Exploring the Impact of Visual Perception and Taste Experience on Consumers’ Acceptance of Suboptimal Fresh Produce

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting study and outcomes. Correct structure and editing. Discussion and conclusion part would required elaboration. Please also see Line 42, instead SGD, should be SDG. 

Author Response

Interesting study and outcomes. Correct structure and editing.

Response: Thank you for your kind words. We improved the editing and believe the revised paper reads more fluently.

Discussion and conclusion part would required elaboration.

Response: Thank you for this important comment. We revised and elaborated the discussion in both sections.

Please also see Line 42, instead SGD, should be SDG.

Response: Corrected. Thank you again for the time invested in helping us increasing the impact of our research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is logical and well-followable.

The methods are missing from the abstract (just the experiment is included).

The literature review is appropriate. However, this must be improved by more recent sources. At least 50-60 references are recommended. The proportion of scientific sources must be increased from 2021 and onwards.

Hypotheses must be set in Present form. The numbering of the hypotheses is not clear in the literature review. A figure could enhance the logic of the hypotheses.

I recommend applying a theoretical framework, such as: Expectation–Disconfirmation Theory in the following study: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/11/9/1276 This study is also valuable because of its content.

The Discussion must refer to the previous results of the scientific literature.

English must be proofread by a native English speaker.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This must be improved by a native English speaker.

Author Response

The paper is logical and well-followable.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment and for the help in improving the paper.

The methods are missing from the abstract (just the experiment is included).

Response: We now elaborate in the abstract that “The study employed a 3 × 2 between-subjects factorial design in which participants indicated their perceived quality and willingness to purchase suboptimal tomatoes and sweet peppers in three informational conditions:…”. The experiment is indeed the method in our study.

The literature review is appropriate. However, this must be improved by more recent sources. At least 50-60 references are recommended. The proportion of scientific sources must be increased from 2021 and onwards.

Response: The literature review was updated to include the newest relevant scientific publications. Please see the updated References list, which now includes 55 references (12 new references were added in the revised version).

Hypotheses must be set in Present form. The numbering of the hypotheses is not clear in the literature review. A figure could enhance the logic of the hypotheses.

Response: We changed the hypothesis numbering, and all hypotheses are now written in the present tense. We also added a figure summarizing all study hypotheses (see the new Figure 1).

I recommend applying a theoretical framework, such as: Expectation–Disconfirmation Theory in the following study: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/11/9/1276. This study is also valuable because of its content.

Response: Thank you very much for this insightful and important comment, which helped us strengthen our theoretical framework. Based on your comment, we directly address the EDT and use it as a theoretical framework for hypotheses H2-H4 (p. 5). We also relate to the theory in our revised discussion (p. 18).

The Discussion must refer to the previous results of the scientific literature.

Response: In the revised version, we extended the discussion and referred more directly to previous results and related literature in the introduction.

English must be proofread by a native English speaker.

Response: The revised version was proof-edited. Thank you for your help and for pushing us to improve the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for an opportunity to read your paper. The idea is very interesting; however, there are still some shortages which must be carefully addressed. I will be excited to read the final paper, and also to replicate the research in my country's conditions.

My main considerations are related to the structure of the paper and to a more thorough theoretical substantiation (or analysis of the existing literature). Please, find the detailed comments below.

Abstract. The abstract is confusing. It is not clear, how many options of vegetables were evaluated (based on conditions it looks like three, but later the authors mention two – “no impact on the perceived quality of both products”). This issue must be clarified. The aim of the research is not indicated; originality and scientific value are not presented. Also, contribution to the field of knowledge is not emphasized.

Introduction. Introduction is divided into main part and a sub-chapter. As there is only one subchapter, it does not look appropriate and relevant. Moreover, the Hypotheses should be provided after a thorough analysis of scientific literature, i.e., in the theoretical part (either literature review or theoretical substantiation) which is missing. In the introduction part, the authors are supposed to present the state of current research in the field, disclose the gap in the literature which they are going to address. Also, the contribution is not presented, and the structure of the article is not provided.

Materials and Methods. The sample and procedure are presented clearly. However, the authors could also have provided and explained the methods they used for the analysis of the results.

Results. The results for the size of sweet pepper might have been biased by misunderstanding of the size. To my opinion, the picture is taken wrongly, therefore, the bigger pepper looks abnormal. If there were more peppers in the picture (like with tomatoes), the results could have been different. Of course, as the experiment is already provided, this is just a suggestion for the further experiments of the authors. Also, I suggest explaining this issue broader.

In line 223 the authors indicate Appendix 2. I think that the link to the survey questions and construction of variables should have been provided in the chapter devoted to materials and methods, not in the result part.

Discussion. Once again, this chapter has one subchapter. If there is 4.1, where is 4.2? Either create the second subchapter, either do not divide the chapter at all.

Conclusions. The conclusions are too short. They do not demonstrate the contribution to the field of knowledge.

Author Response

Dear authors, thank you for an opportunity to read your paper. The idea is very interesting; however, there are still some shortages which must be carefully addressed. I will be excited to read the final paper, and also to replicate the research in my country's conditions.

Response: Thank you for your kind words and for the time and effort invested in helping us improve the manuscript.

My main considerations are related to the structure of the paper and to a more thorough theoretical substantiation (or analysis of the existing literature). Please, find the detailed comments below.

Abstract. The abstract is confusing. It is not clear, how many options of vegetables were evaluated (based on conditions it looks like three, but later the authors mention two – “no impact on the perceived quality of both products”). This issue must be clarified. The aim of the research is not indicated; originality and scientific value are not presented. Also, contribution to the field of knowledge is not emphasized.

Response: Thank you for this important comment. We made major changes to the abstract based on your comment. The modified abstract better articulates the research aim and its contribution, which is to investigate the mechanisms influencing the tendency to avoid cosmetically suboptimal vegetables, with a focus on visual perception and tasting experience. It now specifies that the study encompasses two vegetable options: tomatoes and peppers.

 

Introduction. Introduction is divided into main part and a sub-chapter. As there is only one subchapter, it does not look appropriate and relevant. Moreover, the Hypotheses should be provided after a thorough analysis of scientific literature, i.e., in the theoretical part (either literature review or theoretical substantiation) which is missing. In the introduction part, the authors are supposed to present the state of current research in the field, disclose the gap in the literature which they are going to address. Also, the contribution is not presented, and the structure of the article is not provided.

Response: Following your feedback, we omitted sub-chapter 1.1 and restructured section 1 accordingly. We have strengthened the literature review to more effectively underscore the gaps in the research field, and better structured the theoretical framework (see the revised introduction section). Additionally, we included a paragraph outlining the study's contribution.

Materials and Methods. The sample and procedure are presented clearly. However, the authors could also have provided and explained the methods they used for the analysis of the results.

Response: This was added to the text, which now reads, “All participants completed the study and the questionnaire in the lab. Sessions included one participant at a time. Analyses included two-way ANOVAs and independent-sample t-tests using SPSS 25.” (p. 11).

Results. The results for the size of sweet pepper might have been biased by misunderstanding of the size. To my opinion, the picture is taken wrongly, therefore, the bigger pepper looks abnormal. If there were more peppers in the picture (like with tomatoes), the results could have been different. Of course, as the experiment is already provided, this is just a suggestion for the further experiments of the authors. Also, I suggest explaining this issue broader.

Response: Thank you very much for this important comment, which we now directly address in the revised discussion (p. 19): “However, it is plausible that using only pictures may have hindered consumers’ ability to appreciate size, especially since the picture provided lacked an actual size index. While it was clear that the vegetable we served was the smaller one, it could be argued that participants did not perceive it as objectively small. This point warrants further examination in future research.”

In line 223 the authors indicate Appendix 2. I think that the link to the survey questions and construction of variables should have been provided in the chapter devoted to materials and methods, not in the result part.

Response: We agree. We also added a reference to the appendix in the methods section.

Discussion. Once again, this chapter has one subchapter. If there is 4.1, where is 4.2? Either create the second subchapter, either do not divide the chapter at all.

Response: We combined the two sections and now the discussion does not include subsections at all.

Conclusions. The conclusions are too short. They do not demonstrate the contribution to the field of knowledge.

Response: The conclusion section was extended, and we elaborated on the contribution of our research (p. 22-23). Thank you again for your insightful comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an excellenty research work well presented by the authors, and I would like to congratulate you for it. However in order to improve the manuscript I recommend the following changes, mainly on the presentation of the work :

1. INTRODUCTION:

. All hypotheses should be stated together by the end of the paragraph, not with text in the middle!, as H1, H2, etc. as they are presented in table 1 below (it wil be thus clear for the reader!)

2. METHODS:

In section 2.2. procedure more details on the selection of the students (how they were selected), the period the questionaire was conducted, place of completing the questionaires, all together, individual, or in portions etc. should be adressed

3. RESULTS:

TABLE 1, very informative!, should include a column with numbers which would support the hypotheses column at the very right of the table

4. DISCUSSION:

This is the section poorly written. It sould be rewritten based on the finding of the results (as shown at Table 1 one by one) and comparing with related existing literature

5. CONCLUSION:

Paragraph "limitation and future research" should be transfered from discussion to conclusion and merge into the existing text

Overall my major remark is concerning the "discussion" section which should be writter correclty.   

.   

Author Response

This is an excellenty research work well presented by the authors, and I would like to congratulate you for it. However, in order to improve the manuscript, I recommend the following changes, mainly on the presentation of the work:

Response: We wish to thank the reviewer for acknowledging our research, and for helping us better improve its impact.

1. INTRODUCTION:

All hypotheses should be stated together by the end of the paragraph, not with text in the middle!, as H1, H2, etc. as they are presented in table 1 below (it wil be thus clear for the reader!)

Response: Thanks to your suggestion, we have now included a summary of all research hypotheses in Figure 1. We believe that this addition, along with the change in hypothesis numbering, as recommended by Reviewer 1, enhances the readability of the article.

2. METHODS:

In section 2.2. procedure more details on the selection of the students (how they were selected), the period the questionaire was conducted, place of completing the questionaires, all together, individual, or in portions etc. should be addressed

Response: We agree. We revised the methods section and added the required information.

3. RESULTS:

TABLE 1, very informative!, should include a column with numbers which would support the hypotheses column at the very right of the table

Response: Done.

 

4. DISCUSSION:

This is the section poorly written. It sould be rewritten based on the finding of the results (as shown at Table 1 one by one) and comparing with related existing literature.

Response: Thank you for this important comment. We made major revisions to this section.

5. CONCLUSION:

Paragraph "limitation and future research" should be transfered from discussion to conclusion and merge into the existing text

Response: Done.

Overall my major remark is concerning the "discussion" section which should be writter correclty.

Response: The discussion and conclusion sections underwent extensive revisions to enhance coherence and readability, aiming to offer a clearer depiction of the study's contributions, their theoretical and practical implications, and potential avenues for future research. Thank you again for your valuable comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, thank you for addressing most of my comments. The manuscript looks much better. Good luck in your future research.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can now be accepted as such