Professional Training in Beekeeping: A Cross-Country Survey to Identify Learning Opportunities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors are applauded for this very interesting analysis of the subject under study. The paper is aiming to investigate the needs of those acting in the beekeeping sector and how these needs can be fulfilled through lifelong learning. The key points of review are the following:

·       The title reflects the content of the paper, and the abstract is adequately informative, describing the paper, its main findings, and conclusions.

·       The Introduction defines the hypothesis as appropriate. However, the objectives of the paper at the end of the introductory chapter should be rephrased (the aim cannot be “to carry out a questionnaire survey”) and be in line with the presented objectives in the abstract.

·       Materials and methods are presented and described adequately in relation to the carried-out work.

·       In section 3.1, a short introductory text is proposed prior to the description of Figure 1.

·       Overall, the results are clearly presented and the discussion is solid based on the data findings.

·       The conclusions adequately summarize the key findings, based on synthesis of the results.

·       The citations and references are relevant to the study and complete.

Overall, the paper is well written and is accepted for publication after minor revisions.

Only minor editing of English language required (e.g. in a few cases there is a need to shorten sentences)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments

I would like to thank the editor and the authors for the opportunity of reading and reviewing this interesting survey of beekeepers on their training and information use. I think the topic is very relevant and the results of the survey should be made available to a broad potential audience through publication.

However, the writing style of the manuscript in its current form is insufficient for scientific publication. Some of it comes for the fact the English is correct grammatically but odd in too many places. But there is also a problem with some of the substance as for instance general claims that are not supported by references or other instance of lack of rigor in presentation if not reasoning.

I have made suggestions for the abstract in some detail below but the entire article requires significant editing for English as well as for scientific rigor.

Another issue with presentation is the use of 8 very large tables which should be in appendix or supplemental material but certainly not in the main text in their current format. The figures are much more digestible.

I hope the auhors will find the resources to revise adequately and resubmit as the survey and its results are of interest.

Specific comments

Title: Not sure that "Experience" works in this title. Maybe a longer version like "Comparing experience and professional training in beekeeping across seven European countries"

Line 22: "The beekeeping sector is particularly challenging" every sector can make this claim. Maybe rephrase as "Habitat loss, climate change, and other environmental degradations pose serious challenges to beekeepers".

Lin 26: "the needs of those acting..." this id vague and lacks concision. Maybe you mean "to assess the demand for information from beekeepers and other stakeholders in beekeeping" Although, I would also suggest trying to be as specific as possible on who these other actors might be. I think it would be fine if this is just beekeepeers and I think it is always best to be as simple and precise as possible.

Line 27: Lifelong learning is an odd expression unless it is jargon from a field, which should then be introduced properly. Continuous education is a more standard term if I understand well what is meant there.

Line 33: "Learning methodologies" This an example of jargon or writing style that prevents rather than helps the reader understand. "Sources and formats of information" is much clearer and common, but if there is something else implied in "methodologies" then it would be useful to spell it out as the reader will not know what you may be refering to.

Line 34:"paper books" should be replaced either with "printed material", "printed media", "books" or "manuals in paper format", whichever more appropriate in this case.

Line 38:"In conclusion, this work revealed valuable information that should be used to design professional training actions to help the professionals in the beekeeping sector enhance their competencies and be better prepared to successfully manage their activities." This sentence makes the contribution of the study sound quite vague. The term "conclusion" is not needed as this is the last sentence of the abstract. "

Line 46: This 1/3 figure is wrong as it refers to number of species, not quantity or value (nutritive or economic) which are what matters in fact. In any case, any fact of this sort must be very carefully referenced.

Line 49: This is not entirely true as Apis M. also competes with wild bees and is often not the most efficient pollinators of wild plants. Here again, a claim such as this one MUST be supported by proper reference.

Line 51: Making general and unsupported statements such as this one will turn your reader away or at best instill significant doubt on the scientific rigor of the article.

Line 61: which one is it? "equilibrium" or "increase productivity" ...not sure how it could be both.

Line 63: Beekeepers are not of "small dimensions" but their operations might be.

Line 69 "considered relevant is enormous" this is quite an unscientific statement! This is fine for everyday conversations, but not in a scientific journal where it should be made much more specific and supported by references.

Lines 68 and following: This paragraph should be removed. I don't think the reader needs any help knowning what learning means, and "synaptic plasticity" is not a relevant piece of information here.

Line 97: "past definitial concerns"? I have no idea what this might refer to.

Line 99: "Must be modern" why? you mean up to date? or "informed by current scientific knowledge"?

Line 110: Some better punctuation here would help understand what is just the title of the project and what is not...

Line 173: I can not find the number of colonies kept by respondents yet...is it somewhere? in any case it should be one of the first results presented as it is the most important characteristic of beekeeping operations!

See above.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf