Climate Justice Implications of Banning Air-Freighted Fresh Produce

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors are advised to address the following issues:

1.       The aim of this paper needs to be restated with clarity both in the Abstract and in the Introduction.

2.       Information on methodology, key findings and conclusions must be added in the Abstract.

3.       Introduction: What is the contribution (in metric tones) of logistics and aviation in particular to global carbon emissions? This should be mentioned briefly as it is analyzed in the review section.

4.       Introduction: What is the literature gap this paper tries to fill and how is this paper different from others on the same topic? In other words, what is the importance and contribution of this work?

5.       The authors need to clarify the type of research that was conducted. At first glance, this paper appears to be a research paper, but in essence, it merely reports a case study. Methods and type of research need to be explained with scientific rigor.

6.       In addition, I do not think that the authors have managed to explain how this work can advance the current understanding and how it affects research.

7.       Results must be validated with other objective measures such as indexes.

8.       There should also be a separate Discussion section which will bring forward the contribution of this work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing could be beneficial.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper's composition is coherent; the structure is logical and meets the goal of the paper. The topic sounds very interesting. The title "Climate Justice Implications of Banning Air-Freighted Fresh Produce" puts well the paper's objective; it is clear and expresses the issue being assessed very well. The abstract is formulated adequately along with the true picture of the paper. All the tools and methods the author uses are reasonable and well described and adequately fit the problem being assessed to give the reliable results. Conclusions are related to the results presented before reflecting the assessed issue at a professional level. However major revision would suffice to get the manuscript published in the journal. It is recommended that the authors make a relatively major revision, and the specific amendments to the text are as follows:

-  It is recommended that the authors summarize the contribution points of the method proposed in this article in the introduction part of the article to highlight the research advantages of this article

-         Please specify in the Introduction section the main question addressed by the research, its potential to be used in action and added value, novelty and the research gap along with the way it can be filled in by your research output.

-        Please specify the originality and relevance of the topic in the field of Industry 4.0 and world and national economies and industry/transport sectors.

-         It´s recommended that the Recommendation section is to be supplemented with the Discussion section. Some kind of polemic discourse comparing the research outcomes with the literature overview part would be beneficial to be involved in Discussion.

-         Conclusion section could be provided with some views for practice and action based on the research outcomes as well as a final statement reflecting the assessed issue along with the way how the research results could be implemented in the practice bringing up any benefits and added value.

-         Regarding the Conclusions section, it is recommended to enrich the comparison of the results of the article and highlight the advantages of the research/case study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This papier requires correction before publication.

1. The research gap Has not Bern described.

2. The research hypothesis requires elaboration.

3. The weakest part is result section. What is the added value od the research. It is not clear because this section is rather descriptive. While reading the paper the reviewer does not recognize individual intake to research.

4. The literature used in the paper should also be extended.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is at satisfactory level.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, thank you for the opportunity to read your research. Here you can find several suggestions for its' improvement before publishing:

Abstract. The background of the study is not revealed in the abstract. Also, the aim of the research is not evident and the originality and scientific value of the research are missing.

Introduction. The introduction has a clear structure: the authors present current state of the research in the field, disclose the gap in the literature and present the presupposed contribution of their study. The aim and method are clearly presented.

Literature review. The literature review part clearly lays the foundation for the research. It reflects the authors’ position regarding the issue.

Methodology. The methodology part presents the Case Study of Blue Skies Ltd. Of course, presenting the case of the analysed company is necessary; however, in the methodology part I would expect finding the explanation of the methods used. E.g., what main categories of the issue were analysed? What were the steps of the analysis? Was any scoresheet used? What was its composition? The methodology part must lay a background for the research.

Analysis and Results. As the article lacks clear methodology part, the analysis part is messy. It lacks a clear structure and visualizations (tables/figures). In my opinion, it is too descriptive and does not provide any notable contribution to the field of knowledge. I suggest rewriting it in more critical manner, providing own opinion and insights and emphasizing the key points.

Recommendations. The practical recommendations are provided based on the results. However, the scientific implications and future research agendas are missing.

Conclusions. The conclusions do not present the research contribution to the field. The authors only present what was done, some limitations, and lay some emphasis for the future research.

Discussion. The discussion part is missing. However, it is a very important part of the research. Only after providing a clear discussion part by comparing the research results with the results obtained by others, the authors can demonstrate their contribution to the domain.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the comments comprehensively.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing could improve the readability of the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised paper titled “Climate Justice Implications of Banning Air-Freighted Fresh Produce“ intended to be published in Logistics (ISSN 2305-6290) Journal meets all the requirements for a professional scientific journal. All the significant comments, recommendations and remarks of reviewers have been incorporated into the manuscript in a proper way giving the paper higher added value and professional features.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors improved the paper according to comments. That is why I recommend the paper for publishing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language is fine, editorial improvements are needed.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, thank you for addressing the reviewers' comments.