The Multiplier Effects of Food Relocalization: A Systematic Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper “The multiplier effects of food relocalization: a systematic review” tries to characterize the research carried out so far on an important and current topic that is food relocalization and multiplier effects. Although the authors have conducted a systematic literature review in a fairly rigorous manner and results are of interest, I believe that a deep and careful analysis of the English language is needed since, many times, typos and a wrong construction of the sentences make the text incomprehensible. Therefore I suggest a major revision of the english and the style of writing otherwise the paper is unpublishable.
- I find that the authors have made immoderate use of numbered lists in the text, starting with the abstract where I do not consider them necessary. Please amend.
- Lines 67-68. Probably the whole sentence should be rewritten.
- Line 70 to 82. Please revise this whole paragraph without the use of numbered list. If you write “2. The second aspect…” it is useless to use the numbered list. In addition, if for SFC references have been provided, the same cannot be said for point #2 and #3, please amend.
- Lines 90-92. Numbered list, please amend.
- Lines 93-94. Please rewrite this sentence in a better english and with a proper punctuation.
- Lines 95- 115. Another numbered list, please amend.
- Lines 134. Why did you choose these three database?
- Lines 135-136. Another useless numbered list. Please amend.
- Figure 1. How many papers comes from the full text screen and how many paper comes from the references of the full text screen?
- Paragraph 3.1 and 3.2. Consider a complete and thoroughly rewrite of these two paragraphs. Try to follow the same style used in paragraph 3.3 which is well written.
- Line 280-282. Please rewrite this sentence. Useless punctuation.
- Summary and conclusion. Please avoid the use of useless punctuation again (i.e. the overuse of “;”) and try to better discuss the whole work which was “heavy” and of interest, in my opinion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic is exciting, but the methodological approach is not carefully followed. Only three databases were analyzed - what criteria was used to decide this selection? The authors are using their definition for local (relocalized) food, while the research design and the conclusions part are using the definitions agreed upon on the domain and even on the public policy field. There is no coding logic explained for the qualitative analysis. With only 16 papers analyzed, the name "systematic review" for the study is debatable. The scarcity of data used for the research might be due to the initial selection of the databases. The summary and conclusions section needs to be reorganized if we want to explain better the use and importance of the research findings.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to thank the authors for the effort and for the deep revision of their paper which is now suitable for publication.
Author Response
Thank you that you appreciated for our efforts
Reviewer 2 Report
Minor English editing is expected before the publication.
I have been waiting for a much clear summary and conclusions section, but the authors decided to keep the logic of the previous version slightly improved. However, it's a workable version. I found it's a pity that they did not choose to exploit the findings of the research better.
All in all, there are massive improvements to the paper.
It's up to the editors to decide.
Author Response
Minor English editing is expected before the publication.
Thank you for directing our attention to the minor mistakes left in the text. Our native proofreader colleague pointed out some typos (e.g. lines 90, 103, 134, 260, etc.) and proposed some additional changes (e.g. lines 99, 127, 226, etc.).
I have been waiting for a much clear summary and conclusions section, but the authors decided to keep the logic of the previous version slightly improved. However, it's a workable version. I found it's a pity that they did not choose to exploit the findings of the research better.
Apparently we failed to recognize the slight hints of the previous review that another type of logic was expected, we are sorry for that. As no further guidance was provided, and regarding the fact that you found our manuscript ‘workable’, no new changes have been made with that respect. However, we did think over the implications of our work from additional angles, thus a new text have been developed (lines 330-333 and 382-392). Thanks for raising this potential, we are in hope that your expectations have been met.
All in all, there are massive improvements to the paper. It's up to the editors to decide.
Thank you for all your time and effort.
