Review Reports
by
- Iva Pires 1,
- Jerusa Machado 2 and
- Margarida Liz Martins 3,4,5
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been improved.
I have provided some final comments for this paper and they are attached in the file.
It needs another thorough read to clean up English language, units, citation, conciseness etc.
I think a key finding is that plate weight vs consumer perception is fairly close. This is often not the case. The approach you used may have some applicability beyond what your team is research and you may wish to elaborate in your discussion section.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
R: It needs another thorough read to clean up English language, units, citation, conciseness etc.
I think a key finding is that plate weight vs consumer perception is fairly close. This is often not the case. The approach you used may have some applicability beyond what your team is research and you may wish to elaborate in your discussion section.
A: The whole paper was revised considering the reviewers suggestions.
The specific answers to reviewer’s comments can be found in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have worked very well and critically analysed the data and presented well.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper ‘Food waste perception of workplace canteen users – a case study’ provides an analysis of food waste perception taking canteen in Portugal as an example. The subject is important, but the paper needs to be improved to fulfill requirements of Sustainability journal.
COMMENTS:
The paper needs to be checked by a native speaker. There are a lot of missing of 'a, an, the'
In abstract numbers should be delivered as an average – 8.4 ± 14.7 means the range from -6.3 to 23.1. The value below 0 should be avoided
Abstract should be rewritten. There are no conclusions in abstract regarding goal defined in lines 108 – 109 ‘to increase the understanding of how much and why food is wasted and whether consumers are aware of it’ – this should be improved.
XXX in line 82 should be corrected as reference
The tables should be unified in the way they are presented to the reader
Add original references for sentence in line 104 – 105 (regarding those two cases focused on canteenes.
Sentence should be removed (l. 129-130)
In line 189 authors claimed that 160 participants were involved in the study, but in line 142-143 it is stated that study took 5 weeks, at least 6 participants per day – it means at least 210 participants – explanation is needed
ALL numbers in the entire papers should be checked and verified.
Percentage in ‘participants’ row (table 1) are different than the sum of age groups – explanation is needed
Eductional level row (table 1) - the sum of rows are different than in ‘particpants’ - explanation is needed
In figure 4 description of vertical axis is needed. The frame should be removed
Unify dots in number representation in entire paper (example: l. 218)
Statement in l. 249-251 is not needed. Additionally it is more less repetitions of sentence in line 325
In l. 265 authors states half or more – the explanation why there are some doubts about real results is needed
The conclusions section should be rewritten. Authors claimed that their results have some practical applications (l. 340) but there is no justification. Clear recognition of main findings regarding goals defined in the paper should be included in that section. Real practical use of the findings should be presented as well.
Author Response
R: The paper needs to be checked by a native speaker. There are a lot of missing of 'a, an, the'
A: The paper was revised by a native speaker as referred in the Acknowledgements.
R: In abstract numbers should be delivered as an average – 8.4 ± 14.7 means the range from -6.3 to 23.1. The value below 0 should be avoided
A: The high values of standard deviations are due to high variability of plate waste values and it is statistically possible that SD values are higher that the mean.
Mean and standard deviation are different statistical measures. Mean is a measure of location, while SD is a measure of spread. And although these values are calculated from the same data, there is no direct relationship between them. The mean results from a simple average of algebraic sum of data and SD is obtained from the average of the square of data. Moreover, our data does not follow a normal distribution. Our data is skewed which is why the SD overestimated the deviation in one direction.
If you prefer, we may remove the SD column from the results.
R: Abstract should be rewritten. There are no conclusions in abstract regarding goal defined in lines 108 – 109 ‘to increase the understanding of how much and why food is wasted and whether consumers are aware of it’ – this should be improved.
A: Conclusions are presented in lines 30-32 of the abstract – “Canteen users showed an accurate perception of their plate waste for all meal components. Excessive portions were identified by consumers as the main reason for plate waste.”. The amount of waste was reported on Results section and it was not considered necessary to repeat it. Since the awareness was not directly evaluated, it was removed from the study goal.
The abstract was revised considering reviewer suggestions.
R: XXX in line 82 should be corrected as reference
A: Done
R: The tables should be unified in the way they are presented to the reader
A: The request is not clear.
R: Add original references for sentence in line 104 – 105 (regarding those two cases focused on canteenes.
A: The references were included.
R: Sentence should be removed (l. 129-130)
A: The sentence “Options were chosen by the user at the service line and the price ranged between 3.10€ (for only main course) and 4.10€ (soup, main course, dessert)” was removed. Nevertheless, we are not sure.
R: In line 189 authors claimed that 160 participants were involved in the study, but in line 142-143 it is stated that study took 5 weeks, at least 6 participants per day – it means at least 210 participants – explanation is needed
A: In the manuscript, it was referred that at least 6 participants were included each day. It was added that we are referred to working days (5 days x 5 weeks x 6 participants = 150 participants). Some days the number of participants was higher.
R: ALL numbers in the entire papers should be checked and verified.
A: The numbers were checked.
R: Percentage in ‘participants’ row (table 1) are different than the sum of age groups – explanation is needed
Educational level row (table 1) - the sum of rows are different than in ‘participants’ - explanation is needed
A: There are missing data in both items due to no replies.
R: In figure 4 description of vertical axis is needed. The frame should be removed
A: The description of vertical axis was included and frame was removed.
R: Unify dots in number representation in entire paper (example: l. 218)
A: The number representation was revised.
R: Statement in l. 249-251 is not needed. Additionally it is more less repetitions of sentence in line 325
A: The request is not clear, since it was a change on the line numbers.
R: In l. 265 authors states half or more – the explanation why there are some doubts about real results is needed
A: This sentence was rewritten for clarification.
R: The conclusions section should be rewritten. Authors claimed that their results have some practical applications (l. 340) but there is no justification. Clear recognition of main findings regarding goals defined in the paper should be included in that section. Real practical use of the findings should be presented as well.
A: The goal was adjusted to the main findings. Nevertheless, we hypothesized awareness campaigns supported by research on self-reported versus measured food waste are effective in the reduction of food waste.
Conclusions were revised.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors addressed most of the comments but before publication few minor modifications/justification should be added.
COMMENTS:
The authors’ comment in l. 84 is reasonable, should be fulfilled, and removed
- Food waste perception can be realistic if consumers would be asked after the meal without a priori training, so the goal of the paper is to recognize if trained consumer can estimate his/her food waste. The change in the goal description is needed.
- l.156-157 – what is the reason to deliver the price? Section regarding price should be removed unless economic influence is analyzed and such analysis will be delivered including the information regarding expected price, price to value, etc. .
- Authors claimed to analyze 160 participants randomly selected each working day (at least 6 per day during the period of 25 days). Justification regarding:
-
- Why did they limit analysis up to 6-7 persons per day were they representative for 120 users?
- Authors claimed that 35,6% of participants had meals 4-5 times per week, 29,4% 1-2 times per week. How many times did it happen to choose the same person (authors claimed random selection), and what was the procedure if such situation appeared?
- The variability of the delivered data is large (e.g. tab 2,3,4), and using the mean in the analysis of the results can be misleading. The analysis should be filtered by e.g. removal of outliers or clustering, focusing on more consistent data.
Author Response
The authors’ comment in l. 84 is reasonable, should be fulfilled, and removed.
A: Done
- Food waste perception can be realistic if consumers would be asked after the meal without a priori training, so the goal of the paper is to recognize if trained consumer can estimate his/her food waste. The change in the goal description is needed.
A: Done
- l.156-157 – what is the reason to deliver the price? Section regarding price should be removed unless economic influence is analyzed and such analysis will be delivered including the information regarding expected price, price to value, etc. .
A: Done
- Authors claimed to analyze 160 participants randomly selected each working day (at least 6 per day during the period of 25 days). Justification regarding:
- Why did they limit analysis up to 6-7 persons per day were they representative for 120 users?
A: Data collection was performed only by one researcher impairing the possibility to follow more participants in same day. This information was included in Conclusions.
- Authors claimed that 35,6% of participants had meals 4-5 times per week, 29,4% 1-2 times per week. How many times did it happen to choose the same person (authors claimed random selection), and what was the procedure if such situation appeared?
- It was ensured that the same person was not evaluated twice. This information was included in Methods section.
- The variability of the delivered data is large (e.g. tab 2,3,4), and using the mean in the analysis of the results can be misleading. The analysis should be filtered by e.g. removal of outliers or clustering, focusing on more consistent data.
A: The outliers had already been removed. The high standard deviations observed on plate waste shows the high variability of plate waste that may result from consumers preferences, meal characteristics and appetite. This information was included in discussion.