Governance and Articulation from the Externado de Colombia University with Its Environment: A Look from the Multifunctional and Territorialized Agri-Food Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract should more clearly reflect the text of the paper. In other words, the abstract should incorporate a short introduction, the aim of the paper, the method used, indicate the most important results and a concise conclusion.

The Introduction is too long. Instructions for Introduction:

- make a short review to introduce the potential reader to the topic that is the subject of the paper....

- the introduction practically hints at what will be presented in the paper,

- in the introduction, state why the author became interested in the given topic.

- the introduction should contain enough information for the reader to understand and evaluate the author's ideas and activities, achieved results, without first consulting the wider literature.

- in the introduction, state the nature and significance of research on a given topic.

Most of the text was removed from the Introduction and the section "Theoretical Framework" / "Theoretical Debate" was created.

The Methodology section is not entirely adequate. Which method is actually used. Even if this work is of a review nature, the principles of conceiving this type of paper must be respected and it must be coherent.

The results are not new, nor are there any serious scientific discussions in the paper.

The list of used literature is rather modest, and the references are not listed according to the instructions.

The paper provides a very modest contribution.

It is not entirely clear what the basic idea of ​​the paper is.

It is necessary to make an extra effort to get the paper in an acceptable form for publication. The paper should be structured according to the rules of scientific methodology and should contain all the most important segments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1
Abstract	The abstract was modified by reducing the context, including the problem question, stating the methodological elements and mentioning some of the most significant conclusions.
Introduction	The order of the introduction changed. The first paragraph includes the problem question, methodological elements and the description of what the reader will find in the text. Subsequently, a brief context about Bogota, about the university and finally the theoretical debates related to governance and the MTASs.
Methodology	The methodology was transformed, making evident the methods and instruments, such as, different tools that were linked in the process of research and preparation of the document.
Results	The results were more clearly linked to the definitions of governance that are supported by different authors. In this sense, it is clear that there are no new results, but there are new governance relationships according to the theoretical references used.
References	The references were significantly increased and organized in the bibliography to maintain the format required by the journal.
Contribution.	It is not intended to make immensely transformative contributions, however, in the process of institutional transformation described, it is significant for the work team to begin to join forces from different disciplines to address issues such as the one that is related during the document. For the Inter-faculty Board of Agrifood Problems, it is very significant to have been able to start with this text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I read your paper very carefully, and it presents some exciting considerations and contributions. However, some considerations and suggestions should be highlighted.  

First, the authors should use the same font in your document. 

Secondly, it would be best to focus on your research topic by erasing all the redundant information. It makes it difficult for the reader to stay focused.

The authors should state clearly what your study is about, displaying better your research question.

It would be best if you renamed all the paragraphs to display your research structure better. For example, in the introduction, you name two of the four paragraphs as "A" and "B", which continue in Section 2 with all the projects. Then, when you analyse the project, you use different letters. It creates confusion.

The methodology section has to be improved: it's unclear how you process data and get those results. It seems there is a lack of validation. Have other studies that used the same methodology been reported? Are your results in line with the literature background? What is your contribution? Please, explain it better. I suggest stressing the reliability of the results by comparing them to the main results from other studies.

Furthermore, in the “Conclusions” paragraph, the authors should include possible limitations and future developments of their work.

Author Response

Reviewer 2
First, the authors should use the same font in your document.	It was an enourmos mistake, but it's been fixed now.
Secondly, it would be best to focus on your research topic by erasing all the redundant information. It makes it difficult for the reader to stay focused.	Unnecessary information was omitted that did not contribute to the solution of the problem
The authors should state clearly what your study is about, displaying better your research question.	From the introduction  the first paragraph includes the research question, methodological elements and the description of what the reader will find in the text.
It would be best if you renamed all the paragraphs to display your research structure better. For example, in the introduction, you name two of the four paragraphs as "A" and "B", which continue in Section 2 with all the projects. Then, when you analyse the project, you use different letters. It creates confusion.	In all the text, the subtitles were omitted to make it easier for the reader to limit himself to the template provided by the magazine.
The methodology section has to be improved: it's unclear how you process data and get those results. It seems there is a lack of validation. Have other studies that used the same methodology been reported? Are your results in line with the literature background? What is your contribution? Please, explain it better. I suggest stressing the reliability of the results by comparing them to the main results from other studies.	The methodology was transformed to offer clarity about the procedure carried out in obtaining the information, such as, in the link between the theoretical references of Governance and MTASs with the 5 case studies that are related in the document, likewise, they were expanded the theoretical and literature referents with which greater coherence is achieved in the information presented.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I thank the authors for giving me the opportunity to read their interesting work.

I have some suggestions for improving the paper.

1) references can be supplemented with other works in the international literature

2) other similar experiences, if any, should be indicated for comparison

3) the analysis on the role of stakeholders, with particular reference to project acceptability, should be included/developed

4) Barriers that may hinder the realisation of projects should be better indicated.

5) The costs and benefits of projects should be better highlighted

6) The competences within the university that can contribute to the projects should be better highlighted and the internal organisational aspects analysed.

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3
1) references can be supplemented with other works in the international literature	The search for references in international scientific literature was expanded to give greater coherence to the information provided in the document.
2) other similar experiences, if any, should be indicated for comparison
3) the analysis on the role of stakeholders, with particular reference to project acceptability, should be included/developed	This point did not have further development, it was not clear to the team what the evaluator expects about this
4) Barriers that may hinder the realisation of projects should be better indicated.	In the conclusions section, the barriers, challenges and future projects that arise as part of the learning obtained as research results are stated.
5) The costs and benefits of projects should be better highlighted	The way in which the case studies were arranged contributed to the clarity of the document
6) The competences within the university that can contribute to the projects should be better highlighted and the internal organisational aspects analysed.	Within the text, mention is made of the challenge that interfaculty work represents within the Table on agri-food problems. Internal organizational aspects represent the possibility of improving and continuing to learn in order to achieve greater achievements when interacting with actors external to the university.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

65 - 80 - Not in the paper [6].

262 - How many projects are involved? 5 or 6?

The work is improved, but not significantly. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments, as mentioned in the criteria, it can always be improved.
On the other hand, it is not clear what is meant by: 65 - 80 - Not in the paper [6]
In line 262 you are right, there are five projects.
Some adjustments were made again in the introduction, and in the presentation of results, but it is not clear what you would like to find additionally in the design and methods.  However, the entire document was reread and we in the group consider that it is more coherent on this occasion.
Thank you very much again.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Compared to the initial contribution, the revised version has been improved. You should check minor typos and table editing. 

Good luck with your research!

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments, we are very happy to know that we are closer to being considered for publication.
In this sense, some adjustments were once again made in the introduction and in the presentation of the results.
Thank you very much again.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx