Traditional Food Vendor-Producer Innovation Capabilities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a very interesting paper. However, some critical amendments are needed in order to be ready for publication.

1. The contribution of SMEs in innovative process is more intense lately and should not be pointed by only the outcome of one or two referrences [4] (or [49]). The different point of view should also be presented in literature review. There are other researches too that could be included (in regard to food SMEs also), that underline the role of SMEs in the adoption of new innovative products and processes, providing also, a thorough literature review.  (see for example Anahita Baregheh, Jennifer Rowley, Sally Sambrook, Dafydd Davies, (2012),"Food sector SMEs and innovationtypes", British Food Journal, Vol. 114 Iss: 11 pp. 1640 - 1653, I.Sam Saguy, Chapter 3 - Food SMEs’ open innovation: Opportunities and challenges, Editor(s): Charis M. Galanakis, Innovation Strategies in the Food Industry (Second Edition), Academic Press, 2022, Pages 39-52, ISBN 9780323852036, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85203-6.00004-9.

2. I think that the theoretical background presented in the first two pages does not justify the two main research questions referred by the authors. Some literature is needed in regard to differences between innovative and non innovative firms. Probabaly some material from section 2 (literature review should be first and then the research questions)

3. Line 282: There is no information on the separation between innovative and non-innovative respodents. Which are the criteria to separate the respondents in each group? The introduction of one innovation? at least one innovation the last year? At least one for all the years of operation? And more important: How the ""innovation"" was defined? By what the respondents said? By a specific indicator (e.g. R&D expenses, patent etc.?). More details are needed from the authors..as the issue of ""innovative activity"" should be something clear and specific. Not something that a producer declare (and could not be really innovative)

4. Finaly, as the dependent variable is binary (some kind of Yes/No), i would expect a binary regression with all variables and/or a non-parametric test/correlation matrix etc. Could the authors provide some of them?  In general, more tests are needed in order for the findings to be confirmed.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

You use the terms: non-innovative, traditional - are they the same thing?

It is recommended to indicate in more detail the characteristics by which you divided the enterprises into two groups: innovative; non-innovative.

Based on the comparison of averages, what recommendations for traditional non-innovative enterprises can you give in conclusion of the article?

My comments:

1.             What is the main question addressed by the research?

The main question of the study is to compare the innovative potential of traditional and innovative restaurant business enterprises. Authors are recommended to describe the category of innovative enterprise, non-innovative enterprise.

2. What parts do you consider original or relevant for the field? What
specific gap in the field does the paper address?

The problem of strong stability in the market of traditional enterprises compared to innovative ones is relevant. How can this phenomenon be explained? Authors are encouraged to pay attention to the answer to this question in the discussion.

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

The study shows the phenomenon of weak positions of innovative enterprises in the restaurant business. Why is it specific to this particular area? This can also be discussed in a discussion.

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

You use the terms: non-innovative, traditional - are they the same thing?

It is recommended to indicate in more detail the characteristics by which you divided the enterprises into two groups: innovative; non-innovative.

5. Please describe how the conclusions are or are not consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. Please also indicate if all main questions posed were addressed and by which specific experiments.

Based on the comparison of averages, what recommendations for traditional non-innovative enterprises can you give in conclusion of the article?

6. Are the references appropriate?

yes, links are appropriate

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures and quality of the data.

no comments yet

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The proposed article is interesting and well-written, with adequate and well-argued content. It is recommended to accept its publication, albeit with some minor revisions.

There is a lack of a clear definition of who the vendors-producers are, and there is not always consistency in how they are described. Sometimes they are described as companies, other times as enterprises, and at times as individual subjects or micro-enterprises. Similarly, sometimes they are referred to as vendors-producers, other times only as producers, and in the conclusions, exhibitors-producers are mentioned. It would be appropriate to use harmonized and consistent terminology.

There are no indications regarding any public support for the dissemination of innovation (such as participation in EIP or funds by rural development). This could be a relevant aspect to consider. The reason why the research did not consider this aspect should be explained.

At the end of the third chapter regarding materials and methods, it should be made more evident that the division between the two groups, innovative and non-innovative, fundamentally stems from a statement made by the observed subjects.

The heading in Table 2 should indicate what the unit of measurement is; it would be percentage.

On line 287, it is stated that the group of producers who have introduced innovations are large companies; however, this does not seem confirmed.

The section between line 306 and line 309 should perhaps be anticipated.

Table 4, which reports the statistical significance of differences, does not refer to elements related to cooperation and networks. This should be added, or an explanation should be provided as to why it is not included.

In the discussion section, reference is made to the variables considered in Table 2; however, the authors do not report whether the variables are statistically significant or not. This should be highlighted.

Finally, in the conclusions chapter, it would be interesting to also propose some policy indications to concretely support the research results in practice.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It is ok for publication in the present form