A Systematic Literature Review on European Food Quality Schemes in Romania
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
More detailed description of the hypotheses.
Author Response
Answers to the Comments and Suggestions for Authors
First, we want to express our gratitude for the time spent evaluating our manuscript. Consequently, we did our best to answer your concerns carefully. Please be so kind to find out below how we did that.
- More detailed description of the hypotheses.
The proposed hypothesis were developed and detailed into the revision version of the manuscript and detailed, between lines 193-199.
In the light of the above-mentioned, this research was built to find answers to the following research questions:
1st Research question: to provide an overview of the current status of the literature review related to European food quality schemes such as geographical indications in Romania and also to synthesize the research findings on this topic.
2nd Research question: to examine the features that characterize current research on this topic and identify its strengths and limitations and to determine whether there are additional places and where future research should go.
Hopefully, the actual version of the manuscript reaches the level of exigency. In case there are moe concerns we are ready to try to solve them, too.
Reviewer 2 Report
I appreciate the author efforts. However, this review paper need more improvements. The introduction is not synchronized with the tittle, objectives and results of the paper. The introduction section lacks many citations in the paper. Therefore, all the descriptions should be properly cited. Moreover, the author should address the question why this methodology was adopted. The review paper has mostly syntheses-type results. This paper lacks this kind of result. The paper does not portray the proper recommendation and policy suggestion for the planner.
Author Response
Answers to the Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you for your time and work in sustaining our effort to have a good quality paper. We made the adjustments according to your valuable specification, being confident that your suggestions improved the manuscript. For your convenience, we will mentioned them one by one, including our propose improvements:
- The introduction is not synchronized with the title, objectives and results of the paper.
We updated the information included in the introduction part, so the title, objectives and results of the paper are fully synchronized. The new version is available on lines 33-41, and is quoted below:
The globalization of production, consumption and commerce leads us to the conclusion that a region's competitiveness in global markets depends heavily on its ability to capitalize its cultural, regional and economic characteristics. By using this set of tangible and intangible areal characteristics, space-sensitive producers could respond to the need for product differentiation against the monopolistic competition that characterizes many agri-food markets in a globalized economy. From a territorial point of view, similar areas can reach varying levels of formal 'institutionalization' depending on their space-sensitive production capacity. In the European agri-food field, geographical indications (GI) provide a combined framework and legal basis for this process [1].
- The introduction section lacks many citations in the paper. Therefore, all the descriptions should be properly cited. We really appreciate your attention, that was a material mistake done during the editing time. We added the references we used for that part, including:6. Arfini, F.; Cozzi, E.; Mancini, M.C.; Ferrer-Perez, H.; G, J.M., Are Geographical Indication Products Fostering Public Goods? Some Evidence from Europe. Sustainability 2019, 11, 272; doi:10.3390/su11010272
7. Török, Á.; Jantyik, L.; Maró, Z.M.; Moir, H., Understanding the Real-World Impact of Geographical Indications: A Critical Review of Empirical Economic Literature. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9434; doi:10.3390/su12229434
9. https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/food-safety-and-quality/certification/quality-labels/quality-schemes-explained/ last accessed on 27th of September 202
- Moreover, the author should address the question why this methodology was adopted. We updated the information regarding the methodology used to explain why we use it. The new version is available on lines 213-237, and is quoted below:The aim of a systematic review is to identify all empirical evidence that meets the prespecified inclusion criteria to address a given research question such as to provide an overview of the current status of the literature review related to European food quality schemes such as geographical indications in Romania and also to synthesize the research findings on this topic or to examine the features that characterize current research on this topic and to identify its strengths and limitations and to determine whether there are additional places and where future research should go. By using explicit and systematic methods when reviewing articles and all available evidence, bias can be minimized, thus providing reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made [26]. According to Meredith (1993) a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) enables “integrating several different works on the same topic, summarizing the common elements, contrasting the differences, and extending the work in some fashion” [27].
The methodology adopted in this paper is a systematic literature review and it consists of four stages according to PRISMA guidelines. According to Page MJ et al. [28] PRISMA is a modest set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses that is evidence-based. PRISMA is a reporting tool for reviews and randomized trials, but it can also serve as a foundation for systematic reviews. PRISMA focuses on how the best practices for comprehensive and transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses can be assured by the authors. The conduct of systematic reviews, for which there are different requirements, is not addressed directly or in detail [29].
The use of the PRISMA methodology for preparing a systematic review is the optimal method because both evaluators and readers of the work can identify the paths followed by the authors.
- The review paper has mostly syntheses-type results. This paper lacks this kind of result. For the answer to this weakness, we used (and we, also, explained in the Methodological part why we decided to use it), the PRISMA Flow Diagram, obtaining syntheses-type results that were missed from the previous version of the manuscript (lines 332-373), and is quoted below:
The PRISMA guidelines consist of a four-phase flow diagram, a diagram which describes the identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion criteria of the materials that are being revised. The records were gathered from databases and registrations and followed by the removal of duplicates. The screening process was conducted at first by selecting the materials in accordance to their abstract and the next steps to take into consideration were to exclude/ include the records as presented in Figure 1.
The PRISMA flow diagram was used as a tool the guide the selection process (Figure 1)
* The number of records identified was reported separately from each database or register searched (rather than reporting the total number across all databases/registers).
** The records were excluded by human, there were no automation tools involved in the process.
Reason 1: multi topic approach
Reason 2: different research hypothesis
Reason 3: the results have no impact on the present research
As a result of Romania's EU membership, food certification schemes were introduced. The application of the European community approach would enhance consumer confidence in products and ensure fair competition between producers.
- The paper does not portray the proper recommendation and policy suggestion for the planner. We included new data recommendations and policy suggestions in a dedicated chapter: 5 Recommendations and Suggestions, available at lines 410-429, and quoted below: 5. Recommendations and SuggestionsIn Romania there are very few certifications recognised at the EU level because there was no market and no concern to target this segment. Therefore, there are few scientific papers and almost no reviews indexed in databases in this field.
From the analysis carried out on the categories of products certified with GI, we can easily distinguish that those that were initiated by commercial companies with experience and financial strength enjoy success on the national level and on export (Salam de Sibiu, Telemea de Ibănești or Magiun de Topoloveni). Telemea de Sibiu, being initiated by a group of individual producers, is more successful locally and nationally.
From the point of view of research and specialised literature, we recommend the intensification of publication on these topics, because in this way the awareness of the importance of certifications on the part of both producers and consumers can increase. There are a multitude of works published that refer to a locally certified product or to the attitude of consumers towards such products and which apparently have no connection with the topic proposed in the title of this review.
We included these works in the analysis because we are confident that there are products with potential for certification and the publications help to increase the level of knowledge, which leads to the possibility of association of individual producers to have increased economic power and apply for certification at the level national or EU of traditional products.
Hopefully, the actual version of the manuscript reaches the level of exigency. In case there are more concerns we are ready to try to solve them, too.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
the topic is of interest and relevance for the scientific community, among policy makers and practitioners. The review makes contribution to the field, but the manuscript needs some major improvements before considering it for further processing.
What I miss in your manuscript is a more structured presentation of the approach to literature review to justify its scientific soundness.
The focus of the study is clumsily written L 119 “The current GI literature review focuses primarily on European systems and provides only an overview of accessible reserves, one and the other in terms of methods and subjects (some examples above). The primary purpose was not to evaluate the empirical results and GI literature was considered from a specific point of view (eg, publications from a specific geographic region, community welfare or consumer preferences)” whereas the main of the study is far too general “The aim of a systematic review is to identify all empirical evidence that meets the prespecified inclusion criteria to address a given research question or hypothesis”. What hypothesis do you mean?
Did you follow the PRISMA guidelines? If not adjust the review to this commonly acceptable and recognized standard including all relevant information and diagram.
There are many clerical errors through the manuscript.
Result are presented in a very simplified form. There is no precise information on research methods, sample sizes etc. The table should be extended to cover all relevant information.
Some of the publications are not clearly linked to the main topic e.g. Muresan, I.C., Harun, R., Andreica, I., Chi-ciudean, G.O., Ko-vacs, E., Oroian, C.F., Brata, A.M. Dumitras, D.E. (2022) Household Attitudes and Behaviour towards the Food Waste Generation before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Romania. [47]
The discussion of the main findings is missing. As such it is a simple summary of the subjects as stated in Table 2.
Conclusion do not bring any meaningful insights as regards the GIs.
Author Response
Answers to the Comments and Suggestions for Authors Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript. All comments are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in yellow on the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as follows. - The focus of the study is clumsily written L 119 “The current GI literature review focuses primarily on European systems and provides only an overview of accessible reserves, one and the other in terms of methods and subjects (some examples above). The primary purpose was not to evaluate the empirical results and GI literature was considered from a specific point of view (eg, publications from a specific geographic region, community welfare or consumer preferences)” whereas the main of the study is far too general “The aim of a systematic review is to identify all empirical evidence that meets the prespecified inclusion criteria to address a given research question or hypothesis”. What hypothesis do you mean?"The proposed hypothesis were developed and detailed into the revision version of the manuscript and detailed, between lines 193-199.
In the light of the above-mentioned, this research was built to find answers to the following research questions:
1st Research question: to provide an overview of the current status of the literature review related to European food quality schemes such as geographical indications in Romania and also to synthesize the research findings on this topic.
2nd Research question: to examine the features that characterize current research on this topic and identify its strengths and limitations and to determine whether there are additional places and where future research should go.
We, also, updated and developed the aims of the study, available on lines 213-218: The aim of a systematic review is to identify all empirical evidence that meets the prespecified inclusion criteria to address a given research question such as to provide an overview of the current status of the literature review related to European food quality schemes such as geographical indications in Romania and also to synthesize the research findings on this topic or to examine the features that characterize current research on this topic and to identify its strengths and limitations and to determine whether there are additional places and where future research should go. - Did you follow the PRISMA guidelines? If not adjust the review to this commonly acceptable and recognized standard including all relevant information and diagram. For the answer to this weakness, we used the PRISMA Flow Diagram, obtaining syntheses-type results that were missed from the previous version of the manuscript (lines 332-373), and is quoted below:The PRISMA guidelines consist of a four-phase flow diagram, a diagram which describes the identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion criteria of the materials that are being revised. The records were gathered from databases and registrations and followed by the removal of duplicates. The screening process was conducted at first by selecting the materials in accordance to their abstract and the next steps to take into consideration were to exclude/ include the records as presented in Figure 1.
The PRISMA flow diagram was used as a tool the guide the selection process (Figure 1)
* The number of records identified was reported separately from each database or register searched (rather than reporting the total number across all databases/registers).
** The records were excluded by human, there were no automation tools involved in the process.
Reason 1: multi topic approach
Reason 2: different research hypothesis
Reason 3: the results have no impact on the present research
As a result of Romania's EU membership, food certification schemes were introduced. The application of the European community approach would enhance consumer confidence in products and ensure fair competition between producers.
We, also, explained in the Methodological part why we decided to use PRISMA Flow Diagram (lines 225-236), and is quoted below:
The methodology adopted in this paper is a systematic literature review and it consists of four stages according to PRISMA guidelines. According to Page MJ et al. [28] PRISMA is a modest set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses that is evidence-based. PRISMA is a reporting tool for reviews and randomized trials, but it can also serve as a foundation for systematic reviews. PRISMA focuses on how the best practices for comprehensive and transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses can be assured by the authors. The conduct of systematic reviews, for which there are different requirements, is not addressed directly or in detail [29].
The use of the PRISMA methodology for preparing a systematic review is the optimal method because both evaluators and readers of the work can identify the paths followed by the authors.
- Result are presented in a very simplified form. There is no precise information on research methods, sample sizes etc. The table should be extended to cover all relevant information. The discussion of the main findings is missing. As such it is a simple summary of the subjects as stated in Table 2. For eliminating this flaw, we reconsidered the methodological part and extended the study by using used the PRISMA Flow Diagram (lines 332-373), and is quoted below:
The PRISMA guidelines consist of a four-phase flow diagram, a diagram which describes the identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion criteria of the materials that are being revised. The records were gathered from databases and registrations and followed by the removal of duplicates. The screening process was conducted at first by selecting the materials in accordance to their abstract and the next steps to take into consideration were to exclude/ include the records as presented in Figure 1.
The PRISMA flow diagram was used as a tool the guide the selection process (Figure 1)
* The number of records identified was reported separately from each database or register searched (rather than reporting the total number across all databases/registers).
** The records were excluded by human, there were no automation tools involved in the process.
Reason 1: multi topic approach
Reason 2: different research hypothesis
Reason 3: the results have no impact on the present research
As a result of Romania's EU membership, food certification schemes were introduced. The application of the European community approach would enhance consumer confidence in products and ensure fair competition between producers.
We, also, explained in the Methodological part why we decided to use PRISMA Flow Diagram (lines 225-236), and is quoted below:
The methodology adopted in this paper is a systematic literature review and it consists of four stages according to PRISMA guidelines. According to Page MJ et al. [28] PRISMA is a modest set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses that is evidence-based. PRISMA is a reporting tool for reviews and randomized trials, but it can also serve as a foundation for systematic reviews. PRISMA focuses on how the best practices for comprehensive and transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses can be assured by the authors. The conduct of systematic reviews, for which there are different requirements, is not addressed directly or in detail [29].
The use of the PRISMA methodology for preparing a systematic review is the optimal method because both evaluators and readers of the work can identify the paths followed by the authors.
In Romania there are very few certifications recognised at the EU level because there was no market and no concern to target this segment. Therefore, there are few scientific papers and almost no reviews indexed in databases in this field.
From the analysis carried out on the categories of products certified with GI, we can easily distinguish that those that were initiated by commercial companies with experience and financial strength enjoy success on the national level and on export (Salam de Sibiu, Telemea de Ibănești or Magiun de Topoloveni). Telemea de Sibiu, being initiated by a group of individual producers, is more successful locally and nationally.
From the point of view of research and specialised literature, we recommend the intensification of publication on these topics, because in this way the awareness of the importance of certifications on the part of both producers and consumers can increase. There are a multitude of works published that refer to a locally certified product or to the attitude of consumers towards such products and which apparently have no connection with the topic proposed in the title of this review.
We included these works in the analysis because we are confident that there are products with potential for certification and the publications help to increase the level of knowledge, which leads to the possibility of association of individual producers to have increased economic power and apply for certification at the level national or EU of traditional products.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
In my opinion, the author has improved the paper a lot.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
The authors thank you again for your valuable contribution in pointing out how to improve the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The paper has been improved as regards material and methods. However, the information on the process flow – PRISMA diagram should be moved to Material and methods.
My major concern is the presentation of the results and key conclusions. I still miss some relevant details in Table 2 e.g. on methods/techniques, sample sizes etc. Would be much easier to design Table as horizontal one and add the relevant details in separate columns.
The recommendation and suggestions:
In Romania there are very few certifications recognised at the EU level because there was no market and no concern to target this segment.
Any conclusions from the literature review on the reason for that? What are the barriers according the studies your review? If no data what are the topics worth considering?
Therefore, there are few scientific papers and almost no reviews indexed in databases in this field.
From the analysis carried out on the categories of products certified with GI, we can easily distinguish that those that were initiated by commercial companies with experience and financial strength enjoy success on the national level and on export (Salam de Sibiu, Telemea de Ibănești or Magiun de Topoloveni). Telemea de Sibiu, being initiated by a group of individual producers, is more successful locally and nationally.
What is the reason behind it?
From the point of view of research and specialised literature, we recommend the intensification of publication on these topics, because in this way the awareness of the importance of certifications on the part of both producers and consumers can increase.
I am not convinced it is the real problem. Even if what topics would you recommend and what kind of studies to stimulate the adoption of quality schemes?
There are a multitude of works published that refer to a locally certified product or to the attitude of consumers towards such products and which apparently have no connection with the topic proposed in the title of this review. We included these works in the analysis because we are confident that there are products with potential for certification and the publications help to increase the level of knowledge, which leads to the possibility of association of individual producers to have increased economic power and apply for certification at the level national or EU of traditional products
If you did so provide a better rationale for such approach because it sounds as a as a limitation and weakness of your study.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
The team of authors really appreciates your dedication to helping us improve our work. We tried again to reach your expectation and we answered all of your concerns in the newly submitted version (changes being marked in yellow).
- The paper has been improved as regards material and methods. However, the information on the process flow – PRISMA diagram should be moved to Material and methods. The information about the PRISMA diagram was moved to the part dedicated to Material and Methods (lines 245-285). - My major concern is the presentation of the results and key conclusions. I still miss some relevant details in Table 2 e.g. on methods/techniques, sample sizes etc. Would be much easier to design Table as horizontal one and add the relevant details in separate columns. We improved and updated the information presented in Table 2, including additional information on the articles. - In Romania there are very few certifications recognised at the EU level because there was no market and no concern to target this segment. Any conclusions from the literature review on the reason for that? What are the barriers according the studies your review? If no data what are the topics worth considering? We identified the issues mentioned by you, which are mostly accurate and we updated the information to put into light these elements (Lines 411-422).In Romania there are very few certifications recognised at the EU level because in the first years after joining the EU there was no market and no concern to target this segment mostly due to the lack of knowledge from both side producers and consumers. When we refer to lack of knowledge, we want to say that compared to the countries from South-West Europe, where traditional practices and food products are considered cultural heritage, in Romania the consumers cannot yet associate traditional practices with certifications schemes or labels. Another reason why there was a decreased interest to apply for a certification scheme was the fact that the certification process involves a series of procedures, and it is a time-consuming process. In addition to what was mentioned before, the academic environment started to pay more attention to this subject in the last few years. Therefore, there are few scientific papers and almost no reviews indexed in databases in this field.
- From the analysis carried out on the categories of products certified with GI, we can easily distinguish that those that were initiated by commercial companies with experience and financial strength enjoy success on the national level and on export (Salam de Sibiu, Telemea de Ibănești or Magiun de Topoloveni). Telemea de Sibiu, being initiated by a group of individual producers, is more successful locally and nationally. What is the reason behind it? Also, we take additional care to these elements and we included them in the manuscript (lines 423-432) From the analysis carried out on the categories of products certified with GI, we can easily distinguish that those that were initiated by commercial companies with experience and financial strength enjoy success on the national level and on export (Salam de Sibiu, Telemea de Ibănești or Magiun de Topoloveni). Financial resources and the possibility to work with experts in the field make the difference between large companies and small producers. In the case of small producers in order to succeed in certifying their products the most convenient solution is to be part of a group of producers or an association. The most significant example is the case of Telemea de Sibiu, which was initiated by a group of individual producers, and is more successful locally and nationally. - From the point of view of research and specialised literature, we recommend the intensification of publication on these topics, because in this way the awareness of the importance of certifications on the part of both producers and consumers can increase. I am not convinced it is the real problem. Even if what topics would you recommend and what kind of studies to stimulate the adoption of quality schemes? To cover this subject, we additionally updated the conclusion part, to focus, also, on that sort of recommendation (lines 433- 441)From the point of view of research and specialised literature, our recommendation is to gradually raise the number of publications on these topics- the most suitable to begin with are the studies that measure the willingness to adopt such certifications addressed to both producers and Romanian consumers because of this way the awareness of the importance of certifications on the part of both parties can increase. This can be considered as being a top to bottom approach where not only the research field should be involved. The major actors in this process are the national authorities and public bodies that have to step up and take real measures regarding how Romanian consumers and producers perceive European certification schemes. There is a multitude of works published that refer to a locally certified product or to the attitude of consumers towards such products and which apparently have no connection with the topic proposed in the title of this review.
- There are a multitude of works published that refer to a locally certified product or to the attitude of consumers towards such products and which apparently have no connection with the topic proposed in the title of this review. We included these works in the analysis because we are confident that there are products with potential for certification and the publications help to increase the level of knowledge, which leads to the possibility of association of individual producers to have increased economic power and apply for certification at the level national or EU of traditional products. If you did so provide a better rationale for such an approach because it sounds as a limitation and weakness of your study. We tried to eliminate this weakness by improving the final part of the manuscript to answer to these elements that were missing (lines 441- 450)The reason why we included these works in the analysis is that we are confident that amongst them we can identify products with the potential to switch the certification from national to one European certification scheme that is more suitable and the publications help to increase the level of knowledge, which leads to the possibility of association of individual producers to have increased economic power and a better approach when it comes to applying for certification at the national or EU level.
