Next Article in Journal
Wood and Black Liquor-Based N-Doped Activated Carbon for Energy Application
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of the Milking Frequency on the Concentrations of Ammonia and Greenhouse Gases within an Open Dairy Barn in Hot Climate Conditions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Domestic Food Waste and Covid-19 Concern: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

How the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior Can Be Applied in the Research of the Influencing Factors of Food Waste in Restaurants: Learning from Serbian Urban Centers

Sustainability 2021, 13(16), 9236; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169236
by Ivana Blešić 1,2,*, Marko D. Petrović 2,3, Tamara Gajić 2,4, Tatiana N. Tretiakova 2, Julia A. Syromiatnikova 2, Milan Radovanović 2,3, Jovanka Popov-Raljić 4 and Natalia V. Yakovenko 5
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Reviewer 4: Anonymous
Sustainability 2021, 13(16), 9236; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169236
Submission received: 30 June 2021 / Revised: 5 August 2021 / Accepted: 10 August 2021 / Published: 17 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability and Food Waste: Firm Strategies and Consumer Behaviour)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I suggest the following revisions:

1) English language could be improved by a mother-tongue;

2) Please, include a table with the description of items;

3) Please make more clear table 2. It is not clear why did you remove the item with satisfactory values of Cronbach's alpha, AVE and CR. Moreover,  please title the table  "CFA results" instead of "Measurement model results" since it could make confusion with the PLS-SEM methodology;

4) The study conclusions are not clear. Please, make it in a separate section;

5) The study has several limitations. Recent studies analyze the TPB model through the PLS-SEM method. Moreover, you have considered in your model a sort of "stated" behavior instead of the observed behavior, as suggested by Ajzen (1991). So, please include these limitations in the paper. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We really appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript.  Here is a point-by-point response to your comments.

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1:  English language could be improved by a mother-tongue;

Response 1: The linguistic revision of whole manuscript is carried out (corrections are marked with track changes).

Point 2:   Please, include a table with the description of items;

Response 2: Table 1 with the description of items is included in section 3.1 Instruments.

Point 3:   Please make more clear table 2. It is not clear why did you remove the item with satisfactory values of Cronbach's alpha, AVE and CR. Moreover,  please title the table  "CFA results" instead of "Measurement model results" since it could make confusion with the PLS-SEM methodology;

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. The explanation of Table 2 is inserted in the text (marked in red). The Table 2 is titled “CFA results”.

Point 4:   The study conclusions are not clear. Please, make it in a separate section;

Response 4: The conclusion is moved to a separate section.

Point 5:   The study has several limitations. Recent studies analyze the TPB model through the PLS-SEM method. Moreover, you have considered in your model a sort of "stated" behavior instead of the observed behavior, as suggested by Ajzen (1991). So, please include these limitations in the paper.

Response 5: Limitations suggested by the reviewer are inserted in the text (marked in red).

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

the paper is interesting and well written, I only suggest you to improve the implications.

There are two limitations in my opinion:

the sample should have been lager;

the data collection has been realized more than one year ago (altough this secon limitation can be justified by the pandemic).

Regards,

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We really appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript.  Here is a point-by-point response to your comments.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1:   The sample should have been lager. Point 2:   The data collection has been realized more than one year ago (although this second limitation can be justified by the pandemic).

Response 1 and 2: Thank you for pointing this out. On March 15, the Serbian Government announced the decision to declare a state of emergency throughout Serbia due to the corona virus pandemic. Therefore, the authors were prevented from continuing the research. In the next few months, restaurants in Serbia were closed. Limitations and suggestions regarding sample size are listed in the section 5.1. Limitations and suggestions for future studies. The authors plan to conduct new research based on larger sample that should be extended to other destinations in Serbia, such as restaurants in mountain and spa tourism centers, as well as to the restaurants in rural areas.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper entitled "How the extended theory of planned behavior can be applied in the research of the influencing factors of food waste in restaurants? Learning from Serbian urban centers" presents a survey study on consumers' behavior towards food wasting using TPB methodology. I found this study interesting and up-to-date as the problem of food wasting is taken more and more seriously.Learning about the factors shaping the behavior/views of consumers about food waste will certainly help in the fight against this negative phenomenon. Despite the fact that the TPB methodology is not perfect (it probably does not exist), it at least provides the basis for further extended research (which the authors emphasize at the end of the article). 

I have no comments on the structure of the article or on the statistical analysis of the survey results and their discussion. I found some  language errors e.g. page 3 line 7 from the bottom "aimed at investigating" instead of "whose aim was". Please, read the paper again carefully. Please, check also the references because the text lacks citations 56 and 57.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We really appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript.  Here is a point-by-point response to your comments.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1:   I found some  language errors e.g. page 3 line 7 from the bottom "aimed at investigating" instead of "whose aim was".

Response 1: The linguistic revision of whole manuscript is carried out (corrections are marked with track changes).

Point 2:   Please, check also the references because the text lacks citations 56 and 57.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. The authors have checked the text and inserted the missing references.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

ok

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We really appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript.  Here is a response to your comments.

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

Point 1:   English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

Response 1: The linguistic revision of whole manuscript is carried out (corrections are marked with track changes).

 

Back to TopTop