The Analysis of Local Marketplace Business on the Selected Urban Case—Problems and Perspectives

Comments:

Answers:

English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.

The professional editor has been employed and the language has been improved.

This article might have some merits but I am really not confident about its suitability to publish it in 'Sustainability' Journal. It is rather to choose its venue for small business or administrative journal-far I could say based on my knowledge. Thank you.

Thank you for this observation. However, we deem that with the properly introduced modifications, our manuscript is suitable for publishing in Sustainability.

Comments:

Answers:

Extensive editing of English language and style required.

The extensive editing of English has been done.

You have a depth understanding and broad background knowledge related to the topic of research.

Nevertheless, in my opinion this manuscript has not enough academic quality to be published in a JCR Q2 journal. This manuscript explores the evolution of one specific marketplace in Serbia (line 101). The topic of research is not relevant enough for the scientific community. The following major comments aim to improve the quality of this paper. There are some important issues that must be addressed by the authors before the manuscript is suitable for publications. I primarily recommend addressing:

Thank you for this observation. Nevertheless, we believe that with the introduced modifications, our manuscript is suitable for publishing in Sustainability and relevant for the scientific community on both, national and global scales.

C1. Title: It does not predict the content of the research paper. It does not include techniques or methods. By reading the title it is clear that it is about marketplaces, but it is not clear what is this research specifically about. Title must be improved.

The main title has been modified (Lines 2-3).

C2. English must be improved. Please improve academic writing style.

For instance, three examples in lines 391, 379 and 381: “adapt to introduce to diversify”, “Our narrative of this case celebrates the market as a human activity so woven into the fabric of daily life that its many benefits, organization, and uses often go ignored by scholars and policymakers. These are not “token” activities. ” and “This research has found that this marketplace as an image of a significant micro-economy in Serbia, and more importantly we profile an important public place.”.

The English expression has been enhanced, along with revisions of the indicated details on the mentioned statements (Lines 485-500).

C3. Line 11: “Local marketplaces and street vendors represent an important segment of trade in a community”. How important? In all communities? Who said that?

The indicated sentence represents a general statement about local marketplaces and street vendors at the very beginning of the Abstract (Lines 12-13).  This is not a citation or our averment but a universal phenomenon well common in (almost) every country worldwide. In this respect, we don't see how this sentence should be clarified in terms of marketplaces/street vendors' significance in any society or introduced citations stating that local marketplaces (incl. street vendors) are an important segment of trade in a community.

C4. Abstract: Lines 1 to 5 only introduce the topic of research, too much space for this purpose. Lines 6 to 10 are imprecise and unclear. Lines 11 to 13 ramble too general conclusions, it should be specific showing clear add value.

The Abstract has been upgraded (Lines 24-29).  

C5. Avoid unnecessary self-citation. There are five self-citations in the first two paragraphs.

The improvements have been introduced.

C6. Introduction: Introduction must identify the research gap based on previous literature gaps. Introduction must unambiguously identify the specific topic of research (it must be identified at the beginning of the manuscript, not in line 227). Introduction must clearly identify the specific aim of your research. At the end of the introduction the paper organization must be explained. Instead of that, this introduction drifts an unnecessary broad explanation of what is a marketplace.

The Introduction has been modified with the aim presented at the end of the Chapter (Lines 68-85).

C7. Materials and methods: Please explain the selection criteria. Which qualitative data analysis software did you use? Please justify the specific research technique and explain its procedure in depth.

All necessary changes have been implemented in the Materials and methods (Lines 303-311  and 320-324).

C8. Table 1 “Sample characteristics” should not be included in section 5. Results and discussion. The sample characteristics are not a result of your research.

Table 1 is one of the essential parts of the research findings accompanying with discussion. In this respect, the location of the Table should stay unchanged.

C9. Conclusions: One of your conclusions (line 387) is that “food with the labels of geographic origin, organic food, … cannot be found in supermarkets”. Really? Is it not possible to find food with the labels of geographic origin or organic food in Serbian supermarkets?

The sentence has been slightly modified (Line 497).

It is possible to find food with the labels of geographic origin or organic food in Serbian supermarkets but the offer is still very limited and in a small amount.

C10. Conclusions: The final conclusion, expressed in the last three lines of the manuscript, in line with the whole manuscript, instead of being specific, it ramble general and obvious thoughts.

The Conclusion has been significantly upgraded (Lines 523-577).

C11. Please include specific public policy recommendations.

Specific public policy recommendations have been included in the Conclusion (Lines 533-555).

C12. Please include the discussion of your research limitations.

The limitations have been added at the very end of the manuscript (Lines 556-565).

C13. Please discuss future lines of research.

The future lines/implications have been discussed in the Conclusion (Lines 566-577).

C14. Please improve literature review and the number of academic references (avoiding unnecessary self-citation).

The literature basis has been strongly upgraded within the new chapter:

2. The overview on marketplaces’ development on the global scale (Lines 86-189).

Additionally, please take into consideration the following minor comments:

C1. Lines 101, 403, etc.: “we explore”, “it seems to us”. Please avoid the use of first-person pronouns and apply an impersonal writing style.

C2. Line 159: “The aims of this study are focused on answering several important questions”. Why you claim that those questions are important? Why are those questions relevant? How it contributes to the science? Question 3: “…of marketplaces”: All of them worldwide? European, Serbian, or Novi Sad marketplaces? Or only this one?

C3. It would be a good idea to include hypotheses.

Thank you for these additional comments.  We tried to implement the most of suggested comments and to avoid the use of first-person pronouns.

Comments:

Answers:

Moderate English changes required.

The professional editor has been employed and the language has been enhanced.

The topic of the paper is interesting. It is not itself very new but it thinks still worth investigating.

Thank you for this observation.

The literature basis of the paper is very limited. The present version of the literature analysis is insufficient. Authors should use more good peer-reviewed papers from removed international journals.

The literature basis has been strongly upgraded within the new chapter:

2. The overview on marketplaces’ development on the global scale (Lines 86-189).

Authors write that they use qualitative methods – please describe them – what methods were used, why, add some information about particular method its’s strength and weakness.

All necessary changes have been implemented in the Materials and methods (Lines 303-311 and 320-324).

There is not a real discussion section of the paper. There are only results without enough links to literature. In this part, Authors should write how the research are with competition to other researchers. What are the similarities and differences? They should compare the results with theoretical models from literature, etc.

The entire Results and discussion chapter has been improved by comparing our findings with previous ones (Lines 349-352, 368-370, 403-405, and 420-421).

Authors should add some limitation of the paper.

The limitations have been added at the very end of the manuscript (Lines 556-565).

The paper has not implicitly formulated goal. The goal should be formulated in the introduction and linked with the research gap. What is the research gap? Why the research is important?

The suggested explanation has been presented in the Introduction (Lines 68-85), while the importance of the study has have been emphasized in the Conclusion (Lines 523-555 and 566-577).