Consumer Attitudes and Preferences towards Traditional Food Products in Vojvodina

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper Consumer attitudes and preferences towards traditional food products in Vojvodina (Northern Serbia) deals with a real and important topic, which is consistent with the purpose of the journal.

However, it needs revisions before it can be considered for publication in the journal Sustainability. The following comments should be considered:

1. A Literature Review section should be introduced to present the literature, previous research in the field and their results.

2. The Research Methodology should include the research objectives, the hypotheses and the relationships between the dependent and independent variables.

3. The discussion section should be developed by comparing the results obtained with similar previous research and with the authors' opinion on the differences.

4. The conclusions could be improved with the theoretical and managerial implications of the research. The limitations of the research should also be mentioned.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: . A Literature Review section should be introduced to present the literature, previous research in the field and their results.

Response 1: A Literature Review section is introduced in the Manuscript after Introduction section, L 69-138.

Point 2: The Research Methodology should include the research objectives, the hypotheses and the relationships between the dependent and independent variables.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion. The Research Methodology section is improved, L 139-160.

Point 3: The discussion section should be developed by comparing the results obtained with similar previous research and with the authors' opinion on the differences.

Response 3: Thank you very much for your comments. The Discussion section is developed.

Point 4: The conclusions could be improved with the theoretical and managerial implications of the research. The limitations of the research should also be mentioned.

Response 4: The conclusion section is improved according to recommendation and limitations of the research is mentioned.

 

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the indicated corrections that contribute to the quality of our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

It is a pleasure to be given the opportunity to review a manuscript about food products. There are several major flaws in the manuscript. 

1) Authors should remove the word (Northern Serbia) from the title.

2) Usually the online data collection period remains short, but in the current manuscript, it started in June 2022 and ended in April 2023. This means the difference between the first and last responses is about nine to ten months. Authors should provide key justification for this.

3) In continuation to point 2, it is likely that bias will creep in when a long period of data is collected. How did the authors ensure that the data was free from bias.

4) The authors are recommended to run a statistical difference test between the first fifty and the last fifty papers. For more details, please see Armstrong and Overton, (1977).

5) Line 76-77, Authors claim that "the authors of this paper created a questionnaire based on a literature review and their own knowledge and expertise in the quality of traditional food and GI products". Authors should highlight which questions they have developed from their own experience.

6) Notably, the authors must have discussed the process through which they developed the questions. How did they test the scale's reliability and validity?

7) The analysis section is poorly developed. The authors have used very basic and preliminary analysis, such as percentage, which is not in line with the Journal's reputation (i.e. sustainability).

8) Other sections such as Discussion, Implications, and future recommendations for researchers should have been according to the journal's prestige & reputation.

Moderate. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Point 1: Authors should remove the word (Northern Serbia) from the title.

Response 1: Thanks for the comment for the correction. The word (Northern Serbia) was removed.

Point 2: Usually the online data collection period remains short, but in the current manuscript, it started in June 2022 and ended in April 2023. This means the difference between the first and last responses is about nine to ten months. Authors should provide key justification for this.

Point 3: In continuation to point 2, it is likely that bias will creep in when a long period of data is collected. How did the authors ensure that the data was free from bias.

Point 4: The authors are recommended to run a statistical difference test between the first fifty and the last fifty papers. For more details, please see Armstrong and Overton, (1977).

Response 2, 3 and 4: Thank you very much for your comments. Due to the ambiguities regarding the sample size and the duration of survey data collection, the mentioned elements are explained below and supplemented in the paper. The research took place in Autonomous Province of Vojvodina which consist of 7 administrative parts. The administrative part with the largest number of inhabitants (33.8%), is southern Bačka and in this part survey was conducted for 3 months. Furthermore, in the region of Srem (16 %) and southern Banat (14.9%) survey was conducted for one month and a half, each. In other four administartive parts northern Bačka (9.6%), central Banat (9.3%), western Bačka (9.1%) and northern Banat (7.3%) survey was conducted for 1month, each. This is the explanation for long period of data collection. The detailed explanation of data collection was added in the Research Methodology section L 163-171.

Point 5: Line 76-77, Authors claim that "the authors of this paper created a questionnaire based on a literature review and their own knowledge and exprtise in the quality of traditional food and GI products". Authors should highlight which questions they have developed from their own experience.

Point 6: Notably, the authors must have discussed the process through which they developed the questions. How did they test the scale's reliability and validity?

Response 5 and 6: The authors developed two questions from the second section of the questionnaire, namely on which special characteristics consumers pay attention to during purchaseing food products and what traditional food products mean to consumers, based on the literature.

During the creation of this part of the questionnaire, the authors were influenced by the following references: Vanhonacker et al., (2008); Almli et al., (2011) and Hartmann et al., 2019. Furthermore, modifications and additions were made based on identified deficiencies in the available information on this topic during implementation of numerous national and international projects, among which the IPA Traditional and Standard Quality [TASQ] HUSRB/1602/41/0146 project stands out. During the activities of this project, strong connections between researchers, consumers, and producers were formed through various workshops and educations.

An expert panel, which members were specialist in traditional food, quality of food products and food labeling, led by first author, assessed the initial version of the questionnaire, after the pilot study, with a small sample of participants was conducted. After reliability and validity assessment certain items were revised.

Almli, V. L., Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Næs, T., & Hersleth, M. (2011). General image and attribute perceptions of traditional food in six European countries. Food quality and preference, 22, 129-138.

Vanhonacker, F., Lengard, V., Guerrero, L., Scalvedi, L., Raude, J., Zakowska, S., Hersleth M., & Verbeke, W. (2008). Europeans and Traditional Foods: Definition and Image from the Consumers' Perspective (No. 725-2016-49340).

Hartmann, M.; Yeh, C.-H.; Amilien, V.; Čeliković, Z.; Csillag, P.; Filipović, J.; Giraud, G.; Gorton, M.; Kuč, V.; Menozzi, D.; Poschwatta, O.; Quarrie, S.; Roos, G.; Saidi, M.; Tocco, B.; Török, Á.; Veneziani, M.; Vreden, T. (2019). Report on quantitative research findings on European consumers’ perception and valuation of EU food quality schemes as well as their confidence in such measures.

Point 7: The analysis section is poorly developed. The authors have used very basic and preliminary analysis, such as percentage, which is not in line with the Journal's reputation (i.e. sustainability).

Response 7: Thanks for the comment on improving this part of the manuscript. The analysis section is improved according to your suggestion.

Point 8: Other sections such as Discussion, Implications, and future recommendations for researchers should have been according to the journal's prestige & reputation.

Response 8: Thanks for the comment on improving this part of the manuscript. Section Discussion is improved according to your suggestion.

 

 

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the indicated corrections that contribute to the quality of our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Your article is well-structured, logical and well-formatted, but there is still room for improvement.

Firstly，the article should add a description of the previous and current theoretical background, as well as current advances in empirical research on the topic.  It will show that your article has some theoretical basis and highlight your contribution.

Secondly, the empirical section uses only descriptive statistics to present the results of the study. And the research methodology is too simple and does not reflect the value of your study. You should look more deeply into consumer willingness and behavior regarding traditional food purchases.

Thirdly, based on your findings you can make some practical recommendations, for example in traditional food marketing, that will show the value of the research.

Fluent in English and clear in expression.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Point 1: Firstly, the article should add a description of the previous and current theoretical background, as well as current advances in empirical research on the topic. It will show that your article has some theoretical basis and highlight your contribution.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your comments. A Literature Review section is introduced in the Manuscript after Introduction section, L 69-138.

Point 2: Secondly, the empirical section uses only descriptive statistics to present the results of the study. And the research methodology is too simple and does not reflect the value of your study. You should look more deeply into consumer willingness and behavior regarding traditional food purchases.

Response 2: The statistics in the manuscript is improved according to your suggestion.

Point 3: Thirdly, based on your findings you can make some practical recommendations, for example in traditional food marketing, that will show the value of the research.

Response 3: The Manuscript is improved and developed accoridng to Your suggestion.

 

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the indicated corrections that contribute to the quality of our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, the efforts to improve the article are obvious. I recommend publishing the article in present form.

Reviewer 2 Report

I would appreciate the authors for their effort they put in to this revision. The manuscript has significantly improved. The manuscript may be accepted in its present form for publication.

I wish all the best to the authors.

Reviewer 3 Report

The previous problems in the comments were revised. The content has been enriched with the addition of a literature review as well as a more  informative discussion at the end.

However, the article's research methodology is still too simple; the hypotheses posed by the researcher do not conform to the norms of hypothesis formulation, and the research conclusions drawn are too simplistic.