Grapevine Resistant Cultivars: A Story Review and the Importance on the Related Wine Consumption Inclination
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
the topic is of interest and relevance for the scientific community engaged in the sustainability related topics. The review makes contribution to the field, but the manuscript needs some major improvements before considering it for further processing.
Abstract
The abstract is poorly structured and does not clearly state what was the main aim of the study and the key results. It is also clumsily written – did the Authors conduct literature view and consumer study?
Introduction
The introduction is wordy and lacks basic information on the methodological approach to literature review. What key words and databases did you use? Did you follow PRISMA guidelines? It is hard to classify the review if it is meant to be a review.
Pilot study
The sub-chapter is confusing. One may expect precise information on the pilot study. What is now serves as the rationale for the pilot study. Still, it remains unclear why the Authors needed a pilot study? It should be explained why the study is considered as pilot study and what it precedes.
Material and methods
The approach to CA is described far too general. Which method did you exactly used? Please provide references. The concept of the study is difficult to follow. How many cards were presented to each participant. What were the obstacles of using the PAPI method? How did you cope with the presentation of the cards? The approach to data analysis should be explained with relation to appropriate references.
Results and discussion
What I miss is any discussion of the results.
Conclusions
The conclusions need throughout revision. They go beyond the scope of the study and are rather speculative e.g. L 513 Nevertheless, the new variety approached to the market struggled consumers. This could have relied on few factors: a wrong communication together with a wrong marketing strategy and a poor knowledge of consumers regarding these improvements; how they work; and how many benefits can the resistant variety bring to the whole chain.
The limitations of the study are not explicitly stated.
Author Response
REVIEWER 1
Dear Authors,
the topic is of interest and relevance for the scientific community engaged in the sustainability related topics. The review makes contribution to the field, but the manuscript needs some major improvements before considering it for further processing.
Abstract
The abstract is poorly structured and does not clearly state what was the main aim of the study and the key results. It is also clumsily written – did the Authors conduct literature view and consumer study? Yes, we did. We improved the abstract
Introduction
The introduction is wordy and lacks basic information on the methodological approach to literature review. What key words and databases did you use? Did you follow PRISMA guidelines? It is hard to classify the review if it is meant to be a review. We agree with the fact the introduction is wordy, thus, we tried to shorten it. However, we think it is necessary giving information in order to get and making the readers getting why the resistant varieties are needed, and the relative wines created selling, based on these plants. As it is reported, this text is a communication, hence, a review of hybrids (economic, genetic, etc) towards the pilot study.
Pilot study
The sub-chapter is confusing. One may expect precise information on the pilot study. What is now serves as the rationale for the pilot study. Still, it remains unclear why the Authors needed a pilot study? It should be explained why the study is considered as pilot study and what it precedes. done
Material and methods
The approach to CA is described far too general. Which method did you exactly used? Please provide references. The concept of the study is difficult to follow. How many cards were presented to each participant. What were the obstacles of using the PAPI method? How did you cope with the presentation of the cards? The approach to data analysis should be explained with relation to appropriate references. We added a supplement, please see it.
Results and discussion
What I miss is any discussion of the results. Following the guidelines for a communication, it is supposed to have results and a brief discussion all together, as it is possible to note. Also, we are only talking about a pilot study which will serve for future more widespread research.
Conclusions
The conclusions need throughout revision. They go beyond the scope of the study and are rather speculative e.g. L 513 Nevertheless, the new variety approached to the market struggled consumers. This could have relied on few factors: a wrong communication together with a wrong marketing strategy and a poor knowledge of consumers regarding these improvements; how they work; and how many benefits can the resistant variety bring to the whole chain. It is not completely a speculation, I re added a reference. Yet, I modified the first paragraph that could have been beyond the scope.
The limitations of the study are not explicitly stated. The empirical investigation has important limitations deriving mainly from the modest size of the samples of consumers questioned. Furthermore, given the need to have homogeneous samples, we focused on university students of only three universities in a limited geographical area. Also, the variables considered in the experimental plans are not representative of all those that wine consumers commonly used to make their purchase and consumption decisions. Consequently, the results cannot be generalized but constitute a case study, for this, we called it a “pilot-study” as it is the first approach using this methodology we adopted, to have a first idea then getting the chance to translate, in the future, in a bigger study. We added this in the conclusions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Lines 31-33. Indeed, about 122 million hectolitres of the worldwide total production are being consumed in EU. In non-EU countries, consumption has increased up to 75 million hectolitres. Reference is needed here.
Line 41. The title of manuscript did not refer in particular to Italian wine, thus, ‘Italian wineries should think about…’has limitations.
Line 42. …to keep the foreign flow high. After this sentence, some sentences are needed to summarize the manuscript.
Line 189. …with the absence of strawberry flavor. Reference is needed here.
Line 421. Lev-el 5?
Line 420 and 421. Table 5 is ‘p<0,05’, but Table 6 is ‘** Level 0,01 (2-code). * Level 0,05 (2-code).’ It will be better to uniform the statement of significance.
Line 423. levels 5 or 5 levels?
Line 427. Figure 1 shows…the five tests? The detail information of Figure 1 and 2 should be shown. It is hard to understand.
Author Response
REVIEWER 2
Lines 31-33. Indeed, about 122 million hectolitres of the worldwide total production are being consumed in EU. In non-EU countries, consumption has increased up to 75 million hectolitres. Reference is needed here. Erased, this is a information gathered by technicians around
Line 41. The title of manuscript did not refer in particular to Italian wine, thus, ‘Italian wineries should think about…’has limitations. Agree, erased
Line 42. …to keep the foreign flow high. After this sentence, some sentences are needed to summarize the manuscript. Erased, was misunderstanding
Line 189. …with the absence of strawberry flavor. Reference is needed here. It does not exist a reference, I add: see Italian Ministry of Agriculture – viticulture section - guidelines
Line 421. Lev-el 5? corrected
Line 420 and 421. Table 5 is ‘p<0,05’, but Table 6 is ‘** Level 0,01 (2-code). * Level 0,05 (2-code).’ It will be better to uniform the statement of significance. done
Line 423. levels 5 or 5 levels? 5 levels, corrected
Line 427. Figure 1 shows…the five tests? The detail information of Figure 1 and 2 should be shown. It is hard to understand. Done, thanks, there was a mistake
Authors thank again the kind anonymous reviewers for the great effort to improve our manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
the improvements made are satisfactory in terms of the overall quality of your manuscript.
best regards,
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thanks a lot for having helped us out to improve our ms.
Sincerly, Giovanni Mian
Reviewer 2 Report
How did the authors determine the best forms of the equations in Figure 1 and 2? There is no any explanation. The Equation and R2 of each test should be shown. The dot of each data should also be shown in the figure.
Line 429. Considering Test D, Figure 1 shows, …not statistically different from…? This result cannot be acquired from Figure1.
What factors determine the different clusters in Figure 2?
It is not a good idea to cite references in the conclusion. References of many other studies from other authors that can support the discussion or results in the manuscript but cannot be used for extracting conclusions.
Author Response
Authors thank the kind reviewers for the work done in order to improve our manuscript in every section. We appreciate. Here, in red are reported our responses, indeed, in the main text you can see the modifications yellow highlighted.
The corresponding author on the behalf of everyone
How did the authors determine the best forms of the equations in Figure 1 and 2? There is no any explanation. The Equation and R2 of each test should be shown. The dot of each data should also be shown in the figure. We added everything the reviewer asked for in additional supplements, in order to not make heavy the figures and the text, yet we cited in the text the supplements
Line 429. Considering Test D, Figure 1 shows, …not statistically different from…? This result cannot be acquired from Figure1. Added explanation in yellow only in the caption of figure 1
What factors determine the different clusters in Figure 2? The clusters are identified according to the partial preferences for the five levels of pesticide reduction. Also added in yellow in the test
It is not a good idea to cite references in the conclusion. References of many other studies from other authors that can support the discussion or results in the manuscript but cannot be used for extracting conclusions agree, taken off
Authors thank again the kind anonymous reviewers for the great effort to improve our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
no.
