Distinguishing Organisational Profiles of Food Loss Management in Logistics
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The thematic addressed by the paper is interesting and the paper is well written.
The methods section lacks some references, e.g., lines 169-174.
Were all the items presented in section 3.1 for data collection taken from the Figure 3 (reference 15)? Authors could make the references clear in this part.
Line 257 – do not start a sentence using numbers. Put it as “Forty responses…”.
Line 485 – The same, do not start the paragraph with 20%.
Shouldn’t the information presented since the figure 6 until the end of the section 3.2.2 be placed in results section?
There is no debate with the literature, authors should work on it.
How the figures 14-18 were made? Is there a methodology to base it? It is necessary to explain more about how they were developed.
Authors should explain all the steps conducted in the research in the methods section.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments. They helped me a lot to improve the paper. The exact details of what adjustments I have made regarding your comments can be found below. In addition to these adjustments, there has been extensive proofreading of the language used.
Point 1: The methods section lacks some references, e.g., lines 169-174.
Response 1: The relevant references have been added.
Point 2: Were all the items presented in section 3.1 for data collection taken from the Figure 3 (reference 15)? Authors could make the references clear in this part.
Response 2: The relevant references have been added and a brief explanation of the derivation of the statments has been included.
Point 3: Line 257 – do not start a sentence using numbers. Put it as “Forty responses…”.
Response 3: The beginning of the sentence was modified.
Point 4: Line 485 – The same, do not start the paragraph with 20%.
Response 4: The sentence was rearranged.
Point 5: Shouldn’t the information presented since the figure 6 until the end of the section 3.2.2 be placed in results section?
Response 5: The content after table 2 has been moved to the results. Figure 7 and table 2 as I understand it still belong to the explanation of how the clustering was carried out, for this reason, this part was left in the previous section.
Point 6: There is no debate with the literature, authors should work on it.
Response 6: Die Diskussion auf Basis der Literatur wurde erweitert.
Point 7: How the figures 14-18 were made? Is there a methodology to base it? It is necessary to explain more about how they were developed.
Response 7: The recommended activities are derived from the fields of action presented in Section 2.1 and Figure 1, according to Kleineidam (2020). The corresponding explanation was added at the beginning of Chapter 5.
Point 8: Authors should explain all the steps conducted in the research in the methods section.
Response 8: The methodological part was extended to include all information.
Reviewer 2 Report
My Comments and Suggestions for the Authors are given below:
Although the article contains a very small sample, it can be seen as interesting in terms of how organizations in food value chains are currently dealing with Food loss management (FLM) and revealing what the actual readiness levels of actors in the food value chain are in practice.
Other points related to the review of the article are as follows:
1. The sample group considered in the study to make general inferences seems to be quite insufficient.
2. The rest of the article should be briefly summarized in the last paragraph of the introduction.
3. In Table 1 - key factors are described in the description of FLM's domains. However, the time factor has not been clearly evaluated in the formation of food waste. Considering that the Food Loss Management in Logistics is defined as "planning, management and control of the food value network from the raw material source to the customer, what kind of strategy should be followed to shorten the time and speed up the deliveries? or How should it be included in the food loss management process?
4. The order of Number of cases in Figure 7 and Table 2 does not match. The clusters in the table should be rearranged according to the cluster numbers determined in Figure 7. For example, the number of cases under Cluster 2 should be 9.
5. In Figure 8, it should be explained more clearly and comprehensibly why the analysis is done by considering the characteristics of the logistic dimensions in the comparison of the clusters. In addition to Figure 8, another graphical representation can be presented.
6. It may be more appropriate to prepare the resulting statistical and graphical results with a more powerful presentation tool such as PowerBI.
7. The results should be presented as a brief summary under the heading Final Remarks.
8. In the discussion part, it should be openly discussed what kind of result emerged at the end of the study for the research questions determined at the beginning.
9. Production should be used instead of Produktion in Figure 2. Other inaccuracies like this need to be fixed as well.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments. They helped me a lot to improve the paper. The exact details of what adjustments I have made regarding your comments can be found below. In addition to these adjustments, there has been extensive proofreading of the language used.
Point 1: The sample group considered in the study to make general inferences seems to be quite insufficient.
Response 1: In both the methodology and the limitations, the limitation of the validity due to the sample size has been addressed, as well as the conditional validity and transferability.
Point 2: The rest of the article should be briefly summarized in the last paragraph of the introduction.
Response 2: A summary at the end of the introduction has been included.
Point 3: In Table 1 - key factors are described in the description of FLM's domains. However, the time factor has not been clearly evaluated in the formation of food waste. Considering that the Food Loss Management in Logistics is defined as "planning, management and control of the food value network from the raw material source to the customer, what kind of strategy should be followed to shorten the time and speed up the deliveries? or How should it be included in the food loss management process?
Response 3: A section has been added that describes the fields of action described and their scopes.
Point 4: The order of Number of cases in Figure 7 and Table 2 does not match. The clusters in the table should be rearranged according to the cluster numbers determined in Figure 7. For example, the number of cases under Cluster 2 should be 9.
Response 4: The sorting was adjusted. Since the numbering does not correspond to the sequence used later, a corresponding explanation has been inserted here in the section before Figure 8.
Point 5: In Figure 8, it should be explained more clearly and comprehensibly why the analysis is done by considering the characteristics of the logistic dimensions in the comparison of the clusters. In addition to Figure 8, another graphical representation can be presented.
Response 5: The explanation of the selection of the evaluation model was expanded in the methodology and referred to at the beginning of the presentation of results. A table was also added to give a further visualization of the information.
Point 6: It may be more appropriate to prepare the resulting statistical and graphical results with a more powerful presentation tool such as PowerBI.
Response 6: PowerBI is not available to the author. A table has been included to provide an additional presentation of the data.
Point 7: The results should be presented as a brief summary under the heading Final Remarks.
Response 7: A brief summary of the results was included in the last chapter.
Point 8: In the discussion part, it should be openly discussed what kind of result emerged at the end of the study for the research questions determined at the beginning.
Response 8: A new Conclusion part has been added describing these aspects.
Point 9: Production should be used instead of Produktion in Figure 2. Other inaccuracies like this need to be fixed as well.
Response 9: A complete proofreading was done to fix these mistakes.
Reviewer 3 Report
1- The structure of the Abstract section should be modified. The current version of this section also doesn't reflect the studied problem and research contributions.
2- What are the advantages of the proposed approach compared to other ones?
3- The research objectives and theoretical contributions should be highlighted in the Introduction section.
4- The research gap is unclear in this manuscript.
5- The framework of the research methodology has not been provided in this manuscript.
6- I think the authors should provide further explanations regarding the used methods.
7- The practical implications of this study have not been presented well.
8- The Conclusion section should be provided in a scientific article. The authors should include the research limitations and development suggestions in this section.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments. They helped me a lot to improve the paper. The exact details of what adjustments I have made regarding your comments can be found below. In addition to these adjustments, there has been extensive proofreading of the language used.
Point 1: The structure of the Abstract section should be modified. The current version of this section also doesn't reflect the studied problem and research contributions.
Response 1: The abstract has been adjusted.
Point 2: What are the advantages of the proposed approach compared to other ones?
Response 2: The explanation of the chosen research method in the introductory part of the methodology section has been expanded.
Point 3: The research objectives and theoretical contributions should be highlighted in the Introduction section.
Response 3: The introduction was expanded accordingly.
Point 4: The research gap is unclear in this manuscript.
Response 4: . The explanations on this in the introduction have been expanded.
Point 5: The framework of the research methodology has not been provided in this manuscript.
Response 5: The explanations on research methodology have been expanded.
Point 6: I think the authors should provide further explanations regarding the used methods.
Response 6: The explanation of the methods was expanded and supported with further literature.
Point 7: The practical implications of this study have not been presented well.
Response 7: The practical implications have been explained in the newly added conclusion section.
Point 8: The Conclusion section should be provided in a scientific article. The authors should include the research limitations and development suggestions in this section.
Response 8: Conclusion section was added and the Limitation section was moved there.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors addressed most of the comments I sent. The only thing that is still missing is the debate on the results considering the literature and citing it.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your feedback. The exact details of what adjustments I have made regarding your comment can be found below.
Point : The authors addressed most of the comments I sent. The only thing that is still missing is the debate on the results considering the literature and citing it.
Response : The Conclusion section was expanded to include a discussion of the results in the context of the current literature, and the respective references were cited.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your feedback. Due to further comments, I have made the following adjustments.
The Conclusion section was expanded to include a discussion of the results in the context of the current literature, and the respective references were cited.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I appreciate the authors' efforts to apply the reviewers' comments.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your feedback. Due to further comments, I have made the following adjustments.
The Conclusion section was expanded to include a discussion of the results in the context of the current literature, and the respective references were cited.
