Elements for Re-Designing Sustainability Strategies with Groups of Small Coffee Producers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The overall quality of the article remains really poor and the structure proves to be weak. Major reorganization of the whole article is needed. Herewith following some suggestions, to cite a few. Arguments remain weak. As an example, line 53 "certain producers". Who? Why? This statement is based on a reference dated 2018, really not recent. Line 118 where are references? Paragraph 2.2 should describe the research approach, but it does not fulfill the result. Line 42 contains already a statement that represents a sort of result/conclusion, though located still in the introduction. Line 762 starts with citing two references. It should be more elegant to write a sentence and cite the references afterwards.    English language continues to be really poor and numerous errors are detected (e.g. line 36 different researchers have REVEAL, where is past perfect???). Punctuation is completely chaotic, with commas where they should not exist. Syntax is poor (e.g. lines 166-167, the statement is far from being correct).

Please refer to the above cited comments.

Author Response

Please see the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has considerably improved. However, it still needs another round of editing. Some specific comments have been made directly in the manuscript  to be addressed by the authors.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The paper has considerably improved but it still needs further editing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your comments.

In response to the feedback received, we have made the necessary revisions to enhance the manuscript. Specifically, we have focused on the following aspects: improving the English language, refining sections of the introduction, method, results, and conclusions. Corrections and clarifications have been made in accordance with the comments from the PDF. 

Best regards,

The Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I express my congratulations to authors for having thoroughly improved the article. English language has been ameliorated together with syntax.

Contents are clear and interesting from a scientific point of view, thus contributing to the debate and literature. The overall merit has significantly improved.