Investigation of Tokat Bez Sucuk, a Geographically Indicated Local Food, within the Scope of Sustainable Gastronomy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Dear Authors,

Thank you for including my suggestions.

Kind regards

Minor editing of English  language is required.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your positive comments and assessment of our topic. Your comments and suggestions have been very helpful for further improving of our paper.

We greatly appreciate your feedback.

The changes which were made about the manuscript have been highlighted in our text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The authors have improved the manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments. However, more improvements are needed before the article can be published. The research objectives are still not enough clear, and this reverberates on the quality of the results and discussion sections. The discussion should be improved and enriched as it is already poor and it lacks proper engagement with the academic debate. The conclusions should be sharper and highlight the main contributions of the research to the academic debate and to the practitioners working with Geographical Indications and, more in general, with food quality schemes. Lastly, the overall quality of the language is barely poor. The manuscript should be revised by a professional proofreader.

 

Point-by-point comments:

 

Line 31: remove the point after the last keyword 

 

Line 394: Add credits to figure 2

The manuscript should be revised by a professional proofreader.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your positive comments and assessment of our topic. Your comments and suggestions have been very helpful for further improving of our paper.

We greatly appreciate your feedback.

The changes which were made about the manuscript have been highlighted in our text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

In this study, Tokat Bez Sucuk, a traditional product of the Turkish cuisine culture with a geographical indication, was examined. Within the scope of this, it is aimed at revealing the use of Tokat Bez Sucuk in the local cuisine culture in terms of sustainable gastronomy, its production stages, and its differences from other types of sausage. In this context, interviews were conducted with nine participants who produced Tokat Bez Sucuk using the semi-structured interview technique. The topic is important for tourism development, but the article has many shortcomings. 

 

1.     The survey sample is far too small to generalise the findings.  Please increase it to at least 20 producers.

2.     Please complete the study with statistical analysis and indicate the statistical significance of individual responses.

3.     The research should be enriched with the recipients of  Tokat Bez Sucuk.  How do they perceive the product, who do they buy it from and why, is the localness of the product important to them?

4.     The conclusions are too general, nothing really follows from them.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your positive comments and assessment of our topic. Your comments and suggestions have been very helpful for further improving of our paper.

We greatly appreciate your feedback.

The changes which were made about the manuscript have been highlighted in our text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The article can be considered for publication in its current form.

Please correct typos and mistakes. However, a last language editing is needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

In this study, Tokat Bez Sucuk, a traditional product of the Turkish cuisine culture with a geographical indication, was examined. It is intended to reveal the use of Tokat Bez Sucuk in the local cuisine culture in the framework of sustainable gastronomy, its production stages, and its differences from other types of sausage.

In my opinion, the article contributes too little to science.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

In my opinion, the article contributes too little to science.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Please include some details into the method section (I have pointed 3 main questions).

(1)   Did you tape or/and prepare the transcripts of those interviews?

(2)   Where the research was done (the focus room maybe or in other place)?

(3)   Did you analyze the content of your transcript/notes separately?

Regards

In general, minor editing of English language is required

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a study aimed at revealing the use of Tokat Bez Sucuk in the local cuisine culture in terms of sustainable gastronomy, its production stages, and its differences from other types of sausage.

On the positive side, it is an effort on an original and interesting topic, and the study could provide a great deal of information that can contribute to the body of research on food heritage and the promotion of local food cultures. However, the information is somewhat badly organized in the paper, and described rather than discussed. Moreover, the discussion of the findings is almost absent. Therefore, the article cannot be accepted for publication in its current form.

 

In the section on detailed comments, comments and suggestions are reported section by section, but this does not imply that the re-working that the article needs involves only those specific comments. Rather, within a revision and integration of the paper, those comments should be kept in mind.

 

LANGUAGE AND STYLE

• Correct typos and grammar errors throughout the text.

• There is a widespread use of words and concepts that appear and disappear and that are rather not defined and kept consistent.

 

KEYWORDS

• It would be advisable to avoid keywords that are already present in the title of the article.

 

INTRODUCTION

• It would be important to frame the debate on the use/employment of GIs beyond the area where they were first created and used.

• Moreover, the author should deepen the literature and frame the study within the debate on some of the following topics: heritagization, safeguarding and promotion of traditional food and gastronomic knowledge, and/or culinary tourism.

• The research question(s) and the objectives of the study should be clarified and made more explicit.

• Please add the rationale and importance of the study at the end of the introduction.

 

Conceptual Framework

• A critical analysis of the limits and prospects of GI implementation should be framed here and linked to the findings of the research in the DISCUSSION.

See for instance:

• Zocchi, D.M.; Fontefrancesco, M.F.; Corvo, P.; Pieroni, A. Recognising, safeguarding, and promoting food heritage: Challenges and prospects for the future of sustainable food systems. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9510.

• Bowen, S.; De Master, K. New Rural Livelihoods or Museums of Production? Quality Food Initiatives in Practice. J. Rural Stud. 2011, 27, 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.08.002.

• Bérard, L.; Casabianca, F.; Montel, M.-C.; Agabriel, C.; Bouche, R. Salers Protected Designation of Origin Cheese, France. The Diversity and Paradox of Local Knowledge in Geographical Indications. Cult. Hist. Digit. J. 2016, 5, e006. https://doi.org/10.3989/chdj.2016.006.

• Welz, G. Contested Origins: Food Heritage and the European Union’s Quality Label Program. Food Cult. Soc. 2013, 16, 265–279. https://doi.org/10.2752/175174413X13589681351377.

• Vitrolles, D. When Geographical Indication Conflicts with Food Heritage Protection the Case of Serrano Cheese from Rio Grande Do Sul, Brazil. Anthropol. Food 2011, S8. https://doi.org/10.4000/aof.6809.

• Rangnekar, D. Remaking Place: The Social Construction of a Geographical Indication for Feni. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Sp. 2011, 43, 2043–2059. https://doi.org/10.1068/a43259.

•  

• Lines 61-62: according to who?

• Lines 68-69: as well as cultural sustainability (see Zocchi et al. 2021)

• Lines 94-95: add references for Asia and America

• Lines 118: “Gastronomic properties” such as?

• Line 119: gastronomic value. Please clarify this concept.

• Lines 125 - 133: expand this section with some more information on Sucuk variations

• Lines 134: Are the ingredients and processing techniques reported in the production protocol of GI?

 

METHODS

• Please add a section to describe the study area and the exact key locations.

• The socio-economic context of the study area should be explained here.

• Add a map of the study area

• I would suggest the authors add here or in the introduction more information on the GI association linked to this product (i.e., its genesis, evolution, members, and main actors involved)

• Lines 180 - 184: move this part to the end of the introduction.

• Lines 222-223: More information and details on how data were analyzed is needed.

 

RESULTS 

• It is not clear at all whether the information is from members of the GI consortium/association. If there are two samples (i.e., members and non-members), it would be important to discuss the differences in terms of production practices as well as the perceived benefits connected to the implementation of GI.

• Lines 226 - 228: Those are the criteria the authors used to select the sample. Please move this part to the Materials and Methods

• Table.3: add abbreviations or a caption with keys | I would not define this as the opinions of the participants but as their knowledge and perception of this topic.

• Lines 258-259: why in italics?

• Lines 268 - 279: briefly describe these dishes-

• Lines 274 - 279: not here. The authors should create an ad-hoc section to present the findings on this topic (focusing on the answers to Q8)

 

DISCUSSION

• To improve the readability and clarity of the discussion, the authors should divide the discussion into subsections and link each of them to the main research objectives of the study.

• Information on the perceived limits and perspective of the recognition of GI should be included in the results and discussion.

 

• The discussion fails to link the case study with issues connected to sustainable gastronomy.

 

CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS

 

• In terms of conclusions, the authors should develop and support them better. Currently, they are poor and repeat the results and findings of the study. A proper conclusion is short and crisp, tying together in a few clear sentences the main findings and what has been learned from them. Moreover, possible recommendations and future research should be outlined.

Correct typos and grammar errors throughout the text.

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript looks like a technical report rather than an academic article. The conceptual framework failed to present the 'framework' but it is simply a presentation of the research context and literature review about similar studies. The empirical study section does not lead to any theoretical insights. The method section fails to provide the readers with ideas about exactly how they conducted the research. There are many ways of doing content analysis, but the authors failed to indicate which content analysis they conducted. They claimed to have provided objective evaluation, but no evidence of such objectivity is presented. The way that the results are presented, especially the quotes, is sloppy.  The discussion simply matches superficially with previous studies simply by citing them, but in fact, this section is not an academic discussion.  

 

The quality of English language is okay.