Sensory Perception Nudge: Insect-Based Food Consumer Behavior
, Rocsana Bucea-Manea-Țoniș 2,*, Ana Sofia Coelho 1,3 and Violeta-Elena Simion 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the manuscript, the authors presented an important point, although the manuscript has some drawbacks:
1 Introduction - the manuscript has been sent to Sustainability. Please refer to sustainable development, food Sustainability. Suggested publication: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10110561
2 Conclusions - very poor conclusions. In your conclusions, please also answer the following questions: what are the directions for the future? what are the research gaps? what is new to this manuscript?
3 Discussion - there is no in-depth, critical discussion.
Author Response
April 5th, 2022
Dear Editor, dear reviewers,
We would like to thank all of you. The suggestions improve the paper. We really appreciate it!
We also would like to explain each point of the suggestions made by the reviewers. So, we will give the response for each one.
Regarding the following comments :
In the manuscript, the authors presented an important point, although the manuscript has some drawbacks:
1 Introduction - the manuscript has been sent to Sustainability. Please refer to sustainable development, food Sustainability. Suggested publication: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10110561
2 Conclusions - very poor conclusions. In your conclusions, please also answer the following questions: what are the directions for the future? what are the research gaps? what is new to this manuscript?
3 Discussion - there is no in-depth, critical discussion.
Our answer: Thank you for this contribution. All suggestions have been taken care of. We add sustainable development, as well as the reference in the introduction. We also create a discussion section and improve the conclusions. . Thank you very much for these contributions.
Please, see all modifications in the pdf file named “sustainability-1867888_TO THE REVIEWERS”.
All the best,
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper deals with consumer perceptions about insects as food choice. The topic is actual and important.
The abstract must be improved. After a few introductory sentences, the abstract must define the aim of the research clearly. (It is included but its emphasis is not enough.) There are more general statements these should be replaced by focused results. All keywords must be included in the abstract (Intention; Neophobia are missing).
The Introduction should provide a clearer view about the main conducted topics. The main phenomena are given, but these should be better grounded by the literature. A few parts from Chapter 2 can be replaced here.
However, detailed methodology description (“with 61 multiple-answer questions, evaluated on a Likert scale.”) must be given in Methodology chapter.
More evidence must be provided for the hypotheses, especially in the case of H5.
For perceptions, you can conduct: Kokthi, E.; Thoma, L.; Saary, R.; Kelemen-Erdos, A. Disconfirmation of Taste as a Measure of Trust in Brands: An Experimental Study on Mineral Water. Foods 2022, 11, 1276. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11091276
Table 1. is valuable.
The analyzing model and the research analysis is clear and well developed.
The theoretical and practical implications (for both policy makers and practitioners) should be more emphasized. The verification of the results with the existing.literature review is missing.
English must be clarified, such as: “that influencing elements” e.g.: the following influencing elements …etc. Abbreviations are not given properly.
A few tables (e.g. 5, 6) are not stand alone – abbreviations are used without explanation.
Author Response
April 5th, 2022
Dear Editor, dear reviewer,
We would like to thank all of you. The suggestions improve the paper. We really appreciate it! We also would like to explain each point of the suggestions made by the reviewers. So, we will give the response for each one.
- Regarding the following comments:
The paper deals with consumer perceptions about insects as food choice. The topic is actual and important.
The abstract must be improved. After a few introductory sentences, the abstract must define the aim of the research clearly. (It is included but its emphasis is not enough.) There are more general statements these should be replaced by focused results. All keywords must be included in the abstract (Intention; Neophobia are missing).
The Introduction should provide a clearer view about the main conducted topics. The main phenomena are given, but these should be better grounded by the literature. A few parts from Chapter 2 can be replaced here.
However, detailed methodology description (“with 61 multiple-answer questions, evaluated on a Likert scale.”) must be given in Methodology chapter.
More evidence must be provided for the hypotheses, especially in the case of H5.
For perceptions, you can conduct: Kokthi, E.; Thoma, L.; Saary, R.; Kelemen-Erdos, A. Disconfirmation of Taste as a Measure of Trust in Brands: An Experimental Study on Mineral Water. Foods 2022, 11, 1276. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11091276
Table 1. is valuable.
The analyzing model and the research analysis is clear and well developed.
The theoretical and practical implications (for both policy makers and practitioners) should be more emphasized. The verification of the results with the existing.literature review is missing.
English must be clarified, such as: “that influencing elements” e.g.: the following influencing elements …etc. Abbreviations are not given properly.
A few tables (e.g. 5, 6) are not stand alone – abbreviations are used without explanation.
Our answer: Thank you for this contribution. All suggestions have been taken care of. The abstract was improved, including keywords, as well as the introduction, methodology, and conclusion. We add the new reference. Thank you very much for these contributions.
Please, see all modifications in the pdf file named “sustainability-1867888_TO THE REVIEWERS”.
All the best,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
