Cocoyam [Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott]: Exploring the Production, Health and Trade Potentials in Sub-Saharan Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please, check the order of references in the text of the paper (especially, in relation to references 29, 34 and 48).

If it doesn't disturb the general logic of Your review work, I would reccomend to specify to what extent this issue has already been investigated in science in general,  justify the need for such a review of the considered issues, and describe criteria that the authors were guided by when selecting research materials.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 Comments

Please, check the order of references in the text of the paper (especially, in relation to references 29, 34, and 48).

Response: Thank you so much for this comment. We have checked the order of references and the references relating to 29, 34, and 48 have been corrected (highlighted on pages 13, 15, and 22)

If it doesn't disturb the general logic of your review work, I would recommend specifying to what extent this issue has already been investigated in science in general, justify the need for such a review of the considered issues, and describe criteria that the authors were guided by when selecting research materials.

Response: We have been able to discuss the need for the study in the latter part of the introduction and the available empirical evidence in the literature to identify the gap this study is set to fill in the body of knowledge on the study matter. The criteria for selecting the research materials for the study have been improved upon (highlighted in materials and methods section).

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear all,

Even if this manuscript presents some interesting parts, I'm not sure if it fits totally with this journal's scope. In my opinion, this paper is more in line with (MDPI) Agronomy journal. Still, regardless of which journal this work goes, from my perspective, it requires majors reviews before proceeding to the next step. So, the authors should consider improving the following:

• The title is confusing: Taro(Cocoyam) [Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott]....choose or the common name, or the scientific name
• The abstract should contain more of the most robust results of the study.
• The methodological framework should be expanded - even if it is a review article.
• A section solely regarding this study managerial implications should be added.
• A section about the study limitations and future research lines should also be added

Author Response

Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear all,

Even if this manuscript presents some interesting parts, I'm not sure if it fits totally with this journal's scope. In my opinion, this paper is more in line with the (MDPI) Agronomy journal. Still, regardless of which journal this work goes, from my perspective, it requires major reviews before proceeding to the next step. So, the authors should consider improving the following:

Response: Thank you so much for this comment. While we quite agree that the article fits into the Agronomy journal, it is also within the scope of Sustainability as it captures production, health, and trade which are parts of sustainable development.

• The title is confusing: Taro (Cocoyam) [Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott]....choose or the common name, or the scientific name

Response: Taro has been removed from the title which is now left with the common name in Africa (cocoyam) and the scientific name (title page).

• The abstract should contain more of the most robust results of the study.

We are grateful for this comment. The abstract now contains more of the robust results of the study (highlighted on page 1)

• The methodological framework should be expanded - even if it is a review article.

Response: The criteria for selecting the research materials for the study have been improved upon (highlighted in the materials and methods section on page 2).

• A section solely regarding this study's managerial implications should be added.

Response: This section is now added (highlighted on page 19)

• A section about the study limitations and future research lines should also be added

Response: We have added the study limitations and future research areas (highlighted on page 20).

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

This version looks much better than the first one; however, some formatting errors persist (i.e., see: line 122 - there are materials and methods (section 2.) once again....)
 
Please carefully revise these issues.
 
best,

Author Response

Reviewer's comment:

This version looks much better than the first one; however, some formatting errors persist (i.e., see: line 122 - there are materials and methods (section 2.) once again....)
 
Please carefully revise these issues.

Response:

Thank you for the response. Line 122  is Table 1 and we thought the formatting would be handled by the journal in the final version of the manuscript.

We have also updated the materials and methods section in the revised version (Round 1) of the manuscript.