Entomophagy—Acceptance or Hesitancy in Romania
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The reviewer report is attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Some revisions are needed. Shown on the report.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
-An adequate sample number and clear and concise writing. I just suggest that the results be further explored.
-To improve their results beyond descriptive analysis, I suggest a hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) to identify groups of consumers with similar preference patterns. For me, there are four relevant groups in your study: the first, regarding to consumers that value innovation aspects, the second value healthfulness aspects, the third value emotional aspects and the fourth value sensory or other aspects non-associated with health importance. An analysis in Iramuteq software using similitude, lexicography and word cloud can enrich and enhance your results.
-I suggest that the debate between healthiness, emotions (associated with fear, disgust, bug dirt) and indulgence be your focus. In addition, I agree that sushi, seaweed etc are foods that have become popular recently. However, they are associated with species already commonly consumed, such as other types of marine species. In the case of insects, we don't have a standard for comparison. What would be the challenges for the inclusion of a new group of food species? This could be very interesting to shed light on the literature on insect consumption.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Language and technical care:
The manuscript requires some attention in terms of overall language and technical aspects, with a few examples highlighted below:
- Page 1, line 8 – remove space before “Using”;
- Page 1, line 8 – Using a questionnaire with 470 respondents is not a full sentence;
- Page 1, line 27 – remove additional space after [4, 5];
- Page 1, line 35 – what ‘knowledge score’ is referred to?
- Page 1, line 22 – 44 – why are some of the paragraphs justified on the right-hand side, and other paragraphs not?
- Page 2, line 50 – as well as space between line 68 and 69 – consistency of spacing between main paragraphs, such as between point 2 and point 3;
- Page 2, line 82 – remove additional space after ‘cost-efficient.’;
- Page 2, line 85 – perhaps better to refer to a specific table with a specific table number, e.g. Table 1 – but this should be done throughout the manuscript, as well as referring to certain figures and tables – there are certain figures and tables included in the manuscript of which there is no reference made in the text – see also page 5, line 163 as an example;
- Page 2, line 113 – please refer the ‘family’s and the friends’ advice.’ section of the sentence;
- Page 3, line 125 – remove the additional space after ‘food.’;
- Page 3, line 129 – insert the words and/or between ‘unusual and/or non-traditional’;
- Page 3, line 139 – consider adding the category ‘a few times a year’ in single inverted commas;
- Page 6, line 193 – the word meals should be clearly defined – is this a complete food dish, or are these ingredients, as they are different and would have different reactions in terms of new-ness or unfamiliarity with consumers;
- Page 6, line 212 – 213 – rephrase the sentence here;
- Page 6, lines 214 – 222 – see the sub unitary terms that follow – there is an inconsistency of space after the term and the percentage – best to have a space with the terms in these mentioned lines;
- Page 9, line 310 – space after the first number before the = sign – (1 = not at all, 5 = very open to the idea);
- Page 11, line 340 – which ‘other category’?
- Page 11, line 345 – insert full stop after ‘insects’;
- Page 11, line 348 – indicate what ‘other forms’?
- Page 11, line 352 – others;
- Page 11, line 353 – consider inserting ‘rate their responses on…’;
- Page 11, line 354 – consistency of indentations;
- Page 11, line 359 – consider changing ‘them’ to ‘the respondent’ – also page 12, line 367;
- Page 12 lines 364 – 366 – if this is a known fact – or found from literature, a reference is suggested;
- Page 12, line 369 – 373 – something wrong with the spacing and indentation and spaces after the bullets;
The manuscript is very well referenced using relevant, up-to-date references.
Literature Review:
The reviewer felt no shortcomings in terms of literature. However, the comment below in the results section may also be relevant here as well – that the author should place the readers mind at rest regarding what ‘new foods’ imply – does this mean new food dishes made from new un-known ingredients, or does this mean new ingredients eaten without the ingredient changes in any way?
Methodology and materials:
The methodology is fairly straight-forward and appears to be adequately explained.
Results and Discussion:
Page 4, line 144 – 147 – it may be good idea to provide the reader with a clear idea whether ‘new foods’ imply new food dishes, or new ingredients – this is an important consideration, as consumers may remain apprehensive of new food dishes, even though it may be made from known ingredients. On the other hand, unknown or new ingredients may pose a totally different aversion.
Page 4, line 144 – 147 – it may well also be that this age group does not have opportunity – that they may well be too busy, or that there are in fact no new food available?
Page 5, line 166 – the author has already indicated that because of the low response rate of this age cohort, these results may not be trustworthy – it should however also be considered that it is possible that this age cohort have less time, and again the reasoning that new foods may not be available.
Please see the comment above in the technical care section about reference to tables and figures – there is such a great selection of tables and figures, the author should consider referring to all of them in the text.
Conclusion:
The conclusions are well presented and requires no changes.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Please see comments in section above
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
I have reviewed the manuscript entitled "Entomophagy – Acceptance or Hesitancy in Romania". The manuscript is well written but The questionnaire needs to be deeper than that in terms of how people respond to eating insects. Also, What kind of insects do people know are healthy or tasty for feeding? In Figure 5, what is the difference between TV and TV news
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
