Creating Food Value Chain Transformations through Regional Food Hubs: A Review Article
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has greatly improved and the authors have properly addressed all comments
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to thanks to you for your willingness to provide a review on our article. Below, we are attach the our response.
Thank You
Best Regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is very interesting and the analysis of the literature is comprehensive including almost all aspects of the topic. However, there are some little things to improve:
Please justify why have you chosen only Scopus database while there are different. Have not you loosened any valuable work?
do you analyze the article in the range of 2009-2021 years, 2009-2022 or 2013-2022?
“…ongoing shock caused by the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and humanitarian challenges, such as war and conflict, climate change, and economic crisis, have uncovered the vulnerability, food insecurity, and missing link of today’s FVC and dispersed globally” please provide reference.
“The development of digitalization of the agricultural sector is a challenge for agricultural supply chain actors, especially for some food systems that are not yet well integrated.” which ones?
Please indicate the reference number in the table as well to be clear on which article you are talking about. Also adjust the citations in the text with the same format.
Please, explain better the table and the information given in there. What are “Y” and “N”? Actually, it is understandable but it should be explained in the text.
“This review complements the existing review journal related to FVC and RFH management” journal or articles?
Please correct the English language imperfections. it is difficult to understand the sense of some phrases (even RQs).
How do you shift from 67 identified articles to 77 to analyze?
if you have selected 77 articles to analyze, how do you get 180 articles published in developed countries?
“Some authors use the causal loop diagram tool…” provide references.
“These authors used Discrete Event Simulation…” please avoid to start the paragraph with “these”.
please add the section of the originality of the study and the future research directions.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to thanks to you regarding the valuable review. Below we attach our response for your suggestions.
Thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors made suggested corrections to the paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review and we are finished revising our article and will re-upload the revision soon. We also attach the review response below.
Thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is well written, comprehensive and logical. However, in terms of the content, this manuscript should mainly discuss the relevant policies on the sustainable development of agriculture and food. It is more like a political paper related to humanities and social sciences than a scientific and technological paper. This should be inconsistent with the scope of this journal.Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled Creating Food Value Chains Transformation Through Regional Food Hubs: A Review Article represents a valuable study that is reasonably well written, the literature review is in line with the aims defined for the paper, and the results section does what the research questions promised to do. Although the presented work with valuable methodology and results deserves to be considered for publishing in the Sustainability scientific journal, it still has some minor issues needed to be addressed before this step. The introduction needs to be extended to reframe the topics under research in a scientific context of the previous research that has been made on the topics addressed and clarify what previous research has contributed to scientific knowledge.
Reviewer 3 Report
In this review several concerns need to be addressed as follows:
1. It is not preferable to begin sentences with abbreviations kike lines 18, 20, …etc. Please, revise the whole manuscript for this point.
2. Line 87: add the references of that previous literature.
3. Lines 100-105: it is not preferable to describe what is present in each section. Delete it.
4. Line 107: PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) should be Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).
5. Revise the formatting of the references throughout the manuscript E.g. line 112: Cobo et al. (2013) and Aria & Cuccurullo (2017) and [25], [26] at the end of the sentence. Such error has been repeated many times throughout the manuscript.
6. Table 2 would be more representative if converted to a graph.
7. Conclusion needs to be reorganized and shortened. Lines 660-664 should be removed. Also, the limitations should be transferred to the discussion section.
8. The manuscript needs proofreading. The writing style should be formal from the third-person perspective. Do not use we, they, or ours. Please check the whole manuscript.
9. There is a problem with using abbreviations throughout the manuscript. The full term should be mentioned first with the abbreviation between paresis then the abbreviations should be used throughout the manuscript. E.g. In line 37, FVC should be presented as End-to-end Food Value Chains (FVC) then the abbreviation used further. The same error has been repeated many times for other abbreviations throughout the manuscript.
