Regional Labelling as a Tool for Supporting Rural Development: A Slovak Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Dear authors, 

The research is well intended to see the link between regional labeling the rural development on areas in Slovakia. 

Several changes need to be done, and details to be added before the manuscript being ready for publication, as follows:

L 72/74 needs citation.

"The latest label is the regional Horný Šariš label, which was added in 2021 and is the first regional label in eastern Slovakia"è Something is wrong here. If this is the latest, and it is the first for Eastern Sk, then on the map in fig 1 should be only 1 label for Eastern sk. ..... please check and modify accordingly.

Line 123-124, Add citation for the stated criteria;  

Line 131. Add a map of the two regions. Maybe a modified version of figure 1, highlighting the two selected regions.

Please specify the reason for choosing these 2 regions out of the other ones. (it could be date of establishment, more food products certified, less food prod.., etc)

Data on survey are confusing:

Abstract

The research was performed through an online questionnaire between January 2020 and April 2020 on 19 a sample of respondents aged over 18, with a total of 283 respondents participating.

Vs

Line 177

The survey was conducted in May to July 2022 in each district in the region.

For table 3 explain age distribution. Why did you choose the specified intervals?

Please explain this statement ” We assume that women shop more often.”(line 210).

Table 7.” gender” è letter g missing

Usually, the conclusion section does not include citations. This section should explain main findings and future directions. Please modify accordingly.

 

Best regards

English grammar and style should be further improved.

Only to give a couple of examples: 

„Nowadays, place is one of the qualitative aspects of production.” ;  

L 59 „four notional stages”

Author Response

Thanks for your review. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have some suggestions for improving this study as follows: 1) The authors should be explained the research gap in the abstract. 2) The authors should be added the main contribution in the abstract. 3) I suggest adding short sentences about the advantage(s) of using the methodology in the abstract. 4) I suggest adding several studies focusing on the linkage between credit-development in the literature review section such as "Examining the sectoral credit-growth nexus in Australia: a time and frequency dynamic analysis. Econ Comput Econ Cybern Stud Res, 2021, 55(4), 69-84". 5) I suggest adding some references to support using the methodology like "Examining the impact of financial literacy, financial self-control, and demographic determinants on individual financial performance and behavior: An insight from the Lebanese Crisis Period. Sustainability, 2022, 14(22),15129". 6) The authors should be added the main contribution and novelty of this research in the conclusion section.

 

It's good.

Author Response

Thanks for your review. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The study provides good background information into the topic (regional product labelling) and reasoning for the study. Although, the study makes a nice contribution to the subject it could be improved. It contain new information but only on Slovak.  

-Abstract, please cut H1 and H2. Describe the aim, methods and results. 

Introduction: the introduction does not clearly articulate how the paper frames its contribution.

Please insert figure 1 in material and methods section, it is your study area.

The Literature Review is sufficient. Have similar studies been carried out on the example of other countries ? The knowledge gap should be indicated

-Material and Methods: The methodology lacks rigour and details. I would like to have seen an explicit rationale for the approach adopted by the authors, more details on the process of data collection and on the indepth interviews if they are made.How did you analyze your data? ok, it is a qualitative survey but it's not so narrative. Also, what advantages have authors found of using this approach?

The sample size used is too small (283 respondents) and insufficient to draw any general conclusion. About questions (lines 186-195 pp.5-6) it is preferable a table.

Conclusions: In my opinion the general discussion and implications of the results are insufficient. However, there is little real discussion (inside results) and therefore the conclusions of the findings remained incomplete.

As the research has a territorial connotation, the authors should reinforce this relation between their results and the territory they refer to.

 

Also, readability of the manuscript could be improved. Specially in the sections results.

-The overall manuscript is presented with minor spelling or grammar mistakes, especially those with an inappropriate article used.

Author Response

Thanks for your review. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed my comments successfully.

The revised article needs English proofreading.

Author Response

English proofreading has been done

Reviewer 3 Report

In the new version the article is improved

Minor grammar mistakes, puntactions.

Author Response

English proofreading has been done