Food Purchase from Family Farming in Public Institutions in the Northeast of Brazil: A Tool to Reach Sustainable Development Goals
, Diôgo Vale 2, Hortência Ingreddys Fernandes do Nascimento 3, Juliano Capelo Nagy 3, Antônio Hermes Marques da Silva Junior 3, Priscilla Moura Rolim 1 and Larissa Mont’Alverne Jucá Seabra 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study is interesting but lacks scientific rigor and analysis. After a suitable revision it should be publication-ready.
The language needs to be improved. The introduction needs to be supplemented with the rationale of the study, its contribution, the research gap, and research question. An effective literature review needs to be conducted. The contribution of the study is not clear. Use of styles needs to be improved (spaces, etc). The methodology is not clear, a more effective description and analysis is required. The sample selection is out of place, as it is not set by the statistical analysis conducted. The study design is not clear. The descriptive statistics may be interesting but a supplementary statistical analysis is required, please look into cluster and/or factor analysis. The results need to be described more effectively. All the best with the revision, I am very much looking forward to the next version.Author Response
Response Reviewer 1
â–ª Comment: The study is interesting but lacks scientific rigor and analysis. After a suitable revision it should be publication ready.
Response: We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of your suggestions.
â–ª Comment: The language needs to be improved. The introduction needs to be supplemented with the rationale of the study, its contribution, the research gap, and research question. An effective literature review needs to be conducted. The contribution of the study is not clear.
Response: Thank you for your suggestions. Changes were made to the abstract and introduction to improve the text and make the purpose of the study clearer.
â–ª Comment: Use of styles needs to be improved (spaces, etc).
Response: We have checked the text and fixed the errors.
â–ª Comment: The methodology is not clear, a more effective description and analysis is required.
Response: We believe that after the changes made, the methodology became clearer.
â–ª Comment: The sample selection is out of place, as it is not set by the statistical analysis conducted. The study design is not clear.
Response: This study is part of a project entitled ‘Food for Students at Federal Institutes of Education in Rio Grande do Norte and its Interface with Sustainable Nutrition’. We used the same proportionate simple stratified sampling carried out for the project and collected the information contained in public calls for purchases of food from family farming on the 15 selected campuses. We add this information in the methodology.
â–ª Comment: The descriptive statistics may be interesting, but a supplementary statistical analysis is required, please look into cluster and/or factor analysis.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. However, our objective was to present in a descriptive way the characteristics of the farmers who participated in the selection process of food suppliers for the federal institutes, as well as the types of food they were able to supply.
â–ª Comment: The results need to be described more effectively. All the best with the revision, I am very much looking forward to the next version.
Response: We appreciate your valuable suggestions. We hope that the modifications made were sufficient to achieve the journal's publication standards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Food Purchase from Family Farming in Public Institutions in Northeast of Brazil: A Tool to Reach Sustainable Development Goals
This study aims to analyze public calls for food purchases, from 15 Federal Institutions of Technical Education located at Rio Grande do Norte State, Brazil, to characterize the participating family farmers, identify the food required in public calls procurement and verify the processing level of food present in the public calls. The data obtained indicate that 56% of the family farmers were members of cooperatives, supplying mainly fruits, and only 6.25% were characterized as agroecological producers. Fruits were the main homologated food group to be purchased from family farmers. Most of the foods were in natural or minimally processed, while processed foods were still little expressive in the public calls for family farmers. The findings suggest that family agriculture need financial support to diversify the types of food sold to public institutions, adding products such as dairy, meat and other processed food. This would enable a greater volume of food purchased from family farming in public institutions, contributing to the environmental, social and health dimensions of sustainability.
1. This is a qualitative study. However, the contribution should be proper addressed n your introduction and abstract. Please underscore the scientific value added/contributions of your paper in your abstract and introduction and address your debate shortly in the abstract.
2. What has been studied Introduction should be clearly stated research questions and targets first. Then answer several questions: Why is the topic important (or why do you study on it)? What are research questions or objectives? What are your contributions? Why is to propose this particular method (This must come from Literature discussion)?
3. A good article should include, (1)originality, new perspectives or insights; (2) international interest; and (3) relevance for governance, policy or practical perspectives relevant to the focus of this manuscript.
4. The literatute should refer some recent studies. For instance, Ming-Lang Tseng, Ming K. Lim, Mohd Helmi Ali, Gabriella Christianti & Patrapapar Juladacha (2022) Assessing the sustainable food system in Thailand under uncertainties: governance, distribution and storage drive technological innovation, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 39:1, 1-18, DOI: 10.1080/21681015.2021.1951858; Ming-Lang Tseng, Thi Phuong Thuy Tran, Hien Minh Ha, Tat-Dat Bui & Ming K. Lim (2021) Sustainable industrial and operation engineering trends and challenges Toward Industry 4.0: a data driven analysis, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 38:8, 581-598
5. However, this study is important study for SDGs. The major defect of this study is the debate or Argument is not clear stated in the introduction session.
6. I would like to request the author to emphasis on the contributions on practically, methodology or academically in your discussion session.
7. Basically, you should enhance your findings, limitations, underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your contributions/shortages and future study in this session.
Author Response
Response Reviewer 2
â–ª Comment: This is a qualitative study. However, the contribution should be proper addressed in your introduction and abstract. Please underscore the scientific value added/contributions of your paper in your abstract and introduction and address your debate shortly in the abstract.
Response: We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of your suggestions.
â–ª Comment: What has been studied Introduction should be clearly stated research questions and targets first. Then answer several questions: Why is the topic important (or why do you study on it)? What are research questions or objectives? What are your contributions? Why is to propose this particular method (This must come from Literature discussion)?
Response: Thank you for your suggestions. Changes were made to the abstract and introduction to improve the text and make the purpose of the study clearer.
â–ª Comment: A good article should include, (1)originality, new perspectives or insights; (2) international interest; and (3) relevance for governance, policy or practical perspectives relevant to the focus of this manuscript.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Our objective was to present in a descriptive way the characteristics of the farmers who participated in the selection process of food suppliers for the federal institutes, as well as the types of food they were able to supply. We made changes to the text to highlight the relevance of the topic addressed in the article.
â–ª Comment: The literatute should refer some recent studies. For instance, Ming-Lang Tseng, Ming K. Lim, Mohd Helmi Ali, Gabriella Christianti & Patrapapar Juladacha (2022) Assessing the sustainable food system in Thailand under uncertainties: governance, distribution and storage drive technological innovation, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 39:1, 1-18, DOI: 10.1080/21681015.2021.1951858; Ming-Lang Tseng, Thi Phuong Thuy Tran, Hien Minh Ha, Tat-Dat Bui & Ming K. Lim (2021) Sustainable industrial and operation engineering trends and challenges Toward Industry 4.0: a data driven analysis, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 38:8, 581-598
Response: The suggested studies are excellent, but we chose not to add them to our article, which already has references that address sustainable food system in general.
â–ª Comment: However, this study is important study for SDGs. The major defect of this study is the debate or Argument is not clear stated in the introduction session.
Response: We have made modifications to the introduction to make clearer the importance of the topic and the study questions.
â–ª Comment: I would like to request the author to emphasis on the contributions on practically, methodology or academically in your discussion session.
Response: A paragraph has been inserted into the discussion session.
â–ª Comment: Basically, you should enhance your findings, limitations, underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your contributions/shortages and future study in this session.
Response: A paragraph was created to present the shortcomings and opportunities for Future Studies. In face of the discussions and scenarios approached, the study is valid for its methodological quality in assessing important food and nutritional safety programs internationally recognized.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments/suggestions:
Abstract needs to be rewritten, particularly in the description of the results (there is some repetition) and the implications of research need to really reflect your research.
There is no idea of the research gap nor of the contribution(s) provided by the paper. The aim of the paper is quite descriptive, and I believe that the research would benefit from having a clear research question aligned with an identified gap in current research. Moreover, the literature review (or at least the references provided in the introduction) is quite generic and should be more directed towards the aim of the paper, so that the results can be discussed at the end. In fact, in the discussion section you introduce a set of studies that were not mentioned or presented before. Many of the issues covered in that section could be used to build a literature review section, and then you could discuss your results:
The authors should explain why the unit of analysis is IFRN institutions and not public procurement procedures. In other way, why they have sampled IFRN institutions and not public procurement contracts. Why is important to have a representative sample of institutions and not a representative sample of contracts.
The description of the IFRN students of the sample institutions should be provided, since they cover very different level of education.
In the introduction you stress the family farming topic. However, it is not clear if all types identified in section 2.2.1 (“Formal Group”, “Informal Group” or “Individual supplier”) are considered as family farmers. This should be better explained.
Some conclusions seem rather speculative. I could not find any support in your results to your claim that “It was noted that farmers equally need more articulations and financial and organizational fostering for greater strengthening and participation in the public biddings”.
Questions:
Line 125: “The present cross-sectional study of descriptive and exploratory character was per-125 formed between February and July 2021”. Do the authors refer to the period of data collection?
Line 91 vs line 130. How many campuses has IFRN? How many students are enrolled?
Section 2.2. How many call notices have you analyzed?
Lines 198-216. What do you mean by the number of foods?
Other issues:
An extensive editing of English language is required.
Line 60: “institutional environments” in not the best term in the context of the sentence.
Lines 72, 85: food instead of foods
Line 73: organs is not used in this context (maybe public bodies and entities or just public organizations)
Lines 75-77; lines 78-81; lines 100-103, lines 201-202: sentences need to be rewritten to improve their clarity.
Box 1 is in fact a table. The authors need to provide a clarification of 1) and 2) signs that appear in the table.
Author Response
Response Reviewer 3
â–ª Comment: Abstract needs to be rewritten, particularly in the description of the results (there is some repetition) and the implications of research need to really reflect your research.
Response: We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of your suggestions.
â–ª Comment: There is no idea of the research gap nor of the contribution(s) provided by the paper. The aim of the paper is quite descriptive, and I believe that the research would benefit from having a clear research question aligned with an identified gap in current research. Moreover, the literature review (or at least the references provided in the introduction) is quite generic and should be more directed towards the aim of the paper, so that the results can be discussed at the end. In fact, in the discussion section you introduce a set of studies that were not mentioned or presented before. Many of the issues covered in that section could be used to build a literature review section, and then you could discuss your results.
Response: Thank you for your suggestions. Changes were made in the introduction and discussion section to improve the text and make the purpose of the study clearer.
â–ª Comment: The authors should explain why the unit of analysis is IFRN institutions and not public procurement procedures. In other way, why they have sampled IFRN institutions and not public procurement contracts. Why is important to have a representative sample of institutions and not a representative sample of contracts.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Our objective was to present in a descriptive way the characteristics of the farmers who participated in the selection process of food suppliers for the federal institutes, as well as the types of food they were able to supply. This study is part of a project entitled ‘Food for Students at Federal Institutes of Education in Rio Grande do Norte and its Interface with Sustainable Nutrition’. We used the same proportionate simple stratified sampling carried out for the project and collected the information contained in public calls for purchases of food from family farming on the 15 selected campuses. We add this information in the methodology.
â–ª Comment: The description of the IFRN students of the sample institutions should be provided, since they cover very different level of education.
Response: We add this information in methodology section.
â–ª Comment: In the introduction you stress the family farming topic. However, it is not clear if all types identified in section 2.2.1 (“Formal Group”, “Informal Group” or “Individual supplier”) are considered as family farmers. This should be better explained.
Response: All participants in the public calls are family farmers, as this type of purchase is part of a policy to encourage family farming. We added this information in methodology section.
â–ª Comment: Some conclusions seem rather speculative. I could not find any support in your results to your claim that “It was noted that farmers equally need more articulations and financial and organizational fostering for greater strengthening and participation in the public biddings”.
Response: We changed the way of writing.
Questions:
â–ª Line 125: “The present cross-sectional study of descriptive and exploratory character was per-125 formed between February and July 2021”. Do the authors refer to the period of data collection?
Response: Yes, it refers to the collection period.
â–ª Line 91 vs line 130. How many campuses has IFRN? How many students are enrolled?
Response: This information is in the methodology
â–ª Section 2.2. How many call notices have you analyzed?
Response: A total of four public notices analyzed (two of opening and two of homologation/adjudication), each containing all campuses of the sample. This information is on Methodology session.
â–ª Lines 198-216. What do you mean by the number of foods?
Response: the quantity (count and not variety) of foods that were approved in the calls, within the food groups of the analysis.
Other issues:
An extensive editing of English language is required.
â–ª Line 60: “institutional environments” in not the best term in the context of the sentence
Response: We made the requested change
Lines 72, 85: food instead of foods
Response: We made the requested change
â–ª Line 73: organs is not used in this context (maybe public bodies and entities or just public organizations)
Response: We made the requested change
â–ª Lines 75-77; lines 78-81; lines 100-103, lines 201-202: sentences need to be rewritten to improve their clarity.
Response: We made the requested change
â–ª Box 1 is in fact a table. The authors need to provide a clarification of 1) and 2) signs that appear in the table.
Response: We made the requested change
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Very good revision, accept.
Reviewer 2 Report
accepted
