although there is a future line of research, it is too generic and basic in that doing segmentation is something invented half of a century ago. Finally, there are no limitations. For this reason, let me recommend that the authors pose research questions and put forward hypotheses to cast light on unforeseen results, come up with ground-breaking theories and instigate new lines of research.

 

In expanding our literature review and our subsequent edits to the discussion and conclusion sections, we have justified our study as a foundational, descriptive study that serves as a base from which to develop more expansive consumer studies.

 

Point 7: The list of bibliographical references is not in line with marketing and consumer behaviour literature. It is a little of everything in terms of format and subject. There are reports, news, books and articles, there are legal, environmental, business, industrial, agricultural and so forth. Hence, let me suggest that the authors consider more scientific contents from the marketing literature.

 

Our bibliography now includes a variety of peer-reviewed research citations surrounding sustainable consumption and behavior.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is well written and the Introduction provides brief information needed.

Materials

Line 135 - What multivariate analysis implies here? Rather unclear.

Methods

A summary table would be appreciated on the questions asked here.

Stats approach should also be added here in this section

Results & Discussion

The authors have written their results and explained it well, but still lacks of body. I'd like to challenge the authors to rewrite their discussion and extract the key highlights of their results compared to other published literature. The rest of manuscript reads fine but just more body in discussion is required.

Author Response

Thank you for your review.  We have made substantial edits to the manuscript to address another reviewer’s comments.  As a result, the manuscript you will re-review will look quite different.   

 

Point 1: Materials: Line 135 - What multivariate analysis implies here? Rather unclear.

 

We have added explanation to our methods section with regard to multivariate analysis (regression). 

 

Point 2: Methods

 

Point 2a: A summary table would be appreciated on the questions asked here.

 

We have added a summary table of the questions asked. 

 

Point 2b: Stats approach should also be added here in this section.

 

We have expanded the statistical approach.

 

Point 3: Results & Discussion: The authors have written their results and explained it well, but still lacks of body. I'd like to challenge the authors to rewrite their discussion and extract the key highlights of their results compared to other published literature. The rest of manuscript reads fine but just more body in discussion is required.

 

We have added a more extensive discussion that ties back into our newly added literature review that is focused on sustainable consumption.

Reviewer 3 Report

Sustainability-755934

This study investigates Vermont residents’ support, familiarity and use of hemp-based products in order to better characterize consumer demand for hemp. Although interesting and timely this paper suffers from two serious limitations that limit its publication potential:

• Overall, the paper reads like an opinion poll rather than an academic study
• The topic of the study (i.e., consumer demand for hemp-based products) is only remotely associated with sustainability

The following points offer a more detailed assessment of the manuscript:

• The abstract mentions the CBD acronym without explaining it in the first place

 

• Introduction: the authors include the literature review in their introduction which is a peculiar way of writing an introduction. Besides, the introduction does not introduce the problem well. Exactly why is this study important? How does it contribute to the literature? Who cares? More importantly, what is the link with sustainability here? The authors mention elaborate on some vague benefits of hemp as a “sustainable, environmentally friendly crop” from l. 58 to l. 67, yet in the remainder of the paper, the sustainability aspect is totally absent. Besides, other grains can be environmentally sustainable (e.g., barley, canola, corn, etc.) is grown sustainably redirecting the focus on the production methods rather than on the grain in itself.

 

• 77 – Cannabidiol should be explained

 

• The study has no conceptual framework, not even some conceptual foundations on which to build the empirical study

 

• Methods: it is not clear why the authors chose support, familiarity and use as the three focal variables under study (since there is no conceptual framework in the first place). In fact, why not studying attitudes? Perceptions? Knowledge of hemp-based products? And why not considering motives and impediments to consuming those products?

 

• In section 2.1. Materials, it should be specified which sampling method has been used.

 

• In Table 3, since chi-square tests were performed, it is important to add the degrees of freedom and p-values. In Table 4, support refers to which category “strongly supportive” AND “somewhat supportive” or just “strongly supportive”. This is unclear and should be specified.

 

• The results section is very long with many tables with demographic crossings of the results, albeit none of these actually yield any useful insights, since the authors conclude by saying “demographic variables appear to have weak or no associations with consumer demand for hemp-based products in Vermont“ (l. 323-324). This section could and should be drastically reduced.

 

• L. 330-332 the fact that the authors state that “it is not understood which characteristics, if any, are associated with consumer use of hemp products”. Thus, not only is this an opinion poll, but it is not a very informative one either. Besides, the fact that the authors were not able to identify motives for hemp-based products is not surprising since this was not the purpose of the study, and the study was not guided by theory in this regard, in the first place. Demographic variables are usually control variables used in addition to other more fundamental (and often latent) constructs, so it is not a good indicator for motivation analysis.

 

• The contribution of the paper is that CBD is not the primary motivator behind rising interest in hemp production, rather hemp clothing, personal care, products and rope are also of interest. Both clothing and textiles made of rope are more used than generally thought of. Not only is this contribution very thin but it is also irrelevant to the sustainability domain.

 

• Finally (but not so surprisingly), the paper presents no theoretical implications, no managerial implications, no limitations and only one future research avenue (l. 347-349).

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful review.  We have made substantial editorial changes that address your main comments, below.

 

Point 1: Overall, the paper reads like an opinion poll rather than an academic study.

 

The name of the annual, statistically representative survey is called the Vermonter Poll. For 30 years this statistically representative survey has collected information about a wide variety of issues of importance to the State.  Analysis of data collected through this survey has contributed to a wide variety of issues, from local food systems and consumer behavior related to sugar sweetened beverage taxes, to consumption of raw milk and consumer perceptions, knowledge and behaviors related to food labeling. We have edited the manuscript to more accurately describe the survey methodology.

 

Point 2: The topic of the study (i.e., consumer demand for hemp-based products) is only remotely associated with sustainability.

 

We respectfully disagree. Hemp based products have the potential to be processed into a wide variety of products demanded by sustainable-minded consumers.  To provide greater clarity, we have refocused our background on why hemp is a sustainable crop that can supply sustainable ingredients.

 

Point 3: The abstract mentions the CBD acronym without explaining it in the first place

 

We have addressed this issue, both in the abstract and in the main body of the paper.

 

Point 4: Introduction: the authors include the literature review in their introduction which is a peculiar way of writing an introduction. Besides, the introduction does not introduce the problem well. Exactly why is this study important? How does it contribute to the literature? Who cares? More importantly, what is the link with sustainability here? The authors mention elaborate on some vague benefits of hemp as a “sustainable, environmentally friendly crop” from l. 58 to l. 67, yet in the remainder of the paper, the sustainability aspect is totally absent. Besides, other grains can be environmentally sustainable (e.g., barley, canola, corn, etc.) is grown sustainably redirecting the focus on the production methods rather than on the grain in itself.

 

We have restructured our introduction in order to more clearly demonstrate hemp as a potential sustainable crop and product. We have also added more context and an expanded literature review.  Thank you for the comment.

 

Point 5: The study has no conceptual framework, not even some conceptual foundations on which to build the empirical study.

 

This study is a descriptive study. What makes it unique is there is no published literature that lays a foundation for any future study of hemp-based products and sustainable consumption. Our study describes and analyses relationships surrounding consumer demand for hemp, for which there has been no other published work. We’ve made substantial edits to the literature review, adding research on consumer demand for sustainable products for which hemp can be used as an input.

 

Point 6: Methods: it is not clear why the authors chose support, familiarity and use as the three focal variables under study (since there is no conceptual framework in the first place). In fact, why not studying attitudes? Perceptions? Knowledge of hemp-based products? And why not considering motives and impediments to consuming those products?

 

We appreciate this comment. Before research looks into motivations and attitudes behind demand, it was important to first determine whether there is support, knowledge and current use of a newly emerging sector, especially considering that hemp production has been illegal in the U.S. for more than 75 years. Your comment reflects the new additions to our literature review and lays the foundation for future research.  Our descriptive study, however, offers a benchmark for others who study the growth or demise of the hemp sector.

 

Point 7: In section 2.1. Materials, it should be specified which sampling method has been used.

 

We have expanded this section to more fully describe our survey methodology.

 

Point 8: In Table 3, since chi-square tests were performed, it is important to add the degrees of freedom and p-values. In Table 4, support refers to which category “strongly supportive” AND “somewhat supportive” or just “strongly supportive”. This is unclear and should be specified.

 

We have addressed your concerns for our bivariate tables (now Tables 4, 6 and 7) and have clarified the description of Table 4 (now Table 5).

 

Point 9: The results section is very long with many tables with demographic crossings of the results, albeit none of these actually yield any useful insights, since the authors conclude by saying “demographic variables appear to have weak or no associations with consumer demand for hemp-based products in Vermont“ (l. 323-324). This section could and should be drastically reduced.

 

We agree with your comment and have reduced the section accordingly.

 

Point 10: L. 330-332 the fact that the authors state that “it is not understood which characteristics, if any, are associated with consumer use of hemp products”. Thus, not only is this an opinion poll, but it is not a very informative one either. Besides, the fact that the authors were not able to identify motives for hemp-based products is not surprising since this was not the purpose of the study, and the study was not guided by theory in this regard, in the first place. Demographic variables are usually control variables used in addition to other more fundamental (and often latent) constructs, so it is not a good indicator for motivation analysis.

 

We have made substantial edits to our discussion section to better clarify our findings. We also more clearly justify our use of socio-demographic variables as predictors in our literature review.

 

Point 11: The contribution of the paper is that CBD is not the primary motivator behind rising interest in hemp production, rather hemp clothing, personal care, products and rope are also of interest. Both clothing and textiles made of rope are more used than generally thought of. Not only is this contribution very thin but it is also irrelevant to the sustainability domain.

 

We respectfully disagree.  Hemp-based alternatives to current “ingredients” and components of a wide variety of consumer products is directly tied to sustainability.  Substituting hemp for petroleum, and synthetics, and even cotton which is not grown in a sustainable manner (requiring vast amounts of herbicides and pesticides), indicates that hemp-based products can be part of sustainable consumption.  We have thus refocused our background to emphasize why hemp is a sustainable crop.

 

Point 12: Finally (but not so surprisingly), the paper presents no theoretical implications, no managerial implications, no limitations and only one future research avenue (l. 347-349).

 

Our manuscript is a foundational, descriptive study of the consumer market for hemp and forms a baseline for future analyses. Prior to the passing of the 2018 Farm Bill, hemp production was illegal for more than 75 years. There is therefore a gap in literature on baseline descriptive studies and an absence of consumer studies regarding hemp as an alternative product. We offer genetic engineering as an analogy of a novel technology. Here, many baseline, descriptive studies were published about consumer awareness of this novel technology, providing a base from which to develop more expansive consumer studies.

Reviewer 4 Report

The study aims at investigating the "Consumer demand for hemp: Evidence from Vermont".

The paper is not satisfactory written, needs a careful editing.

Further, the study aim and background are not well presented, repetitions occurring in the paper should be avoided.

However it is recommended:

- Abstract requires rewording and to be concise and clear. Please provide the full name or explanations for all abbreviations the first time used in the full text. Don't use abbreviations in the abstract.

- Introduction and, above all, the conclusions can be improved in order to show better aim and results for further studies in the topic.

- Please carefully consider and revise the logic of some parts.

- Carefully check the full text. Especially regarding the state of the art. It is important to clearly show the logic of the introduction section, which is important for understanding the research gaps, novelty and the significance of this study.

- Except for the logic problem, the introduction section still needs improvement.

- Please do more to highlight how the work advances or increments the field from the present state of knowledge and provide a clear justification for your work.

- Too many equivocal words are used, especially in when analysing and discussing the key results of this study.

- Conclusion section needs improvement. Please provide more quantitative key contributions of the study with proper discussions, highlight the limitations of this study and the future work.

- A thorough and detailed discussions of your findings is needed.

- Add a short section "explanation of term" or "nomenclature" for acronyms.

- English proofreading is needed. Some description is not professional for a scientific article.

Accordingly, it is opinion of this reviewer to accept with major revisions the proposed manuscript for a publication on this journal.

 

Author Response

1. Abstract requires rewording and to be concise and clear. Please provide the full name or explanations for all abbreviations the first time used in the full text. Don't use abbreviations in the abstract.

Abbreviations have been removed from the abstract and explained where first used in the main text.

 

2. Introduction and, above all, the conclusions can be improved in order to show better aim and results for further studies in the topic.

We have made edits to both sections, per your suggestions.

 

3. Please carefully consider and revise the logic of some parts.

We have edited our manuscript for clarity and logic.

 

4. Carefully check the full text. Especially regarding the state of the art. It is important to clearly show the logic of the introduction section, which is important for understanding the research gaps, novelty and the significance of this study.

We have made considerable edits to the entire manuscript.

 

5. Except for the logic problem, the introduction section still needs improvement.

With little direction except for "needs improvement”, it is difficult to address this comment.  Please note that the entire manuscript has been rewritten.

 

 

6. Please do more to highlight how the work advances or increments the field from the present state of knowledge and provide a clear justification for your work.

There is currently no peer-reviewed research on consumer demand for or behavior toward hemp products. However, we have edited our introduction section to provide better clarity on how our research contributes to this gap in literature.

 

7. Too many equivocal words are used, especially in when analysing and discussing the key results of this study.

The results section has been edited for greater clarity.

 

8. Conclusion section needs improvement. Please provide more quantitative key contributions of the study with proper discussions, highlight the limitations of this study and the future work.

We have made substantial edits to the conclusion section and have included limitations and direction for future research.  Since our last submission, there has been a national conference on hemp in the U.S., our findings do align with what other academics, marketers, and hemp growers are communicating.

 

9. A thorough and detailed discussions of your findings is needed.

We have added more details to the discussion and put the discussion in the context of the most up to date information related to needs and findings of consumer-oriented hemp research.

 

10. Add a short section "explanation of term" or "nomenclature" for acronyms.

An "explanation of term" section has been added to the beginning of the manuscript.

 

11. English proofreading is needed. Some description is not professional for a scientific article.

We have proofread the article.

Reviewer 5 Report

The major drawbacks are that the paper does not provide a good background of the phenomenon based on the relevant literature review and that the proposed methodology should be clearly expressed. The  results are not always clearly readable.

Author Response

1. The major drawbacks are that the paper does not provide a good background of the phenomenon based on the relevant literature review and that the proposed methodology should be clearly expressed.

We have taken your feedback into consideration and, as a result, have included a consumer behavior model to analyze our data and edited our results and findings as such.

 

2. The results are not always clearly readable.

The results section has been edited for greater clarity.

Reviewer 6 Report

I would like to make some recommendations to the authors.

First of all, I find very poor introduction and theoretical background. In this sense, I would also aim at re-engineering both the sections, because, for instance, I would speak about sustainable consumption in a broader way. References are not adequately supporting the theory, limiting most of the citations to large fields of studies (like you just read the keywords and cited). I would go in depth of some work and try to figure out some interesting spots. Moreover, I do not see the point to speak about the objectives of the work at the end of the par. 1.1. 

Conclusions are almost fine, but I would support more possible deductions, plus the evident limitations of the study, which are obviously existent by reading the first lines of the theoretical background.

English is more or less fine, I would suggest a further text editing. 

Author Response

1. First of all, I find very poor introduction and theoretical background. In this sense, I would also aim at re-engineering both the sections, because, for instance, I would speak about sustainable consumption in a broader way. References are not adequately supporting the theory, limiting most of the citations to large fields of studies (like you just read the keywords and cited). I would go in depth of some work and try to figure out some interesting spots.

We have taken your feedback into consideration and, as a result, have included a consumer behavior theory and applied the model to our data. Our results and findings have been edited as such.

 

2. Moreover, I do not see the point to speak about the objectives of the work at the end of the par. 1.1.

The objectives have been removed, per your recommendation.

 

3. Conclusions are almost fine, but I would support more possible deductions, plus the evident limitations of the study, which are obviously existent by reading the first lines of the theoretical background.

We have made substantial edits to the conclusion section.

 

4. English is more or less fine, I would suggest a further text editing.

We have proofread the article.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This is the second review of the paper entitled “consumer demand for hemp: evidence from Vermont” and of the seven pointers that I gave to the authors, they have made good use of a few. To be specific, the new version of the paper has improved in deleting the reiterations and the order of the tables and comments. The paper shows a linear train of thoughts, the introduction is longer and the tables are referenced in the text. Besides, the authors provide more information about how probabilistic the sampling procedure is.

Nevertheless, there remain significant shortcomings as follows:

1. The authors do neither spot a research gap nor justify it from a scientific point of view. In fact, in their answer to the reviewer, they state “not all research creates new knowledge”. In my view, they are right but then it is not worth publishing.
2. There is not a proper and rigorous review of the literature. It touches upon a wide variety of topics. There are only 6 marketing and consumer behaviour bibliographical references, even though they say they study consumer demand. Logically, it is impossible to put forward hypotheses.
3. The questionnaire is too simple: there is only one scale and the rest is full of simple questions. I am afraid this shortcoming is not possible to overcome.
4. The findings are too obvious.
5. The discussion is devoid of insight.

I hope these comments and the comments that I made in my previous review can be of help in giving pointers for future research works.

 

 

Author Response

1. The authors do neither spot a research gap nor justify it from a scientific point of view. In fact, in their answer to the reviewer, they state “not all research creates new knowledge”. In my view, they are right but then it is not worth publishing.

We have made edits to better clarify the research gap being addressed in this study and have included references that call for more hemp research overall, as well as specifically on market demand. In fact, the research gap concerning consumer segments/demand for hemp is enormous given that the market for U.S. hemp has been dormant since the 1930's given the U.S.'s interpretation that hemp and marijuana cannabis are the same thing (they are not).

 

2. There is not a proper and rigorous review of the literature. It touches upon a wide variety of topics. There are only 6 marketing and consumer behaviour bibliographical references, even though they say they study consumer demand. Logically, it is impossible to put forward hypotheses.

The review of literature is broad and various because hemp can be processed into many products. Given the absence of peer-reviewed literature on the hemp market in the U.S., we erred on the side of inclusion when navigating the literature on consumer demand for sustainable products.  There is no consumer-oriented hemp literature in the refereed literature.

 

3. The questionnaire is too simple: there is only one scale and the rest is full of simple questions. I am afraid this shortcoming is not possible to overcome.

We have taken your feedback into consideration and, as a result, have included a consumer behavior model to analyze our data and edited our results and findings as such. Without a baseline for future research, it did not make sense to take a kitchen sink approach.

 

4. The findings are too obvious.

We have taken your feedback into consideration and, as a result, have included a consumer behavior model to analyze our data and edited our results and findings as such.

 

5. The discussion is devoid of insight.

We have edited our discussion to reflect the inclusion of a consumer behavior model.

Reviewer 3 Report

N/A

Author Response

We have addressed your check boxes based on other reviewers.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

I am happy to inform you that I have accepted your revision of the manuscript and will recommend it for publication without further changes. Congratulations. I look forward to reading it online.

Thank you for the opportunity to let me contribute a small part to your publication.

Reviewer 6 Report

Once I opened the manuscript, I realized that the author(s) profoundly revised the work. It is much more complete, it has now a proper structure. I appreciate that the author(s) largely considered the reviewers' suggestions.