Meat Value Chain Contribution to Territory Sustainability—The Case of Autochthonous Bovine Jarmelista’s Breed

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is interesting, and the authors are encouraged to resubmit the paper after making corrections. To increase the scientific soundness, I present the following comments and recommendations:

1. For a better understanding, the authors should carefully revise the Abstract and further highlight the main contributions of this paper. The theoretical and practical contribution of the paper are not sufficiently well mentioned. I would recommend to emphasize more in the abstract the relevance, originality and quality of the research, persuasively suggesting to the potential reader the items of interest that the work proposes.

2. I recommend emphasizing in the introductory part of the paper, pages 1-3, better clarifying how the paper is organized (what are the sections of the paper?).

3. Section Literature Review is necessary in the article! Literature review involves related research background, including literature sources which are up to date.

4. In my opinion a much more rigorous methodology section should be included. I believe that a brief presentation of the areas of expertise of each interviewee would justify the relevance of this group for the research conducted (the number of survey participants, the areas of expertise etc).  Similarly for the people who took part in the survey. I believe that a presentation of the questionnaire would further clarify the approach taken to identify aspects that highlight the meat value chain contribution to territory sustainability. I recommend to present the research method much more clearly and in detail, providing the necessary elements for the reproduction of research by any other research group that uses it exactly (the repetitive and reproducible nature of science). Given the interest of readers Sustainability - Open Access Journal, we must not forget that these issues are also related to the open nature of academic scientific research, which capitalizes on its results through publication.

5. I believe that the authors should reflect the extent to which the results answered the questions mentioned in the introductory part: What is the research topic and what is your paper's contribution/ innovation for the research?

6. Section Conclusion is necessary in the article! Present the concluding elements of the paper represented by strong statements based on scientific arguments, presented clearly, concisely and assumed, through argumentation. In the conclusions section the authors should reflect the extent to which the results answered the questions mentioned in the introductory part. Thus, the solid argumentation of the conclusions of the paper will open new research directions and lead to the deepening of the issues studied by potential readers. Finally, I recommend the authors to present in a more promising manner the future research opportunities which are considered feasible and scientifically fertile in the field.

7. The bibliographic references (26) are described accurately, in a truthful and deontological manner by the authors. They selected relevant literature reviews that focus on the same research topic. As a result of the analysis, I carried out, I found that they are relevant, recent and belonging to the main stream of publications. I noted that each bibliographic reference is quoted in the text of the paper with the clear motivation of the scientific contribution to which reference is made. In conclusion, the literature is well integrated, analyzed and critically appraised.

I believe that after making the corrections suggested to the authors, the paper will have a much greater scientific soundness.

Good luck and best regards!

Author Response

1. For a better understanding, the authors should carefully revise the Abstract and further highlight the main contributions of this paper. The theoretical and practical contribution of the paper are not sufficiently well mentioned. I would recommend to emphasize more in the abstract the relevance, originality and quality of the research, persuasively suggesting to the potential reader the items of interest that the work proposes.

 

Thank you for the comment. the abstract was revised to integrate this valuable suggestion.

 

2. I recommend emphasizing in the introductory part of the paper, pages 1-3, better clarifying how the paper is organized (what are the sections of the paper?).

 

Thank you for your comment. The paper followed the Sustainability Journal structure template. The articles published in this journal have always followed the template provided, and therefore, we did not feel the need to explain the paper’s structure.

 

3. Section Literature Review is necessary in the article! Literature review involves related research background, including literature sources which are up to date.

Thank you for the suggestion. Considering the Sustainability journal template, we consider clarifying this issue in the Introduction section, which has been changed.

4. In my opinion a much more rigorous methodology section should be included. I believe that a brief presentation of the areas of expertise of each interviewee would justify the relevance of this group for the research conducted (the number of survey participants, the areas of expertise etc).  Similarly for the people who took part in the survey. I believe that a presentation of the questionnaire would further clarify the approach taken to identify aspects that highlight the meat value chain contribution to territory sustainability. I recommend to present the research method much more clearly and in detail, providing the necessary elements for the reproduction of research by any other research group that uses it exactly (the repetitive and reproducible nature of science). Given the interest of readers Sustainability - Open Access Journal, we must not forget that these issues are also related to the open nature of academic scientific research, which capitalizes on its results through publication.

Thank you for outlining this question. The number of responders was included in the paper (Please see lines 182-185), and the Survey template was integrated into the paper as Appendix A, B and C.

 

5. I believe that the authors should reflect the extent to which the results answered the questions mentioned in the introductory part: What is the research topic and what is your paper's contribution/ innovation for the research?

The authors are grateful for the comment. As far as the authors researched, there is no study concerning the Jarmelista meat value chain. We made some changes to the paper to make it clear. (Please see lines 137-139)

 

6. Section Conclusion is necessary in the article! Present the concluding elements of the paper represented by strong statements based on scientific arguments, presented clearly, concisely and assumed, through argumentation. In the conclusions section the authors should reflect the extent to which the results answered the questions mentioned in the introductory part. Thus, the solid argumentation of the conclusions of the paper will open new research directions and lead to the deepening of the issues studied by potential readers. Finally, I recommend the authors to present in a more promising manner the future research opportunities which are considered feasible and scientifically fertile in the field.

Thank you for your suggestion. A conclusion section was created accordingly, with the suggestions made. (Please see lines 348-364)

 

7. The bibliographic references (26) are described accurately, in a truthful and deontological manner by the authors. They selected relevant literature reviews that focus on the same research topic. As a result of the analysis, I carried out, I found that they are relevant, recent and belonging to the main stream of publications. I noted that each bibliographic reference is quoted in the text of the paper with the clear motivation of the scientific contribution to which reference is made. In conclusion, the literature is well integrated, analyzed and critically appraised.

Thank you for the suggestion and comment. References were added to clarify and enhance the theoretical contributions and discussion of the paper’s research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors of the paper "Meat Value Chain contribution to territory sustainability. The Case of Autochthonous Bovine Jarmelista's Breed" presents a relevant topic, namely the analysis of supply chains in the context of current challenges, and the orientation of the work through a case study towards applied research with a multiplying effect at the level of the meat supply chain through the authors' integrated approach (especially in areas with special conditions, such as mountain areas).

Concepts, bibliographic sources and citations are adequately mentioned within the paper, for example sources [9], [10] which refer to the fact that "any production chain that integrates elements that intervene in a production process to provide products or market services". Moreover, the tables and figures are appropriate and according to the academic standards of the journal.

The research methodology is clearly oriented on the application side and is based on the case study methodology. Moreover, the authors also use other research tools, such as the semi-structured interview method, but oriented towards a main association of the "autochthonous Melista breeders in the region, ACRIGUARDA". For the relevance of the study, we appreciate that it would have been useful if there were more associations interviewed, so that aspects of specificity could be properly analyzed. At the same time, the authors mention the fact that the surveys were designed and developed within the study. From the point of view of conception, this is confirmed by the table mentioned in the methodology, but from the quantitative point of view, we could not identify the data (respectively to how many meat production units this research tool was applied). Therefore, we suggest the authors to review the net-methodology with clear elements from the point of view of the application of the research tools.

The results of the study are presented by the authors, highlighting clear percentages obtained at the level of meat producers, highlighting the advantages in terms of competitive and sustainability claims for the final consumer. Therefore, on the one hand, we ask the authors to correlate the results with the research methodology, as well as to highlight as clearly as possible what are the personal scientific contributions to the specialized scientific literature, given the fact that the work has a clear orientation on applied research with a multiplying effect .

From the discussion chapter, the conclusions should be extracted and mentioned in a separate chapter in which the limitations of the study, as well as the future research of the authors, should be highlighted. Furthermore, we suggest the authors to highlight as clearly as possible the scientific contributions of this paper to the European Green Deal and the European Union policy for mountain products.

We congratulate the research team for the analyzed topic, and after major revision of the work we propose the work for acceptance.

Author Response

1. For the relevance of the study, we appreciate that it would have been useful if there were more associations interviewed so that aspects of specificity could be properly analysed.

 

The authors appreciated the comment and acknowledged its importance. However, ACRIGUARDA is the unique association recognised by national authorities as responsible for monitoring and supporting the genetic preservation of the bovine Jarmelista breed and relates to all the producers, reason why it has been involved in the present study and providing knowledge, experience and access to producers and data related to the breed and meat production. We would like to enhance that after the survey reports data from all producers and all the intermediaries of the Jarmelista meat value chain.

 

2. we suggest the authors to review the net-methodology with clear elements from the point of view of the application of the research tools.

 

Thank you for outlining this question. The number of responders was included in the paper (Please see lines 182-185), and the Survey template was integrated into the paper as Appendix A, B and C.

 

3. we ask the authors to correlate the results with their search methodology, as well as to highlight as clearly as possible what are the personal scientific contributions to the specialised scientific literature, given the fact that the work has a clear orientation on applied research with a multiplying effect

 

The authors acknowledge the reviewer’s comment. The discussion section has been improved to include this reflection. (Please see lines 296-304)

 

4. the conclusions should be extracted and mentioned in a separate chapter in which the limitations of the study, as well as the future research of the authors, should be highlighted.

 

Thank you for your suggestion. A conclusion section was created accordingly, with the suggestions made. (Please see lines 348-364)

 

5. we suggest the authors to highlight as clearly as possible the scientific contributions of this paper to the European Green Deal and the European Union policy for mountain products.

 

We appreciate this valuable suggestion, which has been considered in the revision of the discussion section (Please see lines 343-347)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The assessed study is interesting and consistent with the journal Sustainability profile but requires significant improvement and answers to several questions.

1. What do the authors mean when they write "Meat Value Chain"? This concept needs to be defined. Similarly, the term "territory sustainability" needs to be clarified.

2. How do the goals formulated in the study relate to the title of the study: "This research aims to understand if producers and the other actors of the Jarmelista meat value chain add value to the meat products, so consumers are more attracted and recognize, with confidence, the sustainable features of this meat. The study also aims to identify how the Jarmelista meat value chain sustains and contributes to the sustainable values of meat production to deliver a product that preserves its cultural and sustainable heritage."

3. The aims in the study's introduction differ from the summary's. It isn't easy to find their implementation in the study.

4. The summary needs a description of the research methodology. Its topics mainly concern short supply chains.

5. Semi-structured interview with whom was it conducted, with how many people, and when? 6. Similarly, survey research, when were they implemented?
7. The introduction needs to be shorter and more specific. In the introduction, a research gap should be indicated in addition to the purpose of the research and justification of the topic undertaken. Due to the scientific nature of the study, research questions should be prepared, or research hypotheses should be formulated.

8. The study lacks a theoretical subchapter regarding the research topic.

9. The study needs conclusions.

10. The literature review in the study is modest. The list of literature includes only 26 items. The list of literature should be prepared according to the guidelines of the journal Sustainability.

11. Figures 1 and 2 are poorly legible, and 3 and 4 are illegible. Figure 4 is missing the description of the vertical axis, and Figure 5 is missing the description of the vertical axis and the legend

Author Response

1. What do the authors mean when they write "Meat Value Chain"? This concept needs to be defined. Similarly, the term "territory sustainability" needs to be clarified.

 

The authors appreciated the comments. The concept of territory sustainability was introduced in the Introduction section (please see lines 34 to 36), and the concept of the meat value chain was integrated into the paper (please see lines 82-85).

 

2. How do the goals formulated in the study relate to the title of the study: "This research aims to understand if producers and the other actors of the Jarmelista meat value chain add value to the meat products, so consumers are more attracted and recognize, with confidence, the sustainable features of this meat. The study also aims to identify how the Jarmelista meat value-chain sustains and contributes to the sustainable values of meat production to deliver a product that preserves its cultural and sustainable heritage."

 

We appreciate the valuable comment, and we believe that with the concepts of meat value chain and territory sustainability integrated into the paper (please see clarification above) is easier to understand the link between “producers and the other actors of the Jarmelista meat value chain add value to the meat products” and the meat value chain concept, and “the sustainable values of meat production to deliver a product that preserves its cultural and sustainable heritage” and the territory sustainability concept.

 

3. The aims in the study's introduction differ from the summary's. It isn't easy to find their implementation in the study.

 

Thank you for this comment. The abstract was revised, and we feel that its connection with the aim described in the introduction section is now clearer.

 

4. The summary needs a description of the research methodology. Its topics mainly concern short supply chains.

 

As said, the abstract was revised to integrate this valuable suggestion.

 

5. Semi-structured interview with whom was it conducted, with how many people, and when?

Thank you for this comment. Details of the interview guide were added to the paper. (Please see lines 172-175)

 

6. Similarly, survey research, when were they implemented?

 

We appreciate the comments. Details of the survey implementation were added to the paper. (Please see lines 181-186, and Appendix A, B and C)

 

7. The introduction needs to be shorter and more specific. In the introduction, a research gap should be indicated in addition to the purpose of the research and justification of the topic undertaken. Due to the scientific nature of the study, research questions should be prepared.

 

The authors are grateful for the comment. As far as the authors researched, there is no study concerning the Jarmelista meat value chain. We made some changes to the paper to make it clear. (Please see lines 137-139)

 

8. The study lacks a theoretical subchapter regarding the research topic.

 

Thank you for the suggestion. Considering the Sustainability journal template, we consider clarifying this issue in the Introduction section, which has been changed.

 

9. The study needs conclusions.

 

Thank you for your suggestion. A conclusion section was created accordingly, with the suggestions made. (Please see lines 348-364)

 

10. The literature review in the study is modest. The list of literature includes only 26 items. The list of literature should be prepared according to the guidelines of the journal Sustainability.

 

The authors appreciated the suggestion and included additional references accordingly with the modifications made and complying with the suggestion at the same time. The references list was revised to comply with the Journal’s rules.

 

11. Figures 1 and 2 are poorly legible, and 3 and 4 are illegible. Figure 4 is missing the description of the vertical axis, and Figure 5 is missing the description of the vertical axis and the legend.

Thank you for the comment and suggestion. The figures were improved.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1. I consider that the topic is actual and scientifically interesting, the study is interesting and consistent with the journal Sustainability profile

2. The requested corrections have been made.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors of the paper ”Meat Value Chain contribution to territory sustainability. The Case of Autochthonous Bovine Jarmelista's Breed”, through the valuable proposals of the reviewers, managed to adequately revise the work, responding punctually to each request.

Moreover, the authors review the conclusions in their entirety, mentioning the elements related to the limitations of the study and which generate future research, but we appreciate if the authors highlight as clearly as possible their personal scientific contributions to the specialized scientific literature, with an orientation towards applicability.

We congratulate the research team for the submitted relevant paper, and after revision according to what is mentioned in the report, we propose the paper for acceptance.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for responding to my questions and doubts. The manuscript has been significantly revised. The authors made some explanations and supplemented several literature items. The structure of the study was not changed, but conclusions were added, and the charts were corrected. However, I think the presentation of the purpose, methodology, and conclusions in a scientific article should be more specific. Considering the presented survey template, it is a pity that the Authors used only part of the information obtained during the research. In this way, they limited the description to the analysis of respondents' opinions and did not use any statistical inference methods.