Revitalising Traditional Cereals in Portugal: Challenges, Opportunities, and Strategies for Value Chain Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article contains interesting and very important research that can be used worldwide in the development of grain cultivation, in particular, traditional varieties. The article has a clear structure, validity of conclusions and can be published in the journal Sustainability after correcting minor comments.:

Place the table 5 on one page.

Design the article in accordance with the requirements of the journal (paragraph margins, table layout, etc.).

Remove unnecessary empty lines (for example, line 15-17, 372, 383, 339, 528, 529 and so on)

Line 467, 480 – provide links to the research. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your valuable feedback and suggestions. We have carefully reviewed your first three comments and made the necessary revisions to ensure the manuscript meets the journal's formatting guidelines. Regarding the last comment, we did not understand what you mean by “provide links to the research”.

 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no other requirements except that it should meet the requirements of the journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for considering that the paper is suitable for publication in Sustainability. We carefully reviewed the text and made the necessary revisions to ensure that the manuscript meets the journal's formatting guidelines.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I agree that all the corrections made are in line with the previous suggestions.

I have few request for you:

1. please remove the blank lines between the references. According to the Word template document, the line spacing should be 0.95. Please check carefully.

2. why is the name of Table 5 written twice (on pages 10 and 11)? Please remove the second one.

"Table 5 - Frequency analysis of pricing in traditional cereal initiatives"

3. the name of tables shoulb be write as follows: 

Table 2. This is a table. Tables should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited. (Palatino Linotype, 9)

4. in each table, line spacing should be At least 13 pt. Please check it again.

5. please frame the table1, table 2 and table 3 on full row width

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your valuable feedback and suggestions. We have carefully reviewed each comment and made the necessary revisions to ensure the manuscript meets the journal's formatting guidelines.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This interesting work needs some revisions. However, if the authors are willing to make these modifications, it can be a valuable article to be published in Sustainability.

 

Abstract: The study’s aims need to be clarified; What were the applied methodologies? Mention them in this section, as well as the more relevant results (values) and some directions for further investigations.

 

How can this work be impactful from a worldwide perspective? The authors should focus their Introduction with this in mind, and more studies carried out in other regions of the world should be cited.

 

Section 2 is too extensive. I suggest this section could be merged with section 1.

 

The inclusion of a diagram in section 3 would be helpful to clearly understand all the steps taken by the researchers to conduct this analysis.

 

In the Results section, there is too much text. The authors should consider presenting their results, mainly as tables or figures, and some of the information contained here should be moved to the Discussion.

 

The study’s limitations must be analyzed in detail in the Discussion section.

 

The Conclusions are too extensive. Some of this should be moved to the Discussion. The authors can elaborate on future perspectives and directions for further studies.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. I carefully reviewed each comment and made the necessary changes (in red in the text). Please find below a detailed Response (R) to your comments (C).

C1) Abstract: The study’s aims need to be clarified; What were the applied methodologies? Mention them in this section, as well as the more relevant results (values) and some directions for further investigations.

R1) As suggested, we have revised the Abstract to clarify the study’s aims, explicitly mention the applied methodologies, highlight key results, and outline directions for further research.

C2) How can this work be impactful from a worldwide perspective? The authors should focus their Introduction with this in mind, and more studies carried out in other regions of the world should be cited.

R2) As suggested, we have added a paragraph to the Introduction (Lines 93–100) highlighting the broader geographical relevance of this study. Additionally, we have incorporated references to studies from Latin America, Africa, and Asia to provide a more comprehensive global perspective

C3) Section 2 is too extensive. I suggest this section could be merged with section 1.

R3) We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding merging Section 2 with Section 1. However, we believe that keeping them separated improves the clarity and organization of the paper. The Introduction is focused on setting up the research context, while the Theoretical Framework provides a structured review of key concepts and literature that inform our study. Merging them would risk making the Introduction too large and less reader friendly. This structure aligns with common academic practices in studies dealing with complex, interdisciplinary topics

 C4) The inclusion of a diagram in section 3 would be helpful to clearly understand all the steps taken by the researchers to conduct this analysis.

R4) As suggested, we have included a diagram after Line 253 to visually summarize the key steps of the research methodology. 

C5) In the Results section, there is too much text. The authors should consider presenting their results, mainly as tables or figures, and some of the information contained here should be moved to the Discussion.

R5) We understand the reviewer's suggestion to present the results primarily as tables or figures, with some content shifted to the Discussion. However, during a previous review round, another reviewer specifically requested that we include more textual explanations in the Results section, which we did. To accommodate that feedback, we prefer to keep the Results section in its current format, which aligns with the expectations from the previous review.

C6) The study’s limitations must be analyzed in detail in the Discussion section.

R6) As suggested, we have provided a detailed analysis of the study’s limitations in the Discussion section (Lines 495–508).

C7) The Conclusions are too extensive. Some of this should be moved to the Discussion. The authors can elaborate on future perspectives and directions for further studies

R7) As the main findings of the study are already thoroughly presented in the Results and Discussion sections, we have removed the paragraph summarizing them from the Conclusions. Additionally, all aspects related to study limitations have been moved to the Discussion section for better alignment with standard academic structure. In the final paragraph of the Conclusions, we have expanded on future perspectives and directions for further research, as suggested.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Unfortunately the manuscript is confusing, it is submitted as an Article, but in practice it aims to carry out a literature review. A revision of the English is necessary. The way in which the text is presented does not give robustness to the narrative review, which occurs in a simplistic way. Unfortunately, I do not recommend the manuscript for publication. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A revision of the English is necessary.

Author Response

Please find the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Cereals remain the main source of carbohydrates worldwide. Self-sufficiency in food raw materials, including grain crops, is fundamental in ensuring food security and technological sovereignty of the country. This study focuses on traditional Portuguese grain crops: this study may be interesting and useful for readers, since traditional, autochthonous varieties of various crops are present in all countries. Despite the interest and significance of this article, there are comments:

1. Line 49: give examples of similar traditional crops; and indicate the reasons why these varieties, despite their advantages, were replaced by hybrids.

2. The results and discussion should be divided into 2 points.

3. Add more comments to tables 1 and 2.

4. The economic efficiency of using traditional grain crops is not sufficiently reflected. If other countries listed in table 1 already have positive experiences, then it is necessary to reflect them in this article.

The article can be published after the comments have been eliminated.

Author Response

Please find the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report for "Revitalizing Traditional Cereals in Portugal: Challenges, Opportunities, and Strategies for Value Chain Development"

1. Overall Evaluation

 The paper presents a comprehensive study on the value chain of traditional cereals in Portugal, analyzing both internal and external factors and reviewing relevant European case studies. It provides valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities in this area. However, there are several aspects that could be improved to enhance the quality and clarity of the research.

2. Major Issues

2.1 Methodology Limitation

 The sample size for the questionnaire survey seems relatively small (21 farmers, 12 technicians, and 12 researchers). A larger and more diverse sample could provide more robust results and better represent the industry.

The selection criteria for the European case studies could be further clarified. While the initiatives need to have an operational site and function for at least three years, other factors influencing the selection process should be explicitly stated to ensure the representativeness and relevance of the cases.

2.2 Data Analysis and Interpretation

 In the SWOT analysis, some of the factors listed under strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats could be more precisely defined and quantified. For example, when stating that yields are lower than modern varieties, it would be beneficial to provide specific data on the magnitude of the difference.

In the analysis of business models, the definitions of some pricing categories are ambiguous. The authors should clarify the differences between "fair," "affordable," and "decent" prices to avoid confusion.

2.3 Generalization and Context Adaptation

 The paper relies mainly on European case studies to draw conclusions and propose strategies for Portugal. However, it does not thoroughly discuss the potential differences between the Portuguese context and the European examples studied. A more in-depth analysis of the unique characteristics of the Portuguese agricultural sector and market is needed to ensure the effective application of the proposed strategies.

3. Suggestions for Improvement

3.1 Methodology Enhancement

 Increase the sample size of the questionnaire survey by reaching out to a wider range of stakeholders across different regions of Portugal. This could involve collaborating with more agricultural associations or using online platforms to collect data.

Provide a detailed explanation of the case study selection process, including how the initiatives were initially identified, any specific criteria used for screening, and the reasons for choosing the final 12 case studies. This would enhance the transparency and credibility of the research.

3.2 Data Analysis Refinement

 Quantify the differences in yields and other relevant factors in the SWOT analysis wherever possible. This could involve collecting data from existing research or conducting additional field experiments if necessary.

Conduct a more in-depth analysis of the pricing strategies of the initiatives. Interview the project managers or decision-makers of the case studies to obtain clear definitions and justifications for their pricing categories.

3.3 Contextualization

 Include a detailed comparison between the Portuguese and European contexts in terms of agricultural policies, consumer preferences, production systems, and market structures. This would help to identify the specific challenges and opportunities unique to Portugal and enable the development of more tailored strategies.

Consider conducting additional research focused specifically on the Portuguese market, such as consumer surveys to understand their preferences for traditional cereals and their willingness to pay for different product attributes.

3.4 Literature Review Expansion

 Review more recent literature related to traditional cereal production and value chain development, especially studies published in the last 2-3 years. This would ensure that the research is up-to-date and incorporates the latest findings and trends in the field.

Include more references from Portuguese sources to strengthen the connection between the research and the local context.

3.5 Discussion of Future Research Directions

 Elaborate more on the potential of integrating modern technology into traditional cereal production. Discuss specific technologies such as precision agriculture, genetic modification techniques (if applicable), and innovative processing methods, and their potential impact on the value chain.

Propose specific research questions and hypotheses for future studies related to the marketing and product development of traditional cereals in Portugal, based on the limitations identified in this research.

3.6 Clarity and Organization

 Improve the organization of the paper by clearly separating the discussion of results from the analysis. This would make it easier for readers to follow the flow of the research and understand the implications of the findings.

Use more figures and tables to present complex data and relationships. For example, a flowchart could be used to illustrate the value chain of traditional cereals, and graphs could be used to show the trends in cereal production and consumption in Portugal over time.

Author Response

Please find the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

 Dear Authors,

I am quite interested in your manuscript, and I assure you of my highest consideration. 

As you can see from the updated document I created for you, I advise you to make changes to your work to improve its quality.

1. All keywords should be mentioned at least once in the abstract.

2. The first column of each table must have left-right alignment (Justify style)

3. Please check again all the references according to the journal website: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions

 

Best regards,

Your reviewer

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf