Tunisian Consumer Quality Perception and Preferences for Dairy Products: Do Health and Sustainability Matter?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
I appreciate your honesty with regards to the difficulty in collecting data during the pandemic, which has affected many research studies worldwide. The reframing of the study with the limited sample size in mind, and removing of mentions of generalisability, is now more acceptable. I have a couple of outstanding suggestions (below).
Lines 227-233 would read better placed in the discussion/limitations section where the small sample size is discussed.
There are still some minor grammar corrections required throughout e.g. first sentence of the abstract is overly long, line 42 should read ‘composed of’ rather than ‘composed by’. The manuscript would benefit from a full further proofread to correct such issues.
Author Response
Responses to the comments of Reviewer 1
Journal: Sustainability (SSN 2071-1050; CODEN: SUSTDE)
Journal: Sustainability (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability).
Section: Sustainable Food – Special Issue: Consumers’ Preferences and Food Products.
Special Issue: "Consumers’ Preferences and Food Products"
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1356887
Title: Tunisian Consumer Quality Perception and Preferences for Dairy Products: Do Health and Sustainability Matter?
Authors: Meriem Zlaoui, Mohamed Zied Dhraief, Boubaker Dhehibi, and Mourad Rekik
Authors’ responses to comments of Reviewer 1
We are very grateful to editor and the reviewers for their useful and constructive comments and suggestions on the content and structure of our manuscript. We highly appreciate these constructive insights and scientific remarks that were greatly helpful to prepare a new version of the paper. In the below responses, we repeat each comment and explain how we addressed it in the revised manuscript.
Comment 1:
Lines 227-233 would read better placed in the discussion/limitations section where the small sample size is discussed.
Authors’ response to comment 1:
The authors thank the reviewer for its comment, the paragraph concerning the sample size was placed in the discussion/limitations section as suggested by the reviewer.
Comment 2:
There are still some minor grammar corrections required throughout e.g. first sentence of the abstract is overly long
Authors’ response to comment 2:
The first and the third sentences of the abstract were shortened into several simple sentences as suggested by the reviewer. Sentence 3 was split into 3 sentences.
Comment 3:
Line 42 should read ‘composed of’ rather than ‘composed by’
Authors’ response to comment 3:
Composed by is found in line 45 and was changed according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
Comment 4:
The manuscript would benefit from a full further proofread to correct such issues.
Authors’ response to comment 4:
The whole manuscript had a final round of proofread and some misspellings and grammar mistakes were corrected (Line 44,126,143,147,150,157,162,163,164,184,195,199,262,284,289, 303,328,338,397,449,457,480,482,484,547,548).
Reviewer 2 Report
The material has been improved according to the suggestions submitted.
Please pay attention to layout. (e.g. lack of space after comma - Line 4; delete space before colon).
L201 - please solve the lack of parentheses "[66".
L448 deleted.
Please solve the spacing between paragraphs L582-584.
Line 728 deleted.
Line 726 - "87" non-italic.
Author Response
Responses to the comments of Reviewer 2
Journal: Sustainability (SSN 2071-1050; CODEN: SUSTDE)
Journal: Sustainability (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability).
Section: Sustainable Food – Special Issue: Consumers’ Preferences and Food Products.
Special Issue: "Consumers’ Preferences and Food Products"
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1356887
Title: Tunisian Consumer Quality Perception and Preferences for Dairy Products: Do Health and Sustainability Matter?
Authors: Meriem Zlaoui, Mohamed Zied Dhraief, Boubaker Dhehibi, and Mourad Rekik
Authors’ responses to comments of Reviewer 2
We are very grateful to editor and the reviewers for their useful and constructive comments and suggestions on the content and structure of our manuscript. We highly appreciate these constructive insights and scientific remarks that were greatly helpful to prepare a new version of the paper. In the below responses, we repeat each comment and explain how we addressed it in the revised manuscript.
Comment 1:
Please pay attention to layout. (e.g. lack of space after comma - Line 4; delete space before colon).
Authors’ response to comment 1:
Modifications were made according to the reviewer’s suggestions
Comment 2:
L201 - please solve the lack of parentheses "[66".
Authors’ response to comment 2:
The parenthesis was added in line 216 as suggested.
Comment 3:
L448 deleted.
Authors’ response to comment 3:
Line 448 corresponds to line 474 in the track change mode file, it was deleted as suggested.
Comment 4:
Please solve the spacing between paragraphs L582-584.
Authors’ response to comment 4:
The spacing in reference 20 was corrected.
Comment 5:
Line 728 deleted.
Authors’ response to comment 5:
The line was deleted as suggested.
Comment 6:
Line 726 - "87" non-italic.
Authors’ response to comment 6:
Reference 87 was corrected.
