Next Article in Journal
An Evaluation of the Ceiling Depth’s Impact on Skylight Energy Performance Predictions Through a Building Simulation
Next Article in Special Issue
Relational and Logistical Dimensions of Agricultural Food Recovery: Evidence from California Growers and Recovery Organizations
Previous Article in Journal
Fuzzy Efficient Energy Smart Home Management System for Renewable Energy Resources
Previous Article in Special Issue
Food Waste Reduction: A Test of Three Consumer Awareness Interventions
Open AccessArticle
Peer-Review Record

Quantities and Quantification Methodologies of Food Waste in Swedish Hospitals

Sustainability 2020, 12(8), 3116;
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Robert Home
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Sustainability 2020, 12(8), 3116;
Received: 20 March 2020 / Revised: 6 April 2020 / Accepted: 10 April 2020 / Published: 13 April 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript sustainability 764622 is a very well written article that deals with the development of a food waste handling system for food waste from hospitals. The article presents a strategy for halving food waste and sets the questioning for the implementation of similar approaches.

I have some minor corrections for authors.


The Introduction section seems too long. The authors could transfer lines i.e., 67-101 in the Discussion section.

-Line 319. ''Previous studies on food waste....''.


Figures 1, 2 need error bars at the confidence level p<0.05.



Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a nice paper on an interesting topic with real-world relevant results. It’s well written, with an exception that I will outline below. There are quite a few typos throughout the paper (for example in Line 53: it should be ‘produces and serves’ and later in the same sentence ‘, of which’). There are also a few places throughout the text where semicolons should be used instead of commas. A careful proofread would be a good idea.

The exception is section 3.2, which I think needs to be rewritten. The main problem is that the authors use the words; coherent, underestimated and overestimated. The confusion comes because the estimations refer to the amount of data collected rather than the quantities that are being estimated. I think a bit of effort to make it more reader-friendly would be worth it.

Line 52: This paragraph refers to the case of Sweden, so you need to say that.

Line54: Sentence starting with ‘Estimations’ Is that per year?

Line 120: This sentence is quite awkward. It would be better to just write that data were collected by means of an online survey using the questionnaire that was developed and validated by Eriksson et al.

Line 121: This sentence is also awkward. One contact person in each of Sweden's 21 regions was sent the questionnaire via email.

Lines 147-150: This is not what underestimated or overestimated means. Underestimated, for example, means that the estimate was less than what was actually produced. I think the words you are looking for are accurate, approximate and inaccurate.

Line 169: it should be food waste quantification systems, protocols, routines or some other synonym. The word is missing.

Line 188: I don't really understand this distinction. If a political region has an initiative, isn't that an expression of political goals. Do you mean that the decision to quantify was taken on the initiative of the public service rather than the decision to quantify being taken to comply with stated government policy?

Line 213: You don't need to write 'back'.

Line 226: I think you mean 'accurate'.

Line 227: They didn't overestimate their responses. With their responses, they overestimated the frequency of quantifying their food waste.

Line228: These responses don't match the question. The question is how long have they been quantifying their waste. The answers are for how often they quantify their waste.

Lines 218-258: This issue with what underestimated and overestimated mean makes it quite difficult to understand what you are saying. I think section 3.2 should be revised.

Line 309: This sentence needs to be reformulated.

Line 336: The word 'necessary' is redundant when steps have to be taken.

Line 375: In my opinion, the conclusions actually start on line 354. I think the first paragraph and the first sentence of the last paragraph of the existing conclusions section could be distributed among the last paragraph of the existing discussion section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The article has the potential to generate significant inputs for policy makers and for further research. To allow that, Authors should address two major weaknesses of the present version of the manuscript and revise the introduction, discussion and conclusion sections.

  1. There is no theoretical background: a literature review of current research is needed to support the methodological approach and the contribution of the study in terms of knowledge advancement;
  2. Sector benchmarking should be done against other countries. This should be an additional subparagraph of the results section.

The introduction should clearly present the practical usefulness of research findings for researchers and policy makers.

The discussion section should be enriched, based on the revised research findings, with concrete suggestions for improvement, and with study limitations.

The conclusion sections should be rewritten to include a brief summary of key research findings, a critical discussion about research methods, recommendations for further research and policy implications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

I think the article has been improved.

Back to TopTop