Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper's introduction section is not well organized therefore not well written. Too much reference has been cited in the introduction section which makes the reading uninteresting. There is hardly any linking conjunction, adverbs, propositions used in the whole manuscript which makes the paper incoherent. It seems that some references have been picked up from difference sources and jumbled up together. It's also obsolete to use past tenses while stating a reference.

There are no concluding sentences at the end of each paragraph of the introduction section. So, the introduction must be rewritten.

The proof reading has not been done professionally. A lot of grammatical mistakes are also evident. The authors must clearly state why this study is important to conduct in the introduction section. The objective of the study is not mentioned in the introduction.

The contribution of the study is very poorly stated in two sentences and shockingly understated and disorganized. It is utterly confusing the purpose of the literature mentioned in the introduction. Are they to mention the shortcomings of the existing literature or for mentioning the importance of conducting this study? The gap or shortcomings of the literature has not been mentioned anywhere in the literature review section.

The authors continue to describe different studies but did not mention the gap in the literature. This section must be rewritten as well. It's really hard to understand what authors mean by mentioning these studies.

The result and discussion section are very much disorganized. The authors should clearly state which studies are in line with their findings and which contradicts.

The paper does not mention any theoretical or anecdotal evidences which actually justify the selection of the variables in the context of Italy.

Finally the authors need to resubmit the revised paper the the used data with the do file of STATA to verify the examined results.

Author Response

Detailed Responses to the Reviewer #1

 

Supporting Agri-food SMEs in Italy in the Post Covid-19 Context:from Horizon 2020 to Horizon Europe

 

Authors’ response: We would like to thank the reviewers for the useful comments on our manuscript. In attempting to fully respond to your question we had to take also into account what the other reviewers asked to do. Kindly find below all comments with our detailed responses. We have indicated clearly (in red) where in the revised manuscript changes have been made to address your valuable comments.

 

-Reviewer’s comment: The paper's introduction section is not well organized therefore not well written. Too much reference has been cited in the introduction section which makes the reading uninteresting. There is hardly any linking conjunction, adverbs, propositions used in the whole manuscript which makes the paper incoherent. It seems that some references have been picked up from difference sources and jumbled up together. It's also obsolete to use past tenses while stating a reference. There are no concluding sentences at the end of each paragraph of the introduction section. So, the introduction must be rewritten. The proof reading has not been done professionally. A lot of grammatical mistakes are also evident.

Authors’ response: We welcome your appreciation.

The introduction was rewritten following the directions of Reviewer 1.

The literature has not delved much into this issue, and when it has, it has been highlighted in the State of Art section, where it a describes the structure and operation of the financial instruments studied, an aspect on which some authors have dwelt on.

 

-Reviewer’s comment: The authors must clearly state why this study is important to conduct in the introduction section. The objective of the study is not mentioned in the introduction. The contribution of the study is very poorly stated in two sentences and shockingly understated and disorganized. It is utterly confusing the purpose of the literature mentioned in the introduction

Authors’ response: We welcome your appreciation. We indicated the objective and the importance of the paper.

 

-Reviewer’s comment: Are they to mention the shortcomings of the existing literature or for mentioning the importance of conducting this study? The gap or shortcomings of the literature has not been mentioned anywhere in the literature review section. The authors continue to describe different studies but did not mention the gap in the literature.

This section must be rewritten as well. It's really hard to understand what authors mean by mentioning these studies. The result and discussion section are very much disorganized. The authors should clearly state which studies are in line with their findings and which contradicts. The paper does not mention any theoretical or anecdotal evidences which actually justify the selection of the variables int he context of Italy.

 

Authors’ response: Thank you for your valuable comments.

The literature review was not addressed as in the case of a review as this is not the intent of this paper; citations were given in case what was described and reported had been written by other authors. In any case, to the best of our knowledge, there are not many papers in the literature that have explored the issues addressed in this paper and there are no papers that contradict our research.

-Reviewer’s comment: Finally, the authors need to resubmit the revised paper the theused data with the do file of STATA to verify the examined results.

 

Authors’ response: We welcome your appreciation. We added in Appendix A the table of correlation Pearson results.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The paper is quite long, and includes many insignificant information. At the same time some relevant parts have not been adequately performed, such as critical literature review. Enhance literature review with papers such as                                                                             Faulks, B. & Yinghua, S. (2021). The COVID 19 Crisis Implications for the Development and Growth of Agricultural Sector in EU countries and Russia. International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development, 7(1), 37-46.                                                                       COVID-19 Pandemic Implications for Corporate Sustainability and Society: A Literature Review

2. The paper title mentions Post Covid-19, but the program and study was performed for the projects od 2014 to 2019? The projects were concluded in 2020, but why did you wait almost 3 years to perform the study?

There is no relationship to COVID, so any mentioning should be excluded or a new element should be introduced in the study.

3. The methods are not sufficently described for the study to be replicated.

Significant changes to the paper are advised in order to proceed with the publication.

4. The language should be improved. Please proofread it well. For instance there are many akward sentences such as this

Hence, since the thematic areas drew on the same funding funds provided for the
agro-food sector, the paper intended to verify whether these areas were connected to each 
other in a sort of linear link [54]. This, as to exclude or not the presence of any external 
elements, which would differ from each other in the two different thematic areas, which 
may affect to some extent the relationship between the two variables considered.The should be revised before being published. 

6. Overall contribution to the scholarship is questionable , and thus gaps should be better illustrated , and findings interpreted in the context of previous findings and gaps

Author Response

Detailed Responses to the Reviewer #2

Driving Management of Novel Food: A Network Analysis Approach

 

Authors’ response: We would like to thank the reviewers for the useful comments on our manuscript. In attempting to fully respond to your question we had to take also into account what the other reviewers asked to do. Kindly find below all comments with our detailed responses. We have indicated clearly (in red) where in the revised manuscript changes have been made to address your valuable comments.

 

-Reviewer’s comment: Enhance literature review with papers such as Faulks, B. & Yinghua, S. (2021). The COVID 19 Crisis Implications for the Development and Growth of Agricultural Sector in EU countries and Russia. International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development, 7(1), 37-46.

COVID-19 Pandemic Implications for Corporate Sustainability and Society: A Literature Review.

Authors’ response: We welcome your appreciation. We found great inspiration and we added some considerations citing this contribution.

 

-Reviewer’s comment: The paper title mentions Post Covid-19, but the program and study was performed for the projects od 2014 to 2019? The projects were concluded in 2020, but why did you wait almost 3 years to perform the study?

Authors’ response: We welcome your appreciation. Our paper considers also the phase 2020 with EIC Pilot instrument.

 

-Reviewer’s comment: There is no relationship to COVID, so any mentioning should be excluded or a new element should be introduced in the study.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your valuable comments and for reviewing our work. After the Horizon 2020 programme, that supported the SME Instrument, there was a transition to the subsequent Horizon Europe programme. This paper provides evidence of how the effects of covid-19 were taken into account in the transition phase when outlining the new support instruments

 

-Reviewer’s comment: The methods are not sufficently described for the study to be replicated.

Authors’ response: We welcome your appreciation. We rewrote the part of the methodology hoping for a better explaining.

 

-Reviewer’s comment: The language should be improved. Please proofread it well. For instance there are many akward sentences

Authors’ response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We revised those sentences and many others.

 

-Reviewer’s comment: Overall contribution to the scholarship is questionable , and thus gaps should be better illustrated , and findings interpreted in the context of previous findings and gaps

Authors’ response: Thank you for your valuable comments. The literature has not delved much into this issue, and when it has, it has been highlighted in the State of Art section, where it a describes the structure and operation of the financial instruments studied, an aspect on which some authors have dwelt on.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have modified all points in detail.

Author Response

Detailed Responses to the Reviewer #1

 

Supporting Agri-food SMEs in Italy in the Post Covid-19 Context:from Horizon 2020 to Horizon Europe

 

Authors’ response: We welcome your attention in the review process.

Reviewer 2 Report

Most of the comments were addressed, however not fully. You could polish the paper further to improve coherence, and make it more interesting for the reader. Also focus on illustrating the gaps, and enhancing the innovative points of the research.

Author Response

Detailed Responses to the Reviewer #2

 

Supporting Agri-food SMEs in Italy in the Post Covid-19 Context:from Horizon 2020 to Horizon Europe

  

Authors’ response: We would like to thank the reviewers for the useful comments on our manuscript. In attempting to fully respond to your question we had to take also into account what the other reviewers asked to do. Kindly find below all comments with our detailed responses. We have indicated clearly (in red) where in the revised manuscript changes have been made to address your valuable comments.

 

-Reviewer’s comment: Most of the comments were addressed, however not fully. You could polish the paper further to improve coherence, and make it more interesting for the reader. Also focus onillustrating the gaps, and enhancing the innovative points ofthe research

 

Authors’ response: We welcome your appreciation. We added some considerations about the gap and the innovative point of the research.