One Hundred Priority Questions for the Development of Sustainable Food Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Many thanks to the authors, very interesting paper focusing on critical issues of the African continent involving a number of countries and experts. However, a long list of the authors (over 40) is a bit confusing. I strongly suggest to include only those who have directly and mainly contributed to the paper elaboration; from the section Authors' Contribution it is clear that only 10 people have contributed in generating the text. The rest from the list (those who have only "contributed critically to subsequent drafts and gave final permission for publication") could be indicated in the section Acknowledgements. 

Quite novel methodological approach has been applied in terms of the scientific research, it is well described. However, I cannot identify a clearly defined research aim. Probably this could be the aim: "Here, we attempt to establish a realistic roadmap for a research agenda needed to put regional agricultural development and land-use management on a more sustainable path. " (p.5). If yes, this must be clearly defined as the aim (or another formulation).

I believe the discussion part can be more developed. What is the current state-of-the-art of research in terms of identified 100 questions? The authors point to this a bit, but the analysis could be more expanded.

Good luck!

 

Author Response

Please see attached pdf for full review comments.

Reviewer #1:

1. Many thanks to the authors, very interesting paper focusing on critical issues of the African continent involving a number of countries and experts. However, a long list of the authors (over 40) is a bit confusing. I strongly suggest including only those who have directly and mainly contributed to the paper elaboration; from the section Authors' Contribution it is clear that only 10 people have contributed in generating the text. The rest from the list (those who have only "contributed critically to subsequent drafts and gave final permission for publication") could be indicated in the section Acknowledgements.

Response: We appreciate your recognition of our paper's significance. The substantial number of authors reflects their meaningful contributions throughout the horizon scan process. Each author played an active role in the workshop, where the final list of 100 questions was discussed and determined. While multi-author papers are not to everyone’s taste, we strongly believe that acknowledging the input of a wide array of people with different perspectives and expertise is fair and reasonable in this case. Moreover, the author count is consistent with other horizon scanning activities, (e.g., Sutherland, W.J. et al. (2009) ‘One Hundred Questions of Importance to the Conservation of Global Biological Diversity.’ Conservation Biology 23: 557-567) and represents the healthy diversity of stakeholders involved in the process. We have included an additional author (Jingyi Yang) who helped with the data analysis and question sorting phase (See lines 10).

2. Quite novel methodological approach has been applied in terms of the scientific research, it is well described. However, I cannot identify a clearly defined research aim. Probably this could be the aim: "Here, we attempt to establish a realistic roadmap for a research agenda needed to put regional agricultural development and land-use management on a more sustainable path. " (p.5). If yes, this must be clearly defined as the aim (or another formulation).

Response: We have made the study aim more explicit in the last two paragraph of the introduction (See lines: 112-115; 121-125).

3. I believe the discussion part can be more developed. What is the current state-of-the-art of research in terms of identified 100 questions? The authors point to this a bit, but the analysis could be more expanded.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion to expand the discussion with reference to the current state-of-the-art in research for the identified 100 questions. While, we agree it is important to provide context regarding the novelty and relevance of these questions within the existing body of research we feel it is beyond the scope of the paper to provide more detailed context for each of the 100 questions. That being said, we have refined the discussion substantially, particularly in terms of the analysis on participant priorities (see lines: 673-688) and wider study limitations (see lines: 686-715)

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well-written manuscript that poses 100 questions that if answered could be a step towards improving the availability of sustainable agri-food systems in sub-Saharan Africa.

This is a multifaceted problem and I like that the authors have provided multiple categories under which the several questions are organised. 

The questions were gathered through a horizon-scanning exercise with experts and participatory workshops deciding the final list of questions. 

Given the nature of the manuscript, I believe it will trigger further research in this area, but what I feel is missing is a more comprehensive reflection on the technology side. I appreciate that the questions were developed through a specific process, but the introduction of each section, e.g. technology, should talk more about the potential of 'data sharing' and 'data trusts' to allow for a more seamless data exchange in agri-food, as well as more research and activity in areas such as decentralised learning and federated learning in agri-food.

Durrant, A., Markovic, M., Matthews, D., May, D., Leontidis, G. and Enright, J., 2021. How might technology rise to the challenge of data sharing in agri-food?. Global Food Security, 28, p.100493.

 

Assis, M.T., Lucas, M.R. and Rainho, M.J.M., 2022. A meta‐analysis on the trust in agrifood supply chains. Food Frontiers, 3(3), pp.413-427.  

 

Top, J., Janssen, S., Boogaard, H., Knapen, R. and Şimşek-Şenel, G., 2022. Cultivating FAIR principles for agri-food data. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 196, p.106909.

There are several more papers in this area, so I think the technology part should be stressed further.

Author Response

Please see attached document for full response to reviewers.

1. This is a well-written manuscript that poses 100 questions that if answered could be a step towards improving the availability of sustainable agri-food systems in sub-Saharan Africa.

This is a multifaceted problem and I like that the authors have provided multiple categories under which the several questions are organised.

The questions were gathered through a horizon-scanning exercise with experts and participatory workshops deciding the final list of questions.

Given the nature of the manuscript, I believe it will trigger further research in this area, but what I feel is missing is a more comprehensive reflection on the technology side. I appreciate that the questions were developed through a specific process, but the introduction of each section, e.g. technology, should talk more about the potential of 'data sharing' and 'data trusts' to allow for a more seamless data exchange in agri-food, as well as more research and activity in areas such as decentralised learning and federated learning in agri-food.

Durrant, A., Markovic, M., Matthews, D., May, D., Leontidis, G. and Enright, J., 2021. How might technology rise to the challenge of data sharing in agri-food?. Global Food Security, 28, p.100493.

Assis, M.T., Lucas, M.R. and Rainho, M.J.M., 2022. A meta‐analysis on the trust in agrifood supply chains. Food Frontiers, 3(3), pp.413-427. 

Top, J., Janssen, S., Boogaard, H., Knapen, R. and Şimşek-Şenel, G., 2022. Cultivating FAIR principles for agri-food data. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 196, p.106909.

There are several more papers in this area, so I think the technology part should be stressed further.

Response: We thank the reviewer for their insightful comments and suggestions. We have included additional text in the relevant section to discuss the potential of data sharing and learning technologies in the agri-food sector. We have also incorporated two of the provided references to support these concepts (See lines: 434-436).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Substantive comments / recommendations:

1.       Bearing in mind that “socially equitable” and “environmentally sustainable” are included in the term “sustainable” and in order to capture the application meaning of the project consisting in specifying the concept of sustainable food systems, I propose to consider changing the title to the following: “One hundred priority questions for operationalizing sustainable food systems in sub-Saharan Africa”.

2.       Abstract and the first paragraph of the introduction inconsistently indicate the time horizon – 27 years remain until 2050, which is slightly more than a quarter of a century (and not half a century).

3.       I propose to replace “sub-Saharan Africa” and “trade-off” with other keywords, e.g. “food security”, “social inclusion”.

4.       The Authors use n to denote different numbers, so it takes different values, which is confusing.

5.       I propose to consider replacing the phrase “increase the maximum number” in question 6 with “maximize” or “increase”.

6.       In question 8, I propose to replace “intensive agriculture” with “commercial agriculture” as this term is more appropriate in this context.

7.       I propose to reword question 26 so that it is not preceded by the declarative sentence: “How do we balance food production approaches with emerging socioeconomic and environmental threats when climate change is both a result of environmentally damaging food systems (including greenhouse gas emissions) and a threat to future food production and livelihoods?”. Similarly, I propose to rephrase question 32 as follows: „Is sub-Saharan African agriculture mostly rain fed due to a lack of water resources, infrastructure or due to a lack of investment in irrigation and/or access to water-resource technology and research?”.

Formal and editorial comments / recommendations:

1.       There are numerous editorial errors in line 15.

2.       The formatting of the text in the “Affiliations” section should be unified (which, by the way, should not be a separate section).

3.       Incorrect page breaks that result in many pages not being fully filled with text should be avoided.

4.       I suggest to sort the keywords alphabetically.

5.       The style of headings should be adjusted (numbering, capitalization – “as proper names”, formatting of lower-order headings) and standardize their titles (“Materials and Methods” instead of “Material and Methods”) in accordance with the editorial requirements of the journal.

6.       References to sources and bibliographic descriptions should be adapted to the editorial requirements of the journal.

7.       The text should be drafted in an impersonal form.

8.       The size of the font of “one hundred questions” and the spacing between these questions should be standardized.

9.       The text needs to be corrected in terms of punctuation (e.g. lines 111, 752).

10.   I propose to title the last section “Discussion and Conclusions”.

Author Response

Please see attached document for full response to reviewers.

1. Bearing in mind that “socially equitable” and “environmentally sustainable” are included in the term “sustainable” and in order to capture the application meaning of the project consisting in specifying the concept of sustainable food systems, I propose to consider changing the title to the following: “One hundred priority questions for operationalizing sustainable food systems in sub-Saharan Africa”.

Response: We agree that the title seems a bit long-winded so we have edited out the “socially equitable” and “environmentally sustainable” parts, as suggested by the reviewer. However, operationalizing has a jargonistic feel and doesn’t accurately convey the horizon scanning procedure. We have opted for “One hundred priority questions for the development of sustainable food systems in sub-Saharan Africa”.

2. I propose to replace “sub-Saharan Africa” and “trade-off” with other keywords, e.g. “food security”, “social inclusion”.

Response: We have included both "food security" and "social inclusion" as keywords, without removing "sub-Saharan Africa" and "trade-off". We are allowed up to ten keywords, so all four terms can be accommodated (see lines: 76-77).

3. Abstract and the first paragraph of the introduction inconsistently indicate the time horizon – 27 years remain until 2050, which is slightly more than a quarter of a century (and not half a century).

Response: Good point. We have adjusted the time frame from half-century to quarter-century, making it more easily readable (see lines 64-65). Although the 2050 date is approximate, this change allows for better clarity in our statements.

4. The Authors use nto denote different numbers, so it takes different values, which is confusing.

Response: The reviewer should not find this confusing. The notation "n =" is a widely accepted scientific convention representing the sample size in research studies and statistical analyses.

5. I propose to consider replacing the phrase “increase the maximum number” in question 6 with “maximize” or “increase”.

Response: Done.

6. In question 8, I propose to replace “intensive agriculture” with “commercial agriculture” as this term is more appropriate in this context.

Response: We understand that the term "intensive farming" can be interpreted differently depending on the context. For example, "intensive subsistence agriculture" and "commercial intensive culture" have distinct meanings. Therefore, instead of altering the term in our discussion, we have opted to include the word "more" to highlight the varying degrees of intensity (see lines 336-377). We have also restructured the question sequence for a coherent flow of ideas. We appreciate your attention to detail in this matter.

7. I propose to reword question 26 so that it is not preceded by the declarative sentence: “How do we balance food production approaches with emerging socioeconomic and environmental threats when climate change is both a result of environmentally damaging food systems (including greenhouse gas emissions) and a threat to future food production and livelihoods?”. Similarly, I propose to rephrase question 32 as follows: „Is sub-Saharan African agriculture mostly rain fed due to a lack of water resources, infrastructure or due to a lack of investment in irrigation and/or access to water-resource technology and research?”.

Response: We reworded both question 26 and 32 to make them declarative and to improve clarity (see lines 409-417).

8. There are numerous editorial errors in line 15.

Response: Corrected. Though this will likely be further edited during journal typesetting process.

9. The formatting of the text in the “Affiliations” section should be unified (which, by the way, should not be a separate section).

Response: Corrected.

10. Incorrect page breaks that result in many pages not being fully filled with text should be avoided.

Response: Corrected.

11. I suggest sorting the keywords alphabetically.

Response: Done.

12. The style of headings should be adjusted (numbering, capitalization – “as proper names”, formatting of lower-order headings) and standardize their titles (“Materials and Methods” instead of “Material and Methods”) in accordance with the editorial requirements of the journal.

Response: Done.

13. References to sources and bibliographic descriptions should be adapted to the editorial requirements of the journal.

Response: This has been done following the MDPI Land reference style requirements.

14. The text should be drafted in an impersonal form.

Response: We have checked the text and ensured that the tone is objective and impersonal throughout.

15. The size of the font of “one hundred questions” and the spacing between these questions should be standardized.

Response: Done.

16. The text needs to be corrected in terms of punctuation (e.g. lines 111, 752).

Response: Corrected. However, the formatting of this document was done by the journal typesetting team, and still needs to be corrected in places.

17. I propose to title the last section “Discussion and Conclusions”.

Response: Done.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper examines an important issue, however more work needs to be done before it can be published as an academic article.

First, this paper as it is written reads like a report and less of an academic article. Right now, the introduction explains that the identification of critical questions is needed, but this statement is made as if there has not been a lot of research already done on this topic. This paper needs a more well-developed literature review to better situate this topic. 

Second, in the methods section, it remains unclear how and why participants were chosen for this study. What is the logic of this method, and what are the strengths and weaknesses of this method? A well-developed conceptual framework diagram could showcase what methods have been conducted and what their value is for the study.

Third, the results section may be organized in a way which more clearly highlights what was found, by whom, and how it is important. Again, the results need to be less descriptive and more analytical, especially more tied to the existing literature. 

The paper ends with a conclusion which is interesting but not tied sufficiently to the literature. It remains unclear whether this paper is better suited as a high quality report rather than an academic article. 

Other items

-Title could be rewritten to be more compelling

-Abstract could be rewritten to more like a traditional abstract and less of a list

Author Response

Please see attached pdf for full comments to reviewers.

 

 

1.      This paper examines an important issue. However, more work needs to be done before it can be published as an academic article. First, this paper as it is written reads like a report and less of an academic article. Right now, the introduction explains that the identification of critical questions is needed, but this statement is made as if there has not been a lot of research already done on this topic. This paper needs a more well-developed literature review to better situate this topic.

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate the time and effort you have put into reviewing our work, and we acknowledge the importance of your comments regarding the need to better situate our work within the existing literature.

We have made substantial revisions to our manuscript, throughout (including additional figures). We have added more explicit references to the previous work, described the backdrop more extensively, and sought to highlight where our research fits within this existing body of knowledge (see lines 86-107; 116-123). In doing so, we hope to demonstrate the unique contributions our study makes to the field while acknowledging the influence and relevance of previous work.

We also acknowledge the limitations of our approach more candidly and have sought to discuss how these might influence our findings and their interpretation (see lines 690-719). We believe these revisions have greatly improved the quality and academic robustness of our paper. We are grateful for your insightful suggestions, which have allowed us to enhance our manuscript significantly. We look forward to receiving any further comments you might have.

2. Second, in the methods section, it remains unclear how and why participants were chosen for this study. What is the logic of this method, and what are the strengths and weaknesses of this method? A well-developed conceptual framework diagram could showcase what methods have been conducted and what their value is for the study.

Response: We now fully explain the participant selection process and the validity of our approach in the relevant sections (See lines: 129-178). We have also presented a visual representation of the multi-step horizon-scanning process in Figure 1. The methods are well-established in the relevant literature, which we now cite extensively in the introduction and methods sections (see lines: 108-109; 181-185). For our purposes, while there is a large body of horizon scanning literature, we have focused in on methods and approaches which best encompasses our approach (i.e., focus on question development, rather than just topics/issues). Finally, we have addressed the limitations of the horizon-scanning approach in the discussion section (See lines: 686-715).

3. Third, the results section may be organized in a way which more clearly highlights what was found, by whom, and how it is important. Again, the results need to be less descriptive and more analytical, especially more tied to the existing literature. 

Response: We have revised the results section to present the findings in a more analytical manner, where possible, emphasizing the connections to existing research. We have also restructured the section to enhance clarity and ensure that the results are more coherent and easier to follow (see lines: 302-329).

4. The paper ends with a conclusion which is interesting but not tied sufficiently to the literature. It remains unclear whether this paper is better suited as a high-quality report rather than an academic article. 

Response: We agree that the rigour and relevance of the previous conclusions was a bit weak. We have edited the text thoroughly to link our findings more explicitly with the existing literature. We also cite further examples of high-profile horizon-scanning exercises to place our study in this rich academic lineage and we have streamlined the main text to emphasize the academic value of our study (see lines: 697-704).

In the conclusion, we have now integrated relevant citations and further discussed the implications of our findings in the context of existing research. This allows for a better understanding of how our work contributes to the current knowledge and advances the field. Moreover, we have highlighted the importance of the 100 key research questions in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals and have addressed the challenges faced during the horizon-scanning process, as well as the biases involved.

By strengthening the connection between our results and the existing literature, we believe that our paper presents valuable insights and adds to the academic discourse on sustainable development in sub-Saharan Africa.

5. Title could be rewritten to be more compelling.

Response: We think the title is suitably clear and we have opted to maintain it in its present form.

6. Abstract could be rewritten to more like a traditional abstract and less of a list.

Response: We agree with this point and have redesigned the abstract so that it is not just a list of topics and conveys more digestible information that may interest the reader (see lines: 64-75).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear Authors,

the article entitled "One hundred priority questions to create socially equitable and environmentally sustainable food systems in sub-Saharan Africa", as a proposal is very interesting, but in many of its parts it needs to be remodulated. Below you will find some suggestions, both of a general nature and specifically for each paragraph of the text, I hope it will help.

Paragraphs and subparagraphs must be numbered

Please adjust the bibliographic references in the text: the numbers should be put like this [1]

Please check the editing: uniform font size; check spaces; eliminate blank lines between questions etc.

Figures that are currently at the end of the article should be placed in the text, it will help the reading.

Methodology:

• the steps of the analysis are clear but some more bibliographic references on the methodologies followed should be included;

• in the description of the methodology you should be a little more schematic in the passages between the various steps

Results:

• The 12 topics are fine but need to be simplified, only the 12 topics (titles) and the comment of each topic should be included in the results, while, in my opinion, the questions/answers of the questionnaire should be included in the appendix.

• For all the figures the following indication applies: “fig.” should be “figure”

• Line 205: “See Extended Fig. 1” should be “Figure 1”, apply to all

• Line 220-221: the scale used, from 1 to 1000, seems exaggerated to me, it is not clear, please explain better

• Please, better define the results, the bulleted list with the thematic areas should be better introduced and presented

Discussions:

• It would have been more interesting if, to the questions that are posed to the research you had tried to answer, referring to the existing literature, highlighting what has been done and what still needs to be investigated and also trying to highlight whether the current lack of answers to these research questions is due to a real lack of analysis or to the fact that the researches carried out have not reached the general public.

Conclusions are missing

• The research areas could be at most the 12 topics you propose but they can probably still be simplified

Bibliography

• Please fix it, it must be formatted according to the indications of the journal

Author Response

Please see attached pdf for full comments to reviewers.

1. The article entitled "One hundred priority questions to create socially equitable and environmentally sustainable food systems in sub-Saharan Africa", as a proposal is very interesting, but in many of its parts it needs to be remodulated. Below you will find some suggestions, both of a general nature and specifically for each paragraph of the text, I hope it will help.

• Paragraphs and subparagraphs must be numbered.
• Please adjust the bibliographic references in the text: the numbers should be put like this [1].
• Please check the editing: uniform font size; check spaces; eliminate blank lines between questions etc.
• Figures that are currently at the end of the article should be placed in the text, it will help the reading.

Response: We appreciate the positive feedback and have addressed the identified concerns where possible. However, some of the artifacts are the result of typesetting issues introduced by the Land team during the manuscript editing process. Consequently, we will entrust them with making the necessary corrections.

2. Methodology: the steps of the analysis are clear but some more bibliographic references on the methodologies followed should be included.

Response: We have incorporated additional references in the methods section to provide a more comprehensive overview (see lines 195-199; 214-218).  We carefully selected studies that closely align with our horizon scanning approach, as this term encompasses a broad spectrum of methodologies and techniques.

3. In the description of the methodology, you should be a little more schematic in the passages between the various steps.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We now provide a schematic representation of the methodology and its different steps in Figure 1. We hope this helps to convey the logical steps and transitions in the process. We also describe these steps more clearly in the accompanying text.

Considering the manuscript's length, we have made a conscious decision not to expand this section beyond what is required to maintain a focused and succinct presentation. We believe that Figure 1, along with the current text, offers a sufficient level of detail and clarity for our readers. However, if you feel there are specific areas where further clarification is needed, please let us know, and we will be happy to address those concerns.

4. Results: The 12 topics are fine but need to be simplified, only the 12 topics (titles) and the comment of each topic should be included in the results, while, in my opinion, the questions/answers of the questionnaire should be included in the appendix.

Response: Our study is consistent with other comparable horizon scan studies in terms of result presentation. The primary emphasis of this study lies in the questions posed, while the paragraph acts as a brief introduction to offer context and establish the foundation for the subjects addressed in the questions. Consequently, we have chosen not to adopt this suggestion.

5. For all the figures the following indication applies: “fig.” should be “figure”.

Response: Done.

6. Line 205: “See Extended Fig. 1” should be “Figure 1”, apply to all.

Response: Done.

7. Line 220-221: the scale used, from 1 to 1000, seems exaggerated to me, it is not clear, please explain better.

Response: In our study, we opted to use a larger scale of 1-1000 instead of the commonly used scale of 0-10 scale. This decision was based on the advantages of increased precision and enhanced sensitivity offered by the larger scale (see lines: 214-216). A 1-1000 scale allows for capturing more nuanced differences in perspectives and detecting small variations in the data that may not be visible on a smaller scale. Further, we have included a sentence within the methods to explain this rationale.

8. Please, better define the results, the bulleted list with the thematic areas should be better introduced and presented.

Response: In response to your concerns, we have revised the results section to present the findings in a more analytical manner, where possible, emphasizing the connections to existing research. We have also restructured the section to enhance clarity and ensure that the results are more coherent and easier to follow (See lines: 302-329).

9. Discussions: It would have been more interesting if, to the questions that are posed to the research you had tried to answer, referring to the existing literature, highlighting what has been done and what still needs to be investigated and also trying to highlight whether the current lack of answers to these research questions is due to a real lack of analysis or to the fact that the researches carried out have not reached the general public.

Response: We concur that exploring this aspect would indeed be a valuable addition to our research. Nevertheless, within the context of this paper, delving into this area exceeds the study's scope, necessitating a distinct set of aims and objectives.

10. Conclusions are missing.

Response: This has been amended (See lines: 716-726).

11. The research areas could be at most the 12 topics you propose but they can probably still be simplified.

Response: The thematic groupings were derived directly from the workshop and represent the views of the participants involved in this study. While we acknowledge that these themes could potentially be arranged in various ways, as mentioned in the results section, the current groupings serve as a helpful guide for the reader (see lines: 332-339).

12. Bibliography: please fix it, it must be formatted according to the indications of the journal

Response: This has been corrected using the Land reference style guidelines.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have improved the quality of this manuscript and have attended to the reviewers' responses adequately. 

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear Authors,

I appreciated the efforts that you made in order to follow my comments and suggestions, thank you. I also appreciated that when you did not make changes you provided an explaination for it. I think that the manuscript is really improved, I only suggest to put the figure 1 within the text.