Next Article in Journal
Cultural Capital and Its Impact on Academic Achievement: Sustainable Development of Chinese High School Students
Next Article in Special Issue
The Importance of Digitalization for the Sustainability of the Food Supply Chain
Previous Article in Journal
Investment and Rapid Climate Change as Biopolitics: Foucault and Governance of the Self and Others through ESG
Previous Article in Special Issue
Power Relations in Multistakeholder Initiatives—A Case Study of the German Initiative on Sustainable Cocoa (GISCO)
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Review of Strategic Agility: A Holistic Framework for Fresh Produce Supply Chain Disruptions

Sustainability 2022, 14(22), 14977; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214977
by David Eshun Yawson 1,* and Fred A. Yamoah 2
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2022, 14(22), 14977; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214977
Submission received: 20 October 2022 / Revised: 7 November 2022 / Accepted: 10 November 2022 / Published: 12 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Food Supply Chain Research)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors consider a study on the strategic agility for Fresh Produce supply chain disruptions. The work in interesting. However, the following points should be considered:

1. The Introduction focuses primarily on Ghana. However, the problem of fresh/local food supply chain is a global issue. The articles that are more generalized in nature should be studied. 

2. The background is well developed. Addition of some recent articles like Economically independent reverse logistics of customer-centric closed-loop supply chain for herbal medicines and biofuel, Cost-effective subsidy policy for growers and biofuels-plants in closed-loop supply chain of herbs and herbal medicines: An interactive bi-objective optimization in T-environment, Inventory policies for seasonal items with logistic-growth demand rate under fully permissible delay in payment: a neutrosophic optimization approach can make this section stronger.

3. The addition of a Table containing a comparative discussion with recent articles is necessary.

4. The discussion seems to be based on hypotheses that remain unspecified in Section 3. Thus, authors can specify those at the beginning of Sec 3.

5. There are some typos that need to be identified and removed.

6. Orientation and flow in Fig. 3 can be changed to make this more readable. Also, the source should be cited, if any.

7. One reference only should be there at the end of any sentence. Multiple references should be deleted.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report


Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accepted.

Back to TopTop