Next Article in Journal
Study of the Potential Hepatoprotective Effect of Myo-Inositol and Its Influence on Zebrafish Development
Previous Article in Journal
Type 2 Diabetes and Dietary Carbohydrate Intake of Adolescents and Young Adults: What Is the Impact of Different Choices?
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

A Rapid Review of Territorialized Food Systems and Their Impacts on Human Health, Food Security, and the Environment

Nutrients 2021, 13(10), 3345; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13103345
by Gabrielle Rochefort 1,2, Annie Lapointe 1, Annie-Pier Mercier 1,2, Geneviève Parent 1,3, Véronique Provencher 1,2 and Benoît Lamarche 1,2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Nutrients 2021, 13(10), 3345; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13103345
Submission received: 3 September 2021 / Revised: 14 September 2021 / Accepted: 21 September 2021 / Published: 24 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Nutrition and Public Health)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank the authors for the efforts made to produce such an interesting manuscript. The review is an important contribution to the literature to reach food security in light of all the challenges our society is facing.

The paper is well organised and well written, the methodology is consolidated and well described. I only would like to understand some aspects of this methodology that are fundamental in a systematic review:

  1. what is the primary research question fundamental for a review?
  2. what is the timespan of the databases search?
  3. commenting on table 1, I know that the breakdown of the research question generates different keywords, which are the basis to agree on a unique search term to be used on different databases. In table 1,  instead, includes 3 different search terms. Could you please explain better why?

l

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

your work is an interesting first step towards getting to know the relevant bibliography.

However, it appears to be of little significance, having taken into consideration only 6 papers.

In any case, it is not well explained how we got from 2207 articles to 36, to then get to select the 6 articles considered.

I would explain it better in the paragraph on sampling.

It would also be appropriate that paragraphs 3.1.1 and following were directly the Results.

In the Discussions I would like your comments to be further argued with other bibliography.

In the Conclusions it would be appropriate to resume and answer the questions posed in the introduction and then continue with your conclusion. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors thank you for accepting my recommendations 

Back to TopTop