Improving Sustainable Food Access and Availability in Rural Communities: An Assessment of Needed Resources
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for considering me to review the manuscript entitled Improving Sustainable Food Access and Availability in Rural
Communities: An Assessment of Needed Resources.
The subject addressed by the authors is current and should be included in the specifics of the magazine.
The manuscript is well written, respecting the specific criteria of a scientific material.
I congratulate the authors for the approach to the research and for the gradual presentation of the steps taken to create the material.
The chosen research method is appropriate and is correctly presented in the manuscript.
Data analysis is carried out using specific, correctly chosen software.
The formulated conclusions are pertinent and based on the research results.
Some recommendations
1. format the manuscript according to the rules of the journal
2. insert a separate chapter, entitled Discussions
3. state the limitations of the study
Congratulations!
Author Response
Thank you for your kind and constructive feedback.
We have revised the document to align with Sustainability’s formatting requirements.
We have added a “discussion” and “conclusion” section
We listed the limitation of internet access in the methods.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Researcher's efforts are thanked.
The problem statement of this manuscript is clear and it has not application outside of the discussed case study setting.
The aim of the paper is "Needs assessments ". To my limited knowledge, the approach to tackle this problem not novel and courageous.
I have provided some suggestions that might help the authors on their path to publication. In general, the manuscript could also benefit from proof-reading and improvement of grammar and language, but I have focused my comments on the scientific content.
Title, Abstract & Keywords:
The Abstract is too political and should follow the traditional format: description of problem and relevance, research aim, methods, key results, and implications for theory and practice.
Keywords should be optimized for database search purposes and should not repeat words already used in the article's title.
Introduction:
It seems that some references used in text are up to date.
The Introduction, can be completely about the recent need assessment process (not specific to the case)
- you should discuss about research gap in the world
- Try to think about what the most new information about the subject that the readers should now, and what information can be left out without reducing the paper's understandability.
Is this research exploratory or definitive?
How many of sample size? How was this done? You should providing information on the sampling strategy and procedure. There is still potential for sample / information bias and this should be acknowledged in the Discussion section.
Providing some example questions might be helpful or including the questionnaire as Appendix.
The Discussion should follow up on some of the issues that are raised in the Introduction, the main research gap and how your case study contributes to understanding problems.
While the Discussion has a lot of useful information, most of it is specific for local policy makers. Some of these suggestions might fit better in a separate policy brief. In the Discussion of your scientific article, try to keep as generalizable as possible, so rather than focusing on specific policies try to focus on the broader ideas of these subjects.
You have to think about conclusion of the research. There is no conclusion in this article and somehow it is a repetition of the findings.
What is your work contribution?
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Interesting paper with practical and useful solutions. Some suggestions for improvements:
1) The title does not reflect fully the content of the paper. I suggest to reformulate the title and to include "extension education/ educators", because this concept is one of the central in the text. Also "obesity" could be included in the key words.
2) I believe the idea of food system is poorly linked with the empirical data and conclusions. Frankly, it is not clear how the research focus embraces the concept of a food system. This must be better elaborated.
3) More detailed information about the sampling procedure, questionnaire dissemination, and research ethics must be included.
4) Text formatting in some places must be revised.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors improved the manuscript in accordance with the previously formulated recommendations.
Congratulations!
Pay attention to the preparation of the bibliography.
L 63 (Harder et al., 2019; Sanders et al., 2021)!!!!!!!!
This inconsistency can influence the numbering of bibliographic sources.
Author Response
Thank you for your review! We have edited the reference issue.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks to your cooperation.
There are a few formatting issues that need to be fixed, such as tables (tables take up a lot of pages, which can be compacted, such as removing extra spaces) , etc
Author Response
Thank you for your second review! We have addressed the spacing and reference issues.
