Barriers and Levers in the Development of the Value Chain of Organic Vegetables in Romania
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the manuscript, Dan et al. attempted to investigate the barriers and levers in the development of the value chain of organic vegetables in Romania. The topic is interesting and meaningful. However, as stated by the authors, the main concern for me is the sample size. I am afraid a total of 25 individuals are insufficient to obtain the conclusion, in particular for this topic, even though the authors cited two references (citation 78 and 79). Apart from this, too many references were cited in the context, and several sections should be simplified, such as Introduction and Materials and Methods. Moreover, the format errors should be avoided, and please revise the entire manuscript in order to fulfill the requirements of the journal, especially for Figures, Tables and References.
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We greatly appreciate all thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions that helped us to improve the manuscript. All suggested changes have been addressed accordingly in the revised manuscript uploaded. Our point-by-point responses to comments are detailed below. The changes are highlighted using the “Track changes” function in Microsoft Word.
Point 1. However, as stated by the authors, the main concern for me is the sample size. I am afraid a total of 25 individuals are insufficient to obtain the conclusion, in particular for this topic, even though the authors cited two references (citation 78 and 79).
Response 1. Thank you for your comments. The paper used the saturation criterion to establish the number of interviews. It is one of the most efficient criterion applied on large scales in similar qualitative research. References 78-79 support the fact that saturation can be reached around the value of 25 interviews. This kind of research was also done in other areas (Indonesia, Lebanon) with a similar number of interviews (references 1, 29) as also pointed out in lines 297-299. Thought the limits of the research exist, results identified important barriers and leverages for the future development of the organic value chain in one of the EU’s important agricultural producers that potential can trigger the Green Deal targets achievement.
Point 2. Apart from this, too many references were cited in the context, and several sections should be simplified, such as Introduction and Materials and Methods.
Response 2. Thanks for the suggestions. References were used to support the hypothesis of the study and its main aims. The Introduction section has been simplified (lines 58-96,106-110, 152, 168-174, 188-189, 214-216). The paper has a detailed Material and Method section, as it is necessary to ensure the replicability and credibility of the study.
Point 3. Moreover, the format errors should be avoided, and please revise the entire manuscript in order to fulfill the requirements of the journal, especially for Figures, Tables and References.
Response 3. Thank you for highlighting this issue. We have corrected the format errors in the entire document.
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript is about barriers and levers in the development of the value chain of organic vegetables in Romania.
The manuscript is well written and presented
However the authors did not mention some applicable rules as ISO 9001 or ISO 22000 that are applicable in products managements (Food quality) and food safety.
Perspectives should be added in the conclusion
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We greatly appreciate all thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions that helped us to improve the manuscript. All suggested changes have been addressed accordingly in the revised manuscript uploaded. Our point-by-point responses to comments are detailed below. The changes are highlighted using the “Track changes” function in Microsoft Word.
Point 1. However the authors did not mention some applicable rules as ISO 9001 or ISO 22000 that are applicable in products managements (Food quality) and food safety.
Response 1. Thank you for your comment. Due to the fact that this paper focuses on the organic certification of products, and the interviewee did not maintain these regulations (ISO 9001, ISO 22000), it was considered unnecessary to address this topic. Other certifications presented on the market, such as Global G.A.P. were also detailed in the paper (lines 423-424).
Point 2. Perspectives should be added in the conclusion.
Response 2. Thank you for your comment. Perspectives for future development of the Romanian organic value chain were added in the conclusions part of the article (lines 639-644).
Reviewer 3 Report
I have thoroughly reviewed your manuscript entitled "Barriers and Levers in the Development of the Organic Vegetable Value Chain in Romani" and would like to share my feedback and suggestions.
Firstly, I must commend your effort in addressing an important topic concerning the value chain of organic vegetables in Romani. The subject matter is undoubtedly interesting and relevant to the field. However, I have a few concerns that need to be addressed before considering the manuscript for publication.
While the study tackles an essential aspect of the organic vegetable value chain, it is important to emphasize the novel contributions your research makes to the existing body of knowledge. Please carefully reevaluate your work and clearly highlight the unique insights or findings that set it apart from previous studies.
I agree with your observation that the introduction is too lengthy and lacks conciseness. To enhance the manuscript's readability, consider reorganizing the introduction to provide a clear and succinct overview of the research objectives, significance, and context. Avoid unnecessary background information that does not directly contribute to the study's purpose
The methodology section requires further elaboration and clarity. A detailed description of the research design, data collection methods, and analytical techniques employed is necessary to ensure the study's replicability and credibility. Additionally, please address any potential limitations of the chosen methodology and suggest potential avenues for future research
Further discussion is required to critically recommend and propose solutions to overcome the barriers found in the Organic Vegetable Value Chain in Romani.
I believe that addressing these concerns will significantly strengthen your manuscript and increase its chances of acceptance for publication. Once you have made the necessary revisions, I would be pleased to reassess your work.
The English is well-written and easily understandable.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We greatly appreciate all thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions that helped us to improve the manuscript. All suggested changes have been addressed accordingly in the revised manuscript uploaded. Our point-by-point responses to comments are detailed below. The changes are highlighted by using the “Track changes” function in Microsoft Word.
Point 1. While the study tackles an essential aspect of the organic vegetable value chain, it is important to emphasize the novel contributions your research makes to the existing body of knowledge. Please carefully reevaluate your work and clearly highlight the unique insights or findings that set it apart from previous studies.
Response 1. Thank you for your comment. Since currently there is no scientific paper available dealing with the research of the Romanian organic vegetables value chain, we consider that the contribution brought by this manuscript is important for the future development of the sector in one of the biggest EU agricultural producers in line with the ambitious targets set by the EU Green Deal (lines 121-133, 203-208, 217-224, 622-625). The study contributes to the development of knowledge by finding answers to the following research questions: (1) who are the actors involved in the value chain of organic vegetables in Romania and how are they structured, (2) how do the actors interact with each other?, (3) what are the problems faced by the actors of the chain?, and (4) what are the needs of actors to develop and improve the value chain? The identification of the barriers thus captures possible practical solutions to achieve the EU Green Deal targets (line 626-632).
Point 2. I agree with your observation that the introduction is too lengthy and lacks conciseness. To enhance the manuscript's readability, consider reorganizing the introduction to provide a clear and succinct overview of the research objectives, significance, and context. Avoid unnecessary background information that does not directly contribute to the study's purpose.
Response 2. Thank you for your suggestions. The Introduction section has been simplified (lines 58-96,106-110, 152, 168-174, 188-189, 214-216).
Point 3. The methodology section requires further elaboration and clarity. A detailed description of the research design, data collection methods, and analytical techniques employed is necessary to ensure the study's replicability and credibility. Additionally, please address any potential limitations of the chosen methodology and suggest potential avenues for future research
Response 3. Thank you for your suggestions. The Material and Method section has been clarified (lines 289-293, 297-299, 305-307). A paragraph on the limitations of the methodology (lines 327-330) and potential avenues for future research were further underlined (lines 639-644).
Point 4. Further discussion is required to critically recommend and propose solutions to overcome the barriers found in the Organic Vegetable Value Chain in Romani.
Response 4. Thank you for your suggestions. Further discussion related to the proposed solutions were added in the revised manuscript (lines 587-599) and (lines 600-603).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In the revised version of the manuscript, the authors have covered most of my concerns. In my opinion, the manuscript could be published after English revision and figures modification, so as to ease the readbility.
Minor editing of English language required.
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised manuscript looks good now. The authors have adequately addressed my concerns.
The English language used in the manuscript is easy to read. However, please thoroughly review the manuscript and make necessary revisions to correct any remaining minor errors.
