Do You Really Want to Know? Exploring Desired Information Transparency for Local Food Products

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to read your interesting manuscript and to share my advice.  The subject you analyze is of growing interest and makes a contribution to the field.

I do have a small comment though. The limitations of non-probability opt-in sampling are quite high as mainly people who are interested in the subject would participate. I recommend to further highlight the limitations.

Otherwise, I congratulate you to your work.

Kind regards, 

Author Response

November 6, 2023

Dear Sustainability Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough feedback of our manuscript “Do you really want to know? Exploring desired information transparency for local food products”. We recognize the time and effort it takes to review research manuscripts and greatly appreciate your dedication to academia and your contributions to advancing research.

We have addressed each of your comments to the best of our ability and have outlined our revisions to each of your concerns below. We decided to collectively address the comments by all reviewers to ensure transparency about the manuscript.

Reviewer 1:

“The limitations of non-probability opt-in sampling are quite high as mainly people who are interested in the subject would participate. I recommend to further highlight the limitations.”

We agree with you about non-probability, opt-in sampling methods and added a citation and further justification for the specific sample in section 2, Line 301-303 and in section 4, Lines 481-484 within the limitations.

Thank you for the opportunity to address your concerns/comments. We hope you appreciate and approve of our revisions.

Sincerely,

The Author Team

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found the article to be a compelling read, offering valuable insights not only for scientists and specialists in the field of sustainable development, but also for food producers, intermediaries in food distribution channels (especially e-commerce channels), as well as consumers. The exploration of the impact of local food on climate change mitigation and the ways in which consumers can be informed about this impact is both crucial and timely, aligning well with the theme of the magazine.

The authors based their study on the theoretical model RISP, which delves into how people seek and process risk-related information, incorporating their own measurement scales such as the scale of the perceived relationship between local food and climate change mitigation. This approach is not only a valuable contribution to the scientific community but also serves as an inspiration for researchers worldwide.

I commend the authors for their methodological approach, having employed an appropriate research technique and a well-considered procedure for selecting a representative research sample. However, while the authors clearly outline the purpose of their study, they stop short of posing or verifying research hypotheses. I would recommend that the article be supplemented with research hypotheses to bolster its academic rigor.

One of the article's strengths lies in the authors' ability to draw from their research findings to offer practical recommendations for retailers and agricultural marketing practitioners. These recommendations are aimed at capitalizing on the growing consumer interest in local food and providing unique shopping experiences that simultaneously promote sustainable consumer choices. The article is well-structured, with clear and logical divisions into appropriate sections and subsections. The abstract effectively summarizing the main points of the study.

However, the literature review could be expanded beyond the current 55 items to provide a more thorough exploration of the subject matter. This would further enhance the article's contribution to the field and provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

Author Response

November 6, 2023

Dear Sustainability Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough feedback of our manuscript “Do you really want to know? Exploring desired information transparency for local food products”. We recognize the time and effort it takes to review research manuscripts and greatly appreciate your dedication to academia and your contributions to advancing research.

We have addressed each of your comments to the best of our ability and have outlined our revisions to each of your concerns below. We decided to collectively address the comments by all reviewers to ensure transparency about the manuscript.

Reviewer 2:

“However, while the authors clearly outline the purpose of their study, they stop short of posing or verifying research hypotheses. I would recommend that the article be supplemented with research hypotheses to bolster its academic rigor.”

Thank you for this recommendation. Coordinating and appropriate hypotheses were added to each research objective in section 1.4, Lines 275 - 294 and in section 3, Lines 428, 438, and 451

“However, the literature review could be expanded beyond the current 55 items to provide a more thorough exploration of the subject matter.”

Additional sources were added to add to the robustness of the literature review. Some of the articles had previously been included but were removed prior to the first submission to make the manuscript more concise. Additional sources were added as well to augment the scope and potential impact of the current manuscript. The sources were added to 92-93, 148-152.

Thank you for the opportunity to address your concerns/comments. We hope you appreciate and approve of our revisions.

Sincerely,

The Author Team

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study predicts the importance of environmental impact measures for individuals purchasing local food online given their information seeking, subjective norms, and perceived connection between local food and climate change mitigation. The study has developed some meaningful conclusions based on the analysis. However, I believe that there are some rooms for improvement. My main comments include:

1. It is recommended to propose specific hypotheses in the manuscript.

2. What are the criteria for local food in this study? The study is based on online consumption surveys, how consumers identify local food during the purchase process and actually perceive the difference between buying local and out-of-town food.

3. In Results, the study can consider the impact of the interaction between factors on the importance of environmental impact measures.

4. In Discussion, the discussion of existing data results can be added, while recommendations for future research should be included in the conclusion.

5.The references in the past 3 years are not very sufficient. It is recommended to supplement and strengthen the timely tracking of relevant research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Sustainability Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough feedback of our manuscript “Do you really want to know? Exploring desired information transparency for local food products”. We recognize the time and effort it takes to review research manuscripts and greatly appreciate your dedication to academia and your contributions to advancing research.

We have addressed each of your comments to the best of our ability and have outlined our revisions to each of your concerns below. We decided to collectively address the comments by all reviewers to ensure transparency about the manuscript.

Reviewer 3:

            “1. It is recommended to propose specific hypotheses in the manuscript.

Thank you for this recommendation. Coordinating and appropriate hypotheses were added to each research objective in section 1.4, Lines 275 - 294 and in section 3, Lines 428, 438, and 451

 

2. What are the criteria for local food in this study?

The author team sincerely thanks the reviewer for bringing this question to our attention. We have added the statement given to the respondents in the study to define local food within the context of climate change. The statement was added to section 2, lines 316-320

3. In Results, the study can consider the impact of the interaction between factors on the importance of environmental impact measures.

This was of interest to the author team as well; however, there was no significant interaction found on the interactions and environmental impact measures (Model 3: R² ∆ in = .00; p F ∆ = .863); therefore. we did not add to the model. However, the author team did add this explanation to the manuscript in lines 453-455.

4. In Discussion, the discussion of existing data results can be added, while recommendations for future research should be included in the conclusion.

The recommendations for future research were moved to section 5, 582-598.

5.The references in the past 3 years are not very sufficient. It is recommended to supplement and strengthen the timely tracking of relevant research.”

Additional sources were added to add to the robustness of the literature review and the timeliness of the research. Additional sources were added as well to augment the scope and potential impact of the current manuscript. Most of those sources were published within the last 3-4 years; however, the United Nations Agenda was added, but it is the most recent available in 2015 with the goals intended for 2030. The sources were added to section 1.4, Lines 275 - 294 and in section 3, Lines 428, 438, and 451

 

Thank you for the opportunity to address your concerns/comments. We hope you appreciate and approve of our revisions.

Sincerely,

The Author Team

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, I congratulate you on your choice of research topic. It is important for the dynamics of scientific research. However, I think that some small additions are necessary:

The abstract should also include the novel elements of the research.

Perhaps a more detailed interpretation of the results obtained would be necessary in the "Results" section or in the "Discussion" section. Providing information on respondents' responses by demographics would also be a plus.

Also, in the "Discussions" section we did not identify any discussion of the research results presented in this article. Limitations and recommendations for further research are presented more than necessary.

The conclusions excessively refer to recommendations for further research. These could be more detailed and structured on the objectives pursued and the results obtained. The objectives are clear and the results valuable.

I also think that references to bibliographic sources are not recommended in the conclusions because they refer to the results of own research.

I congratulate you for your valuable research! With some additions, this research could be replicated in other areas and on other populations.

Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Sustainability Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough feedback of our manuscript “Do you really want to know? Exploring desired information transparency for local food products”. We recognize the time and effort it takes to review research manuscripts and greatly appreciate your dedication to academia and your contributions to advancing research.

We have addressed each of your comments to the best of our ability and have outlined our revisions to each of your concerns below. We decided to collectively address the comments by all reviewers to ensure transparency about the manuscript.

Reviewer 4:

            “The abstract should also include the novel elements of the research.”

The authors edited the abstract to highlight the novel aspects of this research (local food, sustainability, environmental impacts, online grocery shopping, and RISP), while still maintaining the succinct nature of the journal recommendations.

“Perhaps a more detailed interpretation of the results obtained would be necessary in the "Results" section or in the "Discussion" section. Also, in the "Discussions" section we did not identify any discussion of the research results presented in this article.”

A more thorough explanation of the results was highlighted in section 4, lines 464-465, 472-474, 491-494, 502-206, 520-525,541-545, and 556-559. While the interpretations were included, they were not as direct; therefore, the author team edited this section to more explicitly highlight the interpretation of the results.

Limitations and recommendations for further research are presented more than necessary.”

The authors wanted to be transparent in the application and reporting of the findings within this research. The limitations were edited section 4, 475-481 to be more efficient. The limitations are mentioned for transparency of methodology, but also in application of the findings.

“The conclusions excessively refer to recommendations for further research. These could be more detailed and structured on the objectives pursued and the results obtained.”

All recommendations were added to the section 5, 582-598 for clarity. The recommendations were organized to follow the similar structure of the literature review.

“I also think that references to bibliographic sources are not recommended in the conclusions because they refer to the results of own research.”

 

The references to bibliographic sources were removed from section 5 of the conclusions.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to address your concerns/comments. We hope you appreciate and approve of our revisions.

Sincerely,

The Author Team

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

To predict the importance of environmental impact measures for individuals purchasing local food online has great significance to promote more sustainable option of food.I think the authors have made revisions to address all the issues and questions raised in the previous review. The manuscript has been improved.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I congratulate you on your effort!

I believe that the article can be published.