Consumer Behaviour in Sourcing Meals during COVID-19: Implications for Business and Marketing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic undertaken by the authors is very interesting and important from many points of view. However, the article contains some errors and shortcomings that should be taken into account. Therefore, in order to improve the scientific quality of the article, some corrections should be made, as listed below:

1. The article does not contain a correct literature review - the authors should treat separately the introduction to the subject (section "Introduction") and the analysis of available literature in the area under consideration (section "Literature review")The article does not contain a correct literature review - the authors should treat separately the introduction to the subject (section "Introduction") and the analysis of available literature in the area under consideration (section "Literature review").

2. In lines 39-44, the authors write about various research approaches to the issue of consumer behaviour - please provide relevant references.

3. Research on consumer attitudes and behavior, survey-based, is a qualitative, not quantitative, research, as the authors write in line 87.

4. What is the purpose of describing patterns of snowball sampling other than the one used in the research? (lines 136-147).

5. Why did the authors assume a sample size of 100 individuals? Can the conclusions drawn from the research conducted among such a small research sample be generalized in any way? What is the general population? Will a sample with such a small assumed number be representative?

6. Since the authors included open questions in the research questionnaire, allowing for free statements by the respondents, how can such an approach be called quantitative? How can such responses be compared?

7. Were any statistical tests used to assess the reliability of the questions in the pilot studies? If so, what are they?

8. Figures 2 and 3 should be a bit smaller, and there are no data labels on them, as in Figure 1.

9. The article does not discuss the results obtained, especially with the results and conclusions reached by other authors ("Discussion" section).

10. In my opinion, the number of references is insufficient - this is due to the lack of the "Literature review" and "Discussion" sections and this should be corrected. In addition, the references should be significantly updated - currently only 6 out of 27 are from 2015-2021.

11. Authors should correct stylistic, linguistic or punctuation errors and avoid repetition in the text, e.g. the phrase "As established in this study" - line 610 (beginning of the paragraph) and again line 620 (beginning of the next paragraph).

Author Response

Please, find our responses in the file attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I found your work very nice and the aim you decleare is well designed. 

Generally, this paper lacks of secondary literature and comparison of results. Many times concepts are low explained. 

There are some problems on the design of the experimental plan in my opinion. First of all, few responses, and the recruitment method you have chosen. 

Some incoherences are also in the questions asked. 

At any rate, you can find punctual suggestions and corrections in the attached file. 

My best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please, find our responses in the file attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors corrected the vast majority of errors and shortcomings. I only have doubts about how the different sections should be put together - ie "Discussion, Conclusion and Limitations". I think that the discussion of results should be a separate section ("Discussion") and "Conclusion" - a separate section (and research limitations should also be included in it).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive comments. Following your latest suggestions, we restructured the last section into two new sections: 5/ Discussion and 6/ Conclusion and Limitations. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 

thank you for following my suggestions. I really appreciated your effort in increasing the review of the literature part and in better explaining the results. 

Of course, as declared, this study has some limitations, but is anyway a good piece of information about people' habits during the pandemic. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive comments. Following your latest comments, we have not made further changes.