Applying Artificial Intelligence to Promote Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Broadness of Scope: While the comprehensive nature of the review is a strength, it also poses a challenge in terms of depth. The paper could focus more intensely on specific areas where AI has the most significant impact or potential within the food industry.

 

Integration of Case Studies or Empirical Data: The paper predominantly relies on a literature review and could be strengthened by integrating case studies or empirical data that showcase successful implementations of AI technologies in the food industry, providing a more explicit connection between theoretical insights and practical applications.

 

More precise Definitions and Distinctions: The paper discusses various technologies under the umbrella of AI but occasionally needs clear distinctions between them. More precise definitions and the contextual use of terms like machine learning, deep learning, and blockchain could enhance clarity.

 

Discussion on Ethical Considerations: While the paper touches on challenges and drawbacks, there could be a more in-depth discussion on the ethical implications of AI in the food industry, particularly concerning data privacy, job displacement, and the potential for increased inequality.

 

Future Research Directions: The conclusions could be expanded to propose specific future research directions that are narrowly focused on addressing unresolved issues or emerging trends in the application of AI in sustainability practices within the food industry.

 

Stakeholder Engagement: The paper mentions the importance of stakeholder engagement but could further elaborate on strategies for enhancing collaboration between technology developers, food industry operators, and regulators to foster an ecosystem conducive to sustainable AI integration.

 

Quantitative Analysis: The addition of quantitative analysis or models could provide more substantial evidence to support the claims about the impact of AI on sustainability metrics within the food industry.

 

The manuscript provides a valuable overview of the current landscape of AI applications in the food industry with a focus on sustainability. However, for greater impact and to serve as a definitive resource, it could benefit from deeper dives into specific technologies or sectors, which would provide more detailed and actionable insights. More empirical evidence would strengthen the paper's findings, and a robust discussion on ethical and social considerations would enhance its relevance and applicability. These enhancements would not only strengthen the paper's academic contributions but also its practical relevance for industry stakeholders, making it a more valuable resource.

Author Response

Reviewer 1: Comments and Authors‘ Reply May 14, 2024

Broadness of Scope: While the comprehensive nature of the review is a strength, it also poses a challenge in terms of depth. The paper could focus more intensely on specific areas where AI has the most significant impact or potential within the food industry.

• The authors appreciate the feedback. They acknowledge that the scope of the paper, being a literature review, is broad. However, they have taken the opportunity to delve deeper into specific areas, particularly towards the end of the Results section and the Discussion. This is a direct response to the reviewer's comment and a clear indication of the progress made in the paper. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

Integration of Case Studies or Empirical Data: The paper predominantly relies on a literature review and could be strengthened by integrating case studies or empirical data that showcase successful implementations of AI technologies in the food industry, providing a more explicit connection between theoretical insights and practical applications.

• Thanks for the observation. The paper’s aim is to be a literature review on how AI is applied throughout the food value chain within the food industry. Hence, its aim is not to be an empirical investigation. The authors still acknowledge the usefulness of such investigation, especially in a new and fast-growing field. Hence, the authors have strengthened the Discussion, especially in the section on potential future research. The authors have also strengthened the parts of the paper where practical applications of AI in the Food Industry can be seen, currently and in the future.

More precise Definitions and Distinctions: The paper discusses various technologies under the umbrella of AI but occasionally needs clear distinctions between them. More precise definitions and the contextual use of terms like machine learning, deep learning, and blockchain could enhance clarity. 

• Thanks for a very beneficial comment. Definitions and contextual descriptions have been improved, ensuring better clarity. This is especially true early on in the paper, as e.g., in section 2.1, Type of Study, where descriptions of the major concepts are found.

Discussion on Ethical Considerations: While the paper touches on challenges and drawbacks, there could be a more in-depth discussion on the ethical implications of AI in the food industry, particularly concerning data privacy, job displacement, and the potential for increased inequality.

• This is a good observation, where ethical considerations are clearly an important variable when it comes to the application of AI in the food industry. The authors have worked on this issue and added content to it.

Future Research Directions: The conclusions could be expanded to propose specific future research directions that are narrowly focused on addressing unresolved issues or emerging trends in the application of AI in sustainability practices within the food industry.

• The authors have enriched the section on future research. That has especially been done in the Discussion section of the paper. There, emerging trends are addressed and explained. Furthermore, towards the end of the Results section, the opportunity is now used, and potential interesting future research is also being presented.

Stakeholder Engagement: The paper mentions the importance of stakeholder engagement but could further elaborate on strategies for enhancing collaboration between technology developers, food industry operators, and regulators to foster an ecosystem conducive to sustainable AI integration.

• The section where stakeholders are mentioned and a figure on that theme is provided has been increased content-wise. The authors are grateful for the good observation. Stakeholders’ matters are discussed in various places in the paper, and the discussion needed to be made more thorough. This now occurs in multiple locations of the paper, where stakeholders were mentioned. But now this is also mentioned in what researchers could consider potential future research.

Quantitative Analysis: The addition of quantitative analysis or models could provide more substantial evidence to support the claims about the impact of AI on sustainability metrics within the food industry.

• Thank you for this comment. This paper is a literature review, so we prefer not to add quantitative analysis or models. It certainly can make very interesting next step research, which the authors are already considering.

The manuscript provides a valuable overview of the current landscape of AI applications in the food industry with a focus on sustainability. However, for greater impact and to serve as a definitive resource, it could benefit from deeper dives into specific technologies or sectors, which would provide more detailed and actionable insights. More empirical evidence would strengthen the paper's findings, and a robust discussion on ethical and social considerations would enhance its relevance and applicability. These enhancements would not only strengthen the paper's academic contributions but also its practical relevance for industry stakeholders, making it a more valuable resource.

• Thanks again for the review and the observation that the paper could be enriched with an empirical investigation. The paper is a literature review and aims to contribute to the literature on AI developments within the FI. It summarizes the latest research on the topic that should be relevant because of the fast pace of technology. Key themes are identified, and others are added. The paper contributes to the discourse around several concepts that are not uniformly defined, such as the term AI itself or what the FVC consists of. The paper aims to take on a broad view of the entire FI, which benefits researchers in other fields. It is relevant to researchers because its insights and how the paper is written should be accessible to the business community. Having said that, we agree that looking, e.g., at specific technologies would be beneficial. However, given the current state of the literature, this would be for future research to investigate.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

After reading your manuscript, a number of issues appear to stringently need to be addressed

First, the Introduction repeats the same information. The RQ is misaing. So are the results.

Secondly, a short literature review in regard to the subject study needs to be addredsed. For the moment, it is absent.

The methodology starts with addresding some literature clariffications. Please re assign the text.

The methodological approach which has been promised under such a title is not only lacunary, but completely  missing. The phrase where you vaguely explain that there were some research word strings addressed should not appear within a respectable scientific text.

As a snowball effect, your results are not scientifically nor under previous bacground research supported. Please see to that.

As a consequence, the conclusions are scientifically limited.

The resources are scarce.

Please readjust your text in accordance to scientific and Journal rigors.

 

Best regards,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor English editing errors

Author Response

Applying Artificial Intelligence to Promote Sustainability – A Literature Review

 

Reviewer 2: Comments and Authors‘ Reply May 14, 2024

After reading your manuscript, a number of issues appear to stringently need to be addressed

First, the Introduction repeats the same information. The RQ is misaing. So are the results.

Secondly, a short literature review in regard to the subject study needs to be addredsed. For the moment, it is absent.

The methodology starts with addresding some literature clariffications. Please re assign the text.

The methodological approach which has been promised under such a title is not only lacunary, but completely  missing. The phrase where you vaguely explain that there were some research word strings addressed should not appear within a respectable scientific text.

As a snowball effect, your results are not scientifically nor under previous bacground research supported. Please see to that.

As a consequence, the conclusions are scientifically limited.

The resources are scarce.

Please readjust your text in accordance to scientific and Journal rigors.

 

Authors’ response:

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript based on the reviewer, comments and suggestions. We have put specific effort into clarifications and stringency of the text. As the paper is a literature review, we prefer not to add a separate literature review section as this would lead to redundancies.

The authors have used the opportunity to delve deeper into specific areas, particularly toward the end of the Results section and the Discussion.  The authors have strengthened the Discussion, especially in the section on potential future research. The authors have also strengthened the parts of the paper where practical applications of AI in the Food Industry can be seen, currently and in the future.

The authors have strengthened the Discussion, especially in the section on potential future research. They have also strengthened the parts of the paper where practical applications of AI in the Food Industry can be seen, currently and in the future. This paper is a literature review, so we prefer not to add quantitative analysis or models. However, it certainly can make very interesting next-step research, which the authors are already considering.

The paper summarizes the latest research on the topic that should be relevant because of the fast pace of technology. Key themes are identified, and others are added. The paper contributes to the discourse around several concepts that are not uniformly defined, such as the term AI itself or what the FVC consists of. The paper aims to take on a broad view of the entire FI, which benefits researchers in other fields. It is relevant to researchers because its insights and how the paper is written should be accessible to the business community. Having said that, we agree that looking, e.g., at specific technologies would be beneficial. However, given the current state of the literature, this would be for future research to investigate.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
I read your literature review with interest and find the topics discussed to be very important and topical. In general, the paper is quite well written and understandable and the aspects presented in the discussion section are in line with the findings. However, I believe that there are some limitations, such as
- the article follows the Sustainability model only partially, because the caption is missing, some words are not readable (Prism flowchart), the final considerations section is missing (a specific section for conclusions is due)
- the main limitation of the study is highlighted in the materials and methods section: in my humble opinion, a literature review should consider the two most important databases, i.e. SCOPUS and WoS. As things stand, the proposed analysis could be considered unfinished and thus limited in its originality.
On the basis of these considerations, I believe that the current version of the paper is not suitable for publication, but that it could be the subject of a more in-depth analysis of the state of the art using SCOPUS and WoS as well, unless, of course, the editor indicates otherwise.
Best regards

Author Response

Applying Artificial Intelligence to Promote Sustainability – A Literature Review

 

Reviewer 3: Comments and Authors‘ Reply May 14, 2024

I read your literature review with interest and find the topics discussed to be very important and topical. In general, the paper is quite well written and understandable and the aspects presented in the discussion section are in line with the findings. However, I believe that there are some limitations, such as
- the article follows the Sustainability model only partially, because the caption is missing, some words are not readable (Prism flowchart), the final considerations section is missing (a specific section for conclusions is due)
- the main limitation of the study is highlighted in the materials and methods section: in my humble opinion, a literature review should consider the two most important databases, i.e. SCOPUS and WoS. As things stand, the proposed analysis could be considered unfinished and thus limited in its originality.
On the basis of these considerations, I believe that the current version of the paper is not suitable for publication, but that it could be the subject of a more in-depth analysis of the state of the art using SCOPUS and WoS as well, unless, of course, the editor indicates otherwise.

 

Authors Response:

We truly appreciate your comments and suggestions. Based on your and two other reviewers’ comments and suggestions, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript.

We are so sorry that some of the flowchart was unreadable. We believe it must have occurred due to the formatting when we submitted the paper. We shall take good care of that in our next round and contact the journal about it.

We were unclear when we presented the databases, we applied in our literature search. We are sorry for that. SCOPUS and WoS were indeed involved in searching for corresponding literature. We have altered the text, so it should be clear now. Hence, information that SCOPUS and WoS were also included in the paper is now presented. 

The paper’s aim is to be a literature review on how AI is applied throughout the food value chain within the food industry. Hence, we have now made it more transparent that its aim is not to be an empirical investigation. The authors still acknowledge the usefulness of such investigation, especially in a new and fast-growing field. Addressing clarity, the authors have strengthened the Discussion, especially in the section on potential future research. The authors have also strengthened the parts of the paper where practical applications of AI in the Food Industry can be seen, currently and in the future. More explicit definitions and contextual descriptions have been made for analysis purposes, ensuring better clarity.  

Adjustments have been made by delving deeper into specific issues to analyse. For example, the section where stakeholders are mentioned and a figure on that theme is provided has been increased content-wise.  

Thank you again for the review and the observations.  We hope that it comes through that the paper contributes to the discourse around several concepts that are not uniformly defined, such as the term AI itself or what the FVC consists of. The paper aims to take on a broad view of the entire FI, which benefits researchers in other fields. It is relevant to researchers because its insights and how the paper is written should be accessible to the business community.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the author's meticulous revisions. I have no further comments on this paper.

 

Author Response

Applying Artificial Intelligence to Promote Sustainability – A Literature Review

 

Sustainability 2nd round review

 

Reviewer 1 – Reply from Authors May 28^th, 2024

I appreciate the author's meticulous revisions. I have no further comments on this paper.

• We, the authors, thank you very much for reviewing the paper again, and that you are satisfied with its current form.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The improved version of your manuscript still needs some adjustments.

For example, the first two figures from your text which are undertaken from other studies should be connected to your results and do not have a valid place within the first part of your text.

You did not introduce a short section in regard to your literature review where to introduce the concepts and their development so far.

As previously suggested, The methodology starts with addresding some literature clariffications. Please re assign the text.

The methodology is still missing; you only present a brief story and the PRISMA like reseaarch methodology and protocols interpretaation is completely missing.

 

Within the Figure with no name from your 2.2 title, you have a number of n=3 databases; however, in the text you state that The literature search was conducted across several databases, Google Scholar, EB-230 SCOhost, Elsevier’s Scopus, Clarivate’s Web of Science platform, JSTOR, and Libsearch.

As previously suggested- As a snowball effect, your results are not scientifically nor under previous bacground research supported. Please see to that.

As a consequence, the conclusions are scientifically limited.

The resources are scarce.

Best regards,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor English editing errors

Author Response

Applying Artificial Intelligence to Promote Sustainability – A Literature Review

Sustainability 2nd round review

Reviewer 2 – Reply from Authors May 28^th, 2024

The improved version of your manuscript still needs some adjustments.

For example, the first two figures from your text which are undertaken from other studies should be connected to your results and do not have a valid place within the first part of your text.

• Thanks for pointing this out. Reflecting on Figure 1 in the Discussion makes sense, as it provides an overview of how efficiency can be improved along the value chain (the heart of our paper). Hence, we have now done this. We believe the flow and connection between parts of the paper are improved.
• Figure 2 has a different content than the previous figure but also plays a role when the paper’s contribution is discussed (in the Discussion part of the paper). That is because Figure 2 provides an overview of a typical value chain in the food industry. Hence, it makes good sense to reflect on it in the Discussion. This has now been done. Thanks for the comment.
• In an earlier initial review, the editor encouraged us, the authors, to include some figures that would visually explain a typical food value chain and how AI might influence it.

You did not introduce a short section in regard to your literature review where to introduce the concepts and their development so far.

• We now, in the Introduction, refer to section 2.1. We describe the major concepts within the field we address. We enjoy doing that in the “Materials and Methods,” where we present the type of study we conducted to the reader. We believe that is a good location in the paper to clarify the concepts. Furthermore, this research being a literature review, our result section describes the major concepts within the field and how they have and will develop. Thanks for the observation.

As previously suggested, The methodology starts with addresding some literature clariffications. Please re assign the text.

• We have now rewritten the start of the Materials and Methods. This paper is a research on the literature (a literature review). Hence, we stress that the method is of such nature that a review of the literature is its core. We hope that the new text is clearer.

The methodology is still missing; you only present a brief story and the PRISMA like reseaarch methodology and protocols interpretaation is completely missing.

• Thanks for the observation. We have now extended substantially the description of our method.

Within the Figure with no name from your 2.2 title, you have a number of n=3 databases; however, in the text you state that The literature search was conducted across several databases, Google Scholar, EB-230 SCOhost, Elsevier’s Scopus, Clarivate’s Web of Science platform, JSTOR, and Libsearch.

• Sorry about this mistake. It has now been corrected.

As previously suggested- As a snowball effect, your results are not scientifically nor under previous bacground research supported. Please see to that. As a consequence, the conclusions are scientifically limited.

• We intend to create a literature review to provide an overview of the main themes of current and future AI applications throughout the food industry. We have now strengthened the description of the method applied in doing that and enriched some of the findings. Therefore, we have updated the discussion section. The reader should now get a clearer understanding of the research’s contribution.

The resources are scarce.

• This field we are investigating still seems to be developing quickly but is relatively new. Hence, we believe resources are not extremely many. We collected just below 70 references, which we believe are relevant to our literature review. We have deepened the description and discussion on some of them. One of our contributions should be providing future researchers with an updated overview of the recent literature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the integrations I requested in the first phase of the revision and therefore I believe that the current version can be published in Sustainability journal. However, some typing errors remain in the flowchart.

Author Response

Applying Artificial Intelligence to Promote Sustainability – A Literature Review

Sustainability 2nd round review

Reviewer 3 – Reply from Authors May 28^th, 2024

I appreciate the integrations I requested in the first phase of the revision and therefore I believe that the current version can be published in Sustainability journal. However, some typing errors remain in the flowchart.

• We, the authors, thank you very much for reviewing the paper again.
• We proofread the flowchart and contacted the journal about its presentation quality.
• Thanks for your support.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your manuscript is now complying with the academic standards for publishing within the given Journal.

 

Best regards, 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor English Language typing errors