Brewer’s Spent Grain Used in Fiber-Enriched Burgers—Influence of Sustainability Information on Consumer Responses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is clearly written and well structured. The results of the research are mostly expected and it would be good to expand the comparison with similar research.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1 

The paper is clearly written and well structured. The results of the research are mostly expected and it would be good to expand the comparison with similar research. PDF with comments was included. 

 

Reply Reviewer 1 

• Label of C1-C4 were included in table 4. 

• Figure 2 and Figure 3 were replaced to improve resolution. 

• Conclusion was improved including which groups are mentioned in the text. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Interesting paper because of the topic food. I liked the methodology, and the approach given to get the research results. The conclusions in the right direction quite focused on practise, I would like to see the research implications on academia as well. 

Author Response

Reviewer 2 

Interesting paper because of the topic food. I liked the methodology, and the approach given to get the research results. The conclusions in the right direction quite focused on practise, I would like to see the research implications on academia as well. 

 

Reply Reviewer 2 

Conclusion was improved accordingly to the suggestions of the reviewer. 

Reviewer 3 Report

I want to thank the opportunity to review the manuscript titled "Brewer´s spent grain used in fibre enriched burgers. Influence of sustainability information in consumer responses". This paper aims to solve a critical and timely issue, the sustainable development of food. The topic of this study matches the journal's theme well. However, there are some significant issues that need to be addressed in the revised submission. 

1. Poor connection with existing literature. 

I recommend the authors review previous studies with a similar topic in the fields of food production and information processing. Afterward, in the introduction section, please clearly justify the research gap. That is, given the findings of previous studies, what question this study aims to solve? Why is this study important? 

Please reduce the length of the introduction section and add a literature review section. In the literature review section, please review previous studies and theories, and justify the hypotheses. 

Please also explain and justify what variable in the product information this study aims to manipulate. 

2. Methodology

Manipulation checks are required to verify the effectiveness of manipulations. 

This study seems to use a within-subject design for information manipulation. This may cause a significant carryover effect. Please explain how the study addressed the issue. Otherwise, a new round of data collection may be needed using an appropriate study design. 

3. The contributions and results cannot be interpreted/evaluated based on the current version of the manuscript.  

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3 

I want to thank the opportunity to review the manuscript titled "Brewer´s spent grain used in fibre enriched burgers. Influence of sustainability information in consumer responses". This paper aims to solve a critical and timely issue, the sustainable development of food. The topic of this study matches the journal's theme well. However, there are some significant issues that need to be addressed in the revised submission.  

1. Poor connection with existing literature.  

I recommend the authors review previous studies with a similar topic in the fields of food production and information processing. Afterward, in the introduction section, please clearly justify the research gap. That is, given the findings of previous studies, what question this study aims to solve? Why is this study important?  

Please reduce the length of the introduction section and add a literature review section. In the literature review section, please review previous studies and theories, and justify the hypotheses.  

Please also explain and justify what variable in the product information this study aims to manipulate.  

2. Methodology 

Manipulation checks are required to verify the effectiveness of manipulations.  

This study seems to use a within-subject design for information manipulation. This may cause a significant carryover effect. Please explain how the study addressed the issue. Otherwise, a new round of data collection may be needed using an appropriate study design.  

3. The contributions and results cannot be interpreted/evaluated based on the current version of the manuscript.

 

Reply Reviewer 3 

 

1. Introduction section was modified; major changes were introduced. 

 

2. In this study participated 267 voluntaries. This number is in accordance with other works ( Hallez et al., 2023; Ares et al., 2018; Maehle et al., 2015) where similar number of consumers were considered. We agree with reviewer with respect that a new round of data collection will allow to achieve a better approach, but it will not be possible to do that in the short time. 

 

3. Modification to the main document have been done, expecting to show a better interpretation of the study and of the conclusion achieved. 

 

Ares, G., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Curutchet, M. R., Antúnez, L., Machín, L., Vidal, L., & Giménez, A. (2018). Product reformulation in the context of nutritional warning labels: Exploration of consumer preferences towards food concepts in three food categories. Food Research International, 107, 669-674. doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2018.03.021 

Maehle, N., Iversen, N., Hem, L. and Otnes, C. (2015), "Exploring consumer preferences for hedonic and utilitarian food attributes", British Food Journal, Vol. 117 No. 12, pp. 3039-3063. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-04-2015-0148 

Hallez, L., Vansteenbeeck, H., Boen, F., & Smits, T. (2023). Persuasive packaging? the impact of packaging color and claims on young consumers’ perceptions of product healthiness, sustainability and tastiness. Appetite, 182 doi:10.1016/j.appet.2022.106433

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript used ANOVA and Cluster analysis to study the effect of diverse ways to communicate the BSG enrichment of beef burgers on the consumer response.

Abstract

I suggest that the abstract there should more clearly stated the main aims, possible novelties and/or contributions and implications of the study.

1. Introduction

This section is without clear motivation, without a focus and without research questions. It is suggested to specify in a better way the motivation, aims and objectives, and possible novelty and/or contribution of the manuscript to the literature.

Introduction should be brief, providing motivation of the research and outline main research focus. The objectives must be specified more in detail.

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

This section is absent, I suggest to report it and with the aim to extend the literature review

I suggest to report the Research Questions (RQs) in the section.

2. 3. Materials and Methods

2.1. 3.1 Partecipants

The description of the sample is very synthetic. I suggest to explain it in a better way.

2.2. 3.2 Stimuli and experimental design

I suggest to extend this sub-section with more information about burger packages

Lines 146-148: During the questionnaire, the frequency of consumption of beef burgers was asked on a 4-point scale from 1 (“never or almost never”) to 4 (“more than once a week”).

I suggest to use Likert scale. (1 = never; 2 = almost never; 3 = sometime; 4 = one a week; 5 = more than once a week). Please report a Table with responses

Lines 149-156: Please report a Table with responses

3.3 Methods

Please explain methods used (ANOVA and CLUSTER ANALYSIS) and indicate if the same methods were applied for analysis on the topic.

 

3. 4. Results and discussion

3.1. 4.1 Purchase intention and interest on BSG

Lines 184-192: Please report the sources

3.2. 4.2 Fibre enrichment communication

Figure 3: please show the percentages in the chart

 

5. 6. Conclusions.

Conclusions and recommendations should be improved as they largely repeated the results. The character of conclusion is too general one and it repeats results. Authors should better underline conclusions, and intentions for future researches should be noted at the end of the conclusions.

What are the proposals for research in future?

Author Response

Reviewer 4 

The manuscript used ANOVA and Cluster analysis to study the effect of diverse ways to communicate the BSG enrichment of beef burgers on the consumer response. 

Abstract 

I suggest that the abstract there should more clearly stated the main aims, possible novelties and/or contributions and implications of the study. 

1. Introduction 

This section is without clear motivation, without a focus and without research questions. It is suggested to specify in a better way the motivation, aims and objectives, and possible novelty and/or contribution of the manuscript to the literature. 

Introduction should be brief, providing motivation of the research and outline main research focus. The objectives must be specified more in detail. 

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework 

This section is absent, I suggest to report it and with the aim to extend the literature review 

I suggest to report the Research Questions (RQs) in the section. 

3. Materials and Methods 

3.1 Participants 

The description of the sample is very synthetic. I suggest to explain it in a better way. 

2.2. 3.2 Stimuli and experimental design 

I suggest to extend this sub-section with more information about burger packages 

Lines 146-148: During the questionnaire, the frequency of consumption of beef burgers was asked on a 4-point scale from 1 (“never or almost never”) to 4 (“more than once a week”). 

I suggest to use Likert scale. (1 = never; 2 = almost never; 3 = sometime; 4 = one a week; 5 = more than once a week). Please report a Table with responses 

Lines 149-156: Please report a Table with responses 

3.3 Methods 

Please explain methods used (ANOVA and CLUSTER ANALYSIS) and indicate if the same methods were applied for analysis on the topic. 

  

4. Results and discussion 

4.1 Purchase intention and interest on BSG 

Lines 184-192: Please report the sources 

4.2 Fibre enrichment communication 

Figure 3: please show the percentages in the chart  

6. Conclusions. 

Conclusions and recommendations should be improved as they largely repeated the results. The character of conclusion is too general one and it repeats results. Authors should better underline conclusions, and intentions for future research should be noted at the end of the conclusions. 

What are the proposals for research in future? 

 

Reply Reviewer 4 

• Abstract was modified considering reviewer comment. 

• Introduction section was modified 

• A  Literature review section was added 

• More detail in Material and Methods section was added. Statistical analysis details were added. With respect to the scale used to measure frequency of consumption, in this work we used a 4-points scale. We will consider the 5-point scale suggested by reviewer for futures works. 

• With respect to the comment about Line 184-192, we mentioned purchase intention data media of samples in the second paragraph of Results and Discussion section. We considered that a table with data was unnecessary because we only discussed the significant factor. 

• Changes in Results and discussion section were done. 

• Conclusions section was changed. A Research limitations and future research section was added next to the conclusion section. 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised manuscript is improved but major issues still exist. 

1. This study developed two hypotheses. One is about product brand and the other one is about product (fiber) information. It is still not clear what variables this study aims to investigate. Based on my understanding, as for the brand, this study seems to focus on perceived brand image or reputation. If this is true, the authors need to review existing marketing studies on brand image and develop a hypothesis based on the review. Without clearly indicating the variables and conducting the review, the study does not provide any contribution since the results of the study cannot be generalized. The same is true for the proposition of product information.

2. The second issue is the manipulation check. The authors need to provide evidence (manipulation check results) to justify whether participants perceive, for instance, "low-cost brand" as a low-cost product name and "leader brand" as the industry leader. Again, without reporting the manipulation check, the results of the study cannot be generalized, thus, making very few contributions. 

I hope to bring these issues to the authors' attention. These issues are critical and must be addressed. 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3: 

Thanks for your comments and suggested corrections that have been included in the manuscript:

• Background about brand effect was added in Literature review section.  

• A brief note about each of the brand level considered in this study (the market leader brand, a low-cost brand and an artisanal brand) was added in Stimuli and experimental design section. 

 

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

The article, thanks to the suggestions of the reviewers, has been greatly improved. However, I suggest:

Lines 234-244:

- to extend the discussion of the clusters in relation to previous studies:

- to labeling the four groups in the text, in the table 5 and in the figure 2

Lines 309-322:

I also suggest to delete the subsection 5.1 and  to join all in section 5.

Author Response

Reviewer 4: 

Thanks for the new suggestion that have been ammended in the new manuscript.

• Discussion of the clusters in relation to previous studies was added. 

• Labels of the four groups in table 5 and figure 2 was added 

• Subsection 5.1 was deleted and content was joined to section 5. 

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised manuscript is improved. Thank you for your effort.