Mapping the Preferences of Apple Consumption in Romania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript by Vlad et al. deals with the investigation of the preferences of apple consumption in Romania. The authors developed a questionnaire that has been conducted among people in Romania. They focused on descriptive statistics, frequencies, and clustering investigations. The manuscript is very well written and the data obtained are interesting. In particular, the authors' findings give insights into the young educated consumer profile per region, a pattern of three clusters, together with the consumer typology in the two regions. Furthermore, the data is innovative and original. The study is suitable for publication after introducing the necessary corrections listed below.

1.       In my opinion, the manuscript needs to revise carefully. There are several grammatical and typing mistakes. For example; statistiques (Line 15). Many sentences are incomprehensible.

2.       Keyword’s usefulness is to make easier the search of the article using the most common scientific search engines. Since several keywords are or repeated several times in the abstract, I strongly advise the authors to change some of the proposed keywords with new ones. Also, MDPI allows the authors to add maximum of 8 keywords. Authors can add more keywords to increase the visibility of their manuscript.

3.       The authors should give possible citations of described methodology.

4.       Table 1 needs a proper caption.

5.       All captions are needed to be revised carefully.

6.       The authors should write a separate section of discussion citing recent literature.

 

7.       The conclusion section should be shortened and comprehensively conveying a take-home message.

Author Response

Review Report Form 1

Moderate English changes required

Thank you for the recommendation. We have taken now more care about the English language of the text. It has been doubled checked.

 Point 1: In my opinion, the manuscript needs to revise carefully. There are several grammatical and typing mistakes. For example; statistiques (Line 15). Many sentences are incomprehensible.

Response 1: Thank you very much for the recommendations. As you suggested, there was definitely need to revise the text. We have checked carefully the text comprehension and the English language.

 

Point 2: Keyword’s usefulness is to make easier the search of the article using the most common scientific search engines. Since several keywords are or repeated several times in the abstract, I strongly advise the authors to change some of the proposed keywords with new ones. Also, MDPI allows the authors to add maximum of 8 keywords. Authors can add more keywords to increase the visibility of their manuscript.

Response 2: Thank you very much. Indeed, in order for the search to be made easier, we have adjusted the (number) a keywords. (please see the new keywords: apple; pattern consumption; cluster analysis; behaviour, consumer profile)

 

Point 3: The authors should give possible citations of described methodology.

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestions. To comply with the requirements regarding a clearer research frame, we have added citations of articles with similar methodology. (please see especially on the lines 496-514; the lines have been renumbered because of the track changes!)

 

Point 4: Table 1 needs a proper caption.

Response 4: Thank you for mentioning this missed indication in the paper. Definitely, we missed the Table 1’ caption. We have added it now. (please see the Title 1: Questionnaire framework. The variables codification).

 

Point 5: All captions are needed to be revised carefully.

Response 5: Thank you for your suggestions. We agreed with you and carefully revised all the captions in the text.

 

Point 6: The authors should write a separate section of discussions citing recent literature.

 Response 6: Thank you for your proposal. We also think that this part should be written properly in the manuscript. We have adjusted the content and subtitles and insert the Discussions together with the Results part.

 

Point 7: The conclusion section should be shortened and comprehensively conveying a take-home message.

Response 7: Thank you for this advice. We have adjusted the conclusion section and better indicated it with the concrete results obtained in the research.

Reviewer 2 Report

- the work is of high quality with a very large scope of research

- the introductory part needs to be revised and written more concisely

- in the introduction part, the same source is cited twice, at the beginning and end of the line. It should be fixed line 43-45: reference is twice mentioned; line 49-51: reference is twice mentioned; line 55-57: reference is twice mentioned; line 64-65: reference is twice mentioned

- on line: 37 (... - what that is mean?

- line 78: reformulate the sentence (avoid "We"..

- there is no discussion in the paper, I think it is necessary to add it, together with the results

Author Response

Review Report Form 2

 Point 1: The introductory part needs to be revised and written more concisely

Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We completely agree with you. We have shorted the Introduction section of the paper and made it more concisely.  

 

Point 2: In the introduction part, the same source is cited twice, at the beginning and end of the line. It should be fixed line 43-45: reference is twice mentioned; line 49-51: reference is twice mentioned; line 55-57: reference is twice mentioned; line 64-65: reference is twice mentioned

Response 2: Thank you very much for this remark. It is true that some references have been doubled indicated. We have made the appropriate modifications. (please see started with the line 43)

 

Point 3: on line: 37 (... - what that is mean?

Response 3: Thank you for this observation. Indeed, the meaning of the sentence was not properly formulated. We hope that now it is clearer indicated. (please see the lines 32-33)

 

Point 4:  line 78: reformulate the sentence (avoid "We"..

Response 4: Thank you for this advice. We have checked the entire text and avoided to express the sentences with personal pronouns.

 

Point 5: there is no discussion in the paper, I think it is necessary to add it, together with the results

 Response 5: Thank you for your proposal. We also think that this part should be written properly in the manuscript. We have adjusted the content and subtitles and insert the Discussions together with the Results part.

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, the manuscript is well written. The topic of this study is suitable for the journal and the results are of potential interest for scientific community. Methodology followed is clearly described. Obtained results have been nicely discussed in light of the recent publications in the area. However, there are also some major flaws should be improved.

Some comments:

1.     The authors should concise background in introduction and add the aim of this study.

2.     Please add discussion part.

3.     The authors should concise the conclusion part.

Author Response

 Review Report Form 3

 Point 1: The authors should concise background in introduction and add the aim of this study.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We completely agree with you. We have shorted the Introduction section of the paper and made it more concisely. Also, we have formulated the aim of the study. (please see the lines 13-14)

 

Point 2: Please add discussion part.

Response 2: Thank you for your proposal. We also think that this part should be written properly in the manuscript. We have adjusted the content and subtitles and insert the Discussions together with the Results part.

 

Point 3: The authors should concise the conclusion part.

Response 3: Thank you for this advice. The conclusion section has been made clearer with the results better indicated.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript can be accepted.