Next Article in Journal
Natural Farming Practices for Chemical-Free Agriculture: Implications for Crop Yield and Profitability
Next Article in Special Issue
The Impact of Technical Training on Farmers Adopting Water-Saving Irrigation Technology: An Empirical Evidence from China
Previous Article in Journal
Contributions to the Optimization of the Medicinal Plant Sorting Process into Size Classes
Peer-Review Record

Measuring Short Food Supply Chain Sustainability: A Selection of Attributes and Indicators through a Qualitative Approach

Agriculture 2023, 13(3), 646;
by Patrizia Borsotto 1, Roberto Cagliero 1, Francesca Giarè 1,*, Giorgia Giordani 2, Rita Iacono 1, Ilenia Manetti 1 and Roberta Sardone 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3:
Agriculture 2023, 13(3), 646;
Submission received: 31 January 2023 / Revised: 16 February 2023 / Accepted: 19 February 2023 / Published: 9 March 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, 

Proposed study is very impressive as well as informative but suggested to incorporate the followings. but There are a lot of grammatical and sentence error. Check it throughout (Most Important)




1- No references should be used in abstract. 

2-  Abstract always contains the followings

a. General introduction (3-5 lines)

b. scope of study (3 lines)

c. mathodology/ Tools (3-7 lines)

d. results (5-9 Lines)

e. interventions (3-5 lines)

f. Recommendations (1-3 lines)

Please revise the abstract according to the suggested points. 

3- Represent your outputs/interventions in %age way if possible


1- The novelty of work is missing. Add at end of the introduction.

2- Why the current area is chosen for the study? Explain in the introduction.

3- How to help your current study in achieving sustainability goals should be explained at least half of the page.

4- Objectives of the study are not clear ....... 

3- Materials and Methods: 

1- Please set out the criteria while making indicators of each sector 

2- Participatory approaches details are missing 

3-  Statistical analysis/ tools applied in this study look missing. 

4- Results: 

a.The limitation of the work is not explained. Explain at least half of the page before the conclusion.

b- Improve the conclusion with few more information.

c- In discussion section the citation of literature is missing in many places.

d- Check the language and grammar of the paper

e. Tables of the results doesn't have an error values? Ensure the error obtained where necessary. 

f. Is there any impact of proposed study on value chain selection and value chain addition ? 

5- References: 

Please check out all the references carefully once again according to the APA format. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report


1.     Enrich the abstract by providing the findings. You presented the purpose, but the findings are not well-defined.

2.     "short supply chains" is recommended since it will better index your research through the databases. Also, short keywords are more suggested.

3.     Describe the sections of the paper at the end of the introduction.

4.     The content is good, but more discussions should be performed regarding the results. E.g., you can suggest possible indicators based on the obtained results and preferably do not use citations such as [48].

5.     Discuss future research and the avenue for the researchers.

6.     If possible, update the literature review to cover the 2023 research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript “Measuring short food supply chains’ sustainability: a selection 2 of attributes and indicators through a qualitative approach” presents a topic of interest to this Journal. The study showed a relevant approach of the short food supply chain by the producers’ perspective. The research work has merit. The research gap is well delineated, the objective is clear and the methodological procedures are described in detail. However, there are weaknesses in terms of content and format that I recommend revising.



- It is unusual citation in abstract.

- I recommend describing a synthesis of the results and contributions.



- The results obtained are significant, however, the analysis of the findings is superficial. A deep analysis of the results will increase the consistency of the study's contribution.



- The content of the Discussion section is shy in terms of the results obtained. Part of the content refers to the Conclusion, a section that is absent in this work. The purpose of the Discussion is to do a cross-analysis between the findings of the study and the literature. Then, a deep discussion of the practical and literature findings is required.



- I recommend adding the Conclusion section, that is structured with the following elements: the achievements; contributions to theory, organizational practice, and society; limitations of the study and suggestions for future research. Part of this content was presented in Discussion.



- Adjust the citation format. For example: [26], line 108, and [28], line 119.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper can be published.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

The revised version of the manuscript has addressed the issues raised in the review report. The authors have considered and incorporated the suggested changes, resulting in a clearer and more well-structured manuscript. I recommend it for publication. 

Back to TopTop