Financing Romanian Agricultural Cooperatives’ Investments for the 2023–2027 Horizon

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper analyzes an important topic at the level of Romania, but which can be extrapolated at the level of the European Union, that of agricultural cooperatives, which support the creation and increase of added value, shorten the agri-food chain, reducing the number of intermediaries, at the same time strengthening the role of agricultural producers within the chain food.

Author Response

Thank you very much. Your suggestion has been added to the conclusions as a future research direction.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions:

1. The conclusion should refer to research hypotheses. 

2. Have the research hypotheses been verified positively or negatively?

3. What are the policy implications from the research.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions:

• The conclusion should refer to research hypotheses. 

Authors:  We have included in the conclusions references regarding the working hypotheses and their validation, in accordance with those presented in extended format in the results and discussions chapter.

• Have the research hypotheses been verified positively or negatively?

Authors: All hypotheses were positively validated.

• What are the policy implications from the research.

Authors: We have added the following policy implications of the research in the conclusions: updating the legal framework to facilitate access to innovation; technologies and modern science throughout the European Union; compliance with the manufacturers' instructions on the labels regarding the use of pesticides; the application of the technologies regarding the improvement of the resistance of plant species to drought, to the attack of pests or diseases, under the conditions of maintaining the biological characteristics and the quality imposed at the European level; the adoption of integrated and flexible instruments for risk management in agriculture adapted to the specific needs of each state of the European Union; establishing a framework of good practices for European agricultural enterprises and measures to develop sustainable and sustainable agricultural cooperatives.

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic chosen for your paper turns out to be interesting but, in my opinion, it requires further effort to make it truly appealing. I think that a process of simplification would  be appropriate in order to make reading more fluid. Moreover, it is a bit disproportionate in some parts. In particular, the methodological part and the presentation of the results should be a little improved, maybe you should make it a bit more schematic, in order to make it easier to read. Furthermore, you must better describe the sample of agricultural cooperatives interviewed and analysed, for example you stated that 219 cooperatives were contacted in the sample, but then it is shown that there were 230 cooperatives contacted but only 219 answered the questionnaire. Please describe it better.

Here are some more specific suggestions:

ü  please enter the line numbers, they are missing throughout the article;

ü  please check the spaces;

ü  please remove the JEL Codes classification, it is not used in the journal;

ü  page 3: “At European level, according to the Global Index of food security…” please check if it is convenient to present the results in tabular form in order to make the reading of the article more fluid;

ü  the introduction appears a bit long, it could be simplified a bit by trying to focus more attention on the chosen topic and on the area analyzed;

ü  page 4: (Figure 1 below) should be (Figure 1). It applies to all figures;

ü  page 4: “Using the 1.6.18. version” please remove the dot after 18;

ü  please correct figure 1, it contains something that seems to be not necessary;

ü  please read again the article, "Another study" is used too many times, please find a synonym;

ü  literature review: I like the beginning but please revise and simplify the second part;

ü  it would also be advisable to provide a description of the cooperatives (size, productive sector, etc.).

ü  Please clarify the representativeness of the sample analyzed, I didn't understand if the 230 contacted cooperatives are the whole universe or a sample - if it is a sample, how was it chosen?;

ü  page 10: "table no. 1 below " should be “table 1”. It applies to all tables;

ü  pag 11: “formula no.1 below” should be “equation 1”. It applies to all;

ü  the presentation of study results should highlight how it relates to other current or past studies, with an emphasis on its implications, constraints and uncertainties, as well as recommendations for further research;

ü  I suggest to modify the conclusions supporting them with quantitative results.

ü  Finally, please check the references at the end of the article and revise the editing according to journal rules.

Author Response

The topic chosen for your paper turns out to be interesting but, in my opinion, it requires further effort to make it truly appealing. I think that a process of simplification would be appropriate in order to make reading more fluid. Moreover, it is a bit disproportionate in some parts. In particular, the methodological part and the presentation of the results should be a little improved, maybe you should make it a bit more schematic, in order to make it easier to read.

 Furthermore, you must better describe the sample of agricultural cooperatives interviewed and analysed, for example you stated that 219 cooperatives were contacted in the sample, but then it is shown that there were 230 cooperatives contacted but only 219 answered the questionnaire. Please describe it better.

Authors: We have completed the sampling information in the methodology chapter

Here are some more specific suggestions:

• please enter the line numbers, they are missing throughout the article;

Authors: We have added line numbering

• please check the spaces;

Authors: We have removed double spaces and unnecessary rows

• please remove the JEL Codes classification, it is not used in the journal;

Authors: We removed the JEL Codes classification

• page 3: “At European level, according to the Global Index of food security…” please check if it is convenient to present the results in tabular form in order to make the reading of the article more fluid;

Authors: According to your suggestion, we introduced Table 1. Romania's position towards EU countries according to the Global Index of food security

• the introduction appears a bit long, it could be simplified a bit by trying to focus more attention on the chosen topic and on the area analyzed;

Authors: We have made the suggested changes

• page 4: (Figure 1 below) should be (Figure 1). It applies to all figures;

Authors: We have made the suggested changes in the entire text of the article

• page 4: “Using the 1.6.18. version” please remove the dot after 18;

Authors: We have made the suggested changes

• please correct figure 1, it contains something that seems to be not necessary;

Authors: Figure 1 has been modified as per your suggestion

• please read again the article, "Another study" is used too many times, please find a synonym;

Authors: We have made the suggested changes

• literature review: I like the beginning but please revise and simplify the second part;

Authors: We have made the suggested changes

• it would also be advisable to provide a description of the cooperatives (size, productive sector, etc.).

Authors: A brief analysis of the agricultural cooperative sector in Romania was included in the introduction.

• Please clarify the representativeness of the sample analyzed, I didn't understand if the 230 contacted cooperatives are the whole universe or a sample - if it is a sample, how was it chosen?;

Authors: New information about the population of agricultural cooperatives in Romania and the criteria used for selecting the sample were introduced in the methodology

 

• page 10: "table no. 1 below " should be “table 1”. It applies to all tables;

Authors: We have made the suggested changes in the entire text of the article

• pag 11: “formula no.1 below” should be “equation 1”. It applies to all;

Authors: We have made the suggested changes in the entire text of the article

• the presentation of study results should highlight how it relates to other current or past studies, with an emphasis on its implications, constraints and uncertainties, as well as recommendations for further research;

Authors: We have made the suggested changes in conclusions The authors have not identified any other similar studies in the specialized literature from Romania, aimed at reducing the risks that threaten the smooth running of the activity of agricultural cooperatives by means of an integrated financing model. Previous studies show the need for financing and some vulnerabilities regarding the absorption of European funds, or the maintenance of cohesion between members of associative forms Possible future directions were also presented. Moreover, this study is very important for the Romanian authorities in order to establish relevant strategies within The Strategic National Plan for the 2023-2027

• I suggest to modify the conclusions supporting them with quantitative results.

Authors: We have included in the conclusions references regarding the working hypotheses and their validation, according to those presented by the authors, in an extended format, in the results and discussions chapter. We have added the following implications of the research (policy proposal): updating the legal framework to facilitate access to innovation; technologies and modern science throughout the European Union; compliance with the manufacturers' instructions on the labels regarding the use of pesticides; the application of the technologies regarding the improvement of the resistance of plant species to drought, to the attack of pests or diseases, under the conditions of maintaining the biological characteristics and the quality imposed at the European level; the adoption of integrated and flexible instruments for risk management in agriculture adapted to the specific needs of each state of the European Union; establishing a framework of good practices for European agricultural enterprises and measures to develop sustainable and sustainable agricultural cooperatives.

• Finally, please check the references at the end of the article and revise the editing according to journal rules.

Authors: We have made the suggested corrections

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for the effort that you made for the correction of the text. Now the writing of the manuscript has definitely improved. It remains a further little work of verifying the editing of the text, below I specified some examples in more detail, and I believe that the article is ready for publication.

Here are some more specific suggestions:

ü  Please check the spaces, for example line 139 (after the source of table 1) must be empty. Instead, line 183 should be deleted. To verify these aspects, I suggest checking the work in the clean version;

ü  in general, I believe that a single decimal place is sufficient to indicate percentages. For example, at line 196 you write 46.92%, in my opinion 46.9% is ok ... or even 47%;

ü  Line 678: “Investments” should be “investments”;

ü  Lines 679-688: Please check the sentence because these appear to me to be somewhat strong and perhaps not wholly acceptable statements.

Author Response

Thanks for the effort that you made for the correction of the text. Now the writing of the manuscript has definitely improved. It remains a further little work of verifying the editing of the text, below I specified some examples in more detail, and I believe that the article is ready for publication.

Here are some more specific suggestions:

ü  Please check the spaces, for example line 139 (after the source of table 1) must be empty. Instead, line 183 should be deleted. To verify these aspects, I suggest checking the work in the clean version;

Authors:

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your pertinent suggestions that helped us to improve the article.

We have made the suggested changes.

ü  in general, I believe that a single decimal place is sufficient to indicate percentages. For example, at line 196 you write 46.92%, in my opinion 46.9% is ok ... or even 47%;

Authors: We have made the suggested changes.

ü  Line 678: “Investments” should be “investments”;

Authors: We have made the suggested changes.

ü  Lines 679-688: Please check the sentence because these appear to me to be somewhat strong and perhaps not wholly acceptable statements.

Authors: We have made the suggested changes.