Young Consumers’ Price Perceptions in Purchasing Foods: Evidence from Greece
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsYoung consumers’ price perceptions in purchasing foods: Evidence from Greece
Review:
The study presents interesting and novel findings. Just a few minor comments below:
In the abstract please check the typo and correct into “from farm to fork”
In the introduction:
Line 40: I would not use the expression preferences of food choice motives, but I would use just food choice motives, because food choice motives imply preference so the expression is not correct.
Line 40-44 how food choice motives are contradictory?
Line 47: maybe instead of wars mention political instability and conflict around the world.
In the literature review the authors mention the option of buy one get to in line 73, but there needs to be discussion on the effect these options have on food waste
In line 89 the authors refer to “true price food products” in this format. If they use this format they need to describe what they mean.
In the materials and methods:
Was the survey in Greek, the native language of participants? How did the authors come up with the questions? It would be interesting to include a questions grid to justify the choice of questions included in each category.
In table 1 the authors include a category that it is called “permanent residents of the Epirus region” was this the question or was it residency or place or origin? If the students are studying in Epirus they reside there but might come from different places of Greece.
Could you please give more details in relation to the data analysis tools used?
In the results section
Please describe in the legend of table 2 and table 3 what are the values in the corresponding table. They are percentages but it is best instead of adding it as a footnote to add it on the legend.
What statistical test was conducted to explore the differences in importance of the different factors/determinants under each category?
Please describe the term “price mavenism”
From line 191 onwards, in general chi-sqare results are presented also showng the degress of freedom for example χ2(1) = 5.195, p = .023. the same applies for the results presented from line 237 onwards
The authors have not explored the field of study. Would that have an effect on their findings?
In the conclusions
· Lines 319-320 (first sentence under the conclusion sub-heading) – Maybe you could generalise this statement instead of highlighting the percentage in the U.S in particular given that this study was not conducted there (this statement will be fine as it is elsewhere in the manuscript when compared to Greece but not here).
· There are some interesting suggestions for future work.
Some other minor issues described below:
Noted a few typographical errors (if not mistaken):
o Line 138 - contacted?
o Line 146 – ‘on’ the population? ….’aged’ between?
o Line 273 – row?
· Line 150 – there is a discrepancy regarding the percentage of ‘exclusively students’ 89.5% stated here compared to 30% in Table 1.
· Check format of the references please. Especially reference 1
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIn some cases editing is necessary
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents a study on the perception of price among young consumers when purchasing food. The study was based on a questionnaire conducted among students in Greece, with most of them being representatives of the generation Z.
The study was correctly planned and conducted. The material and results are fully described
I would suggest adding short description/definition of the determinants of food selection. This would make the paper more informative to readers not familiar with the topic.
The sentences in lines 343-346 are not fully clear – please rewrite.
Line 347 – why was “quite” used?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
