Exploring the Drivers and the Interventions towards Sustainable Food Security in the Food Supply Chain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of the manuscript

 Exploring the Drivers and the Interventions towards Sustainable Food Security in the Food Supply Chain

The manuscript is a thorough literature review of an important topic in the field. The paper is well-written, clear and informative. The scope of the analysis is appropriate (although few important contributions were not considered) and the Authors are able to give readers a precise illustration of main trends in current academic literature. The main innovative contribution is the joint analysis of two previously almost-unrelated fields of the literature: Food Security and Sustainable Food Supply Chain. This contribution makes the paper worth of publication. Nevertheless, I have five suggestions that the Authors may be willing to consider in the revision of the paper.

1. The paper might benefit from an upfront formal definition of “Sustainable Food Security”. The discussion in the introduction is clear and at the end of the section the concept was clear to me, but in my opinion a more explicit definition might be beneficial (also to increase the paper citation potential).
2. The main concern relates to a possible subjectivity bias. Most of the classifications were made according the Authors’ appreciation of the paper. Although this might be an acceptable criterion, it is vulnerable to some degree of subjectivity, especially if the papers were grouped by different Authors. A brief discussion of how this possible bias was addressed, would be a nice addition to the paper (for example, using cross-validation, consensus building techniques among Authors, multiple independent evaluations, external validation, etc.).
3. In the manuscript, it is not always clear what is the meaning of drivers or how the Authors assess whether a driver is fundamental or not. In the essence, the Authors identify what are the most studied factors and the emerging trends in the literature. Yet, in reading the manuscript I was under the impression that by using the words such as “fundamental driving” they were referring to the actual importance of the factor for the Food Supply Chain. If this is the case, a discussion of how such importance is measure would be required. Otherwise, I would suggest to use a less confusing language. Please that this suggestion might involve the title of the paper itself, which might be changed to be more consistent with the analysis (the Authors explore the literature, not the drivers themselves).
4. In table 1 it would be nice to have an idea of how many papers have been excluded by each single criterion.
5. Few important papers are missing in your review (at least in my opinion). Given the review guidelines, I cannot point them out explicitly but I can suggest to double check if anything relevant has been excluded from your review.

Finally, there are few minor typos in the paper. I list some of them, but I encourage the Authors to review the manuscript once more.

• Line 49, the number 197 seems a typo
• Line 81, the quotation is not closed (“ is missing)
• Line 224 I could not find where the acronym was defined TBI (but it might be my fault). In general, the Authors might consider limiting the excessive use of acronyms. 
• Figure 6, I think a dot is missing after “Environment”
• Line 247, I am not sure but something might be missing in the sentence
• Table 2 I am not sure about the word Subsidiary
• Lines 343 and 527 please delete a dot

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In the Figure 3, I suggest putting the year in order from 2009 to 2019. It is not clear what the line shows in this Figure.

In the Figure 4 shown geographical distribution of the studies. In the line 183 – 185 you wrote: “The highest number of articles (23%) coming from the world's largest economic countries, like China and the United States of America”. I suggest writing: “The highest number of our analyzed articles …”

China and the United States should not be excluded. It should be noted that 23% of the articles you analyzed could vary in number using other keywords and the exclusion criteria. The sustainability of food systems is also a major concern in the European Union (https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/food.htm). So, I suggest a brief studies priorities description of Europa, South America and Africa as well.

In the Figure 7 (line 408) the words “Environment” and “Economic” should be written in such a way that is clearly legible.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors addressed my comments fully.