Export of Organic Cape Gooseberry (Physalis peruviana) as An Alternative Illicit Crop Substitution: Survey of Consumers in Namur, Belgium

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper analyzes the social situation of the indigenous people in rural Colombia who are forced to plant coca trees due to economic constraints, and puts forward the planting plan of organic gooseberry instead of coca trees according to the constraints of indigenous people. The market demand of organic gooseberry was evaluated based on consumer perception, and the export potential of organic gooseberry to European countries was investigated by means of ordinary least square method. The paper conforms to the analysis paradigm of industrial economics and the research content conforms to the direction of the journal. It has reference value for the Colombian government to formulate economic development policies.

 

 

To sum up:

1.In the topic selection, this paper has a strong practical significance, and can provide some theoretical support for the cultivation of coca tree alternative crops in Colombia.

2.In terms of theoretical value, it also conducts exploratory research on consumer perception to promote the generation of new knowledge.

3.Logically, it can measure the market demand and development potential of alternative crops on a realistic basis, with rigor.

4.Although the two aspects of literature and writing standards still need to be strengthened, it is still a manuscript that cannot obscure the defects. It is therefore recommended that it be published with appropriate changes.

 

The contents that still need to be modified are as follows:

1. The introduction part of the article is too long and can be streamlined.

2. The discussion part of the paper is not in-depth enough, so it is necessary to supplement the relevant research on alternative crops, sort out the existing author's opinions and conclusions and suggestions on alternative crops, and conduct in-depth analysis and discussion based on the existing literature and opinions.

3. In the discussion part of the paper, the innovation and contribution of this paper should be put forward in the existing research on alternative crops.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I have made the corrections that you have suggested and I ask you to please keep in mind that 4 other pairs suggest different corrections, I tried with maximum effort to make your corrections. Attached is a word file with indications of corrections.

My thanks for your time spent on this article

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are lots of essential parts need to be clarified and some sections is suggested to rewrite since there many repeated wording and sentences.

Comments：

1.       The paper contains a large amount of data, and all of them are obtained by the author's own research, with a solid data base; the modeling method is slightly simpler using OLS, but in general the results of the paper can be obtained.

2.       The paper contains a large amount of data describing specific countries or regions (such as line 207-209), then the country-specific data information should also be presented in the paper in tabular form.

3.       Additionally, Theory. Literature background can be further enriched. Introduce the relevant econometric models and the advantages of using OLS.

4.       The conclusion section is too redundant and it is recommended that it be short and concise and streamlined.

5.       Formatting of tables is not consistent and needs to be adjusted.

6.       Eliminate multiple references. After that please check the manuscript thoroughly and eliminate all the lumps in the manuscript. This should be done by characterising each reference individually. This can be done by mentioning 1 or 2 phrases per reference to show how it is different from the others and why it deserves mentioning.

7.       In the introduction, you need to connect the state of the art to your paper goals. Please follow the literature review by a clear and concise state of the art analysis. This should clearly show the knowledge gaps identified and link them to your paper goals. Please reason both the novelty and the relevance of your paper goals.

8.       The reader is left without detailed knowledge on what is known on the topic based on prior studies and what needs to be known. A focused discussion would also enable the authors to state the contribution of the paper more clearly.

9.       The conclusion part should be more refined to make the findings and contributions of the paper clearer. Furthermore, please note the difference between the conclusions and abstract.

10.   In the conclusions, in addition to summarizing the actions taken and results, please strengthen the explanation of their significance. lt is recommended to use quantitative reasoning comparing with appropriate benchmarks, especially those stemming from previous work.

11.   The discussion is related to the theory, but the relevance of the findings to the modernization of the state of art is not clear. The methodology is well designed, but there are missing elements that relate the proposed to what was actually found by the authors. Contributions are unclear.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I have made the corrections that you have suggested and I ask you to please keep in mind that 4 other pairs suggest different corrections, I tried with maximum effort to make your corrections. Attached is a word file with indications of corrections.

My thanks for your time spent on this article

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall the presented study copes with an interesting topic. Although major drawbacks can be pinpointed. The main focus can be given to the lack of specific objectives, the lack of proper description of the methodology, and the lack of coherence among the objectives and title of the paper with the presented results and final conclusions. Therefore, a major revision of the study is advised.

Some more detailed comments:

- The title of the study does not reflect the main subject of the study which is a consumer survey.

- The term "the conflict zone" must be elaborated

- Section 1 offers data and information not properly justified or referenced with literature or sources. E.g. number of victims.

- The inclusion of the exact text of an interview is not coherent with the text

- The scientific name of the gooseberry must be given in the abstract or at the beginning of the title.

- Section 2 is not relevant to the title or the survey. Lack of proper presentation of the importance of the exported product for the local and exporting market.

- Lack of description of the exporting market conditions

- The presented conclusions repeat the presented results and need elaboration on the direction of the study's objectives

- 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall the command of the English language is good

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I have made the corrections that you have suggested and I ask you to please keep in mind that 4 other pairs suggest different corrections, I tried with maximum effort to make your corrections. Attached to this email is a Word file indicating where each of your corrections are located.

My thanks for your time spent on this article

best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic seems interesting, and the authors provide a legitimate argument why focusing on the cape Gooseberry. However, the authors did not provide any background about organic cape gooseberry, why organic? What about conventional? 

The paper did not present a strong theoretical foundation to guide the research design, build the model or propose hypotheses. The whole second section is still a literature review which can be done in the background section. This section is supposed to describe the theoretical or conceptual framework, conceptualize the terms, and clearly propose your hypotheses.

In the method section, the empirical model building seems technically all right, but the specific measurement is not clear. The most important question that needs to be answered is why the authors chose those independent variables.

The recommendation is too brief, I would suggest the authors either merge the recommendation into a conclusion or extend the recommendations.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The over-quality of language is okay, but some small grammatical errors still exist.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I have made the corrections that you have suggested and I ask you to please keep in mind that 4 other pairs suggest different corrections, I tried with maximum effort to make your corrections. Attached to this email is a Word file indicating where each of your corrections are located.

My thanks for your time spent on this article, have a nice day

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Technical article made mediocre.

2. Lack of a clearly stated aim or hypothesis.

3. The most important problem is the very low reliability of the data presented. Please ask yourself what percentage of the people around me eat gooseberries?

4. The article combines so many different topics that it is completely useless.

I suggest you think about the topic and focus on one of the most important points. Look at how much gooseberry is produced in Germany, Russia and Poland. These are the European leaders and their competition is huge. Look at their production costs and how low their profitability is. Whether this is the right direction for Colombia is a big question mark.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I have made the corrections that you have suggested and I ask you to please keep in mind that 4 other pairs suggest different corrections, I tried with maximum effort to make your corrections. Attached to this email is a Word file indicating where each of your corrections are located.

My thanks for your time spent on this article, have a nice day

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors the manuscript has been improved to measure up publication in Sustainability. Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The major revision presented by the authors is satisfactory. 

All raised points from the initial review have been responded to with success.