Assessment of the Nutritional Value of Selected Wild Food Plants in Türkiye and Their Promotion for Improved Nutrition

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General: 

The manuscript suffers a lack of focus and clarity. The contents in the paragraphs of  "Introduction", "Results and Discussions" (section 3.3), and "conclusions" are way off of their topics. These three sections are extremely wordy and lack solid scientific data or arguments. The contents in these sections lack connection and harmony with the Title of the manuscript. 

=> The Introduction section looks a lot wordy with contents in a way implicating that the document was a systematic review (covering 33 recent works) and misleading the readers. 

=> It looks apparent that an operational definition of what is considered as a "wild species" in the context of Turkey is needed. Are they cultivated by farmers and used only by some families in Turkey or are they collected from where they naturally grow in the wild?? This should be established for better framing of the story. 

=> Data in the Tables lack clarity (Tables 1 & 2). The same is true with the information so provided in the Boxes (particularly Box 1.). There are also so many repetitions of parameter names in the graphs: Graph title, Y-axis, and in the captions, which needs improvement. The legends of the graphs are not clear or visible enough. 

=> There are too many quoting of "random" statements and phrases that don't make much sense. 

=> Inaccurate Terminologies: vitamin A is not available in plants, but its precursor beta-carotene does, which in human and animal bodies get converted to vitamin A. Corrections are needed for such ambiguities.  

Specific Comments: 

Line 2: Replace "select" with "selected"

Line 3-4: the highlighted part may sound better if this part is made to read as: "nutrition and health"

Lines 23-24: The highlighted part should be changed to read as: "with both their dietary and cultural values being undermined."

Line 32: the highlighted part should be replaced by "of".

Line 74: change "point" to "pointed"

Lines 74-75: It is not clear why the quotation is required?

Line 80: The abbreviation BFN should be introduced with its expanded forms in its first appearance in the document. 

Lines 81-84; the statement is generally too wordy and complex. The highlighted part is not giving a clear sense. 

Lines 84-85: The quote is not clear. 

Line 90: change the highlighted part from "Yeşil et al.," to " Yeşil et al., [10]" with the citations included. 

Line 96: change "document" to "documented" 

Line 102: change "convenience" to "convenient". 

Line 104: change "Ertuğ" to "Ertuğ [7]" and do the same for all the citations involving the names of the author(s). 

Line 106: change "Arı et al." to "Arı et al. [5]" to complete the citation. 

Line 164: the highlighted part of the subsection title is not clear or doesn't make clear sense. Also, the contents are not explicitly indicated in the contents (paragraphs), needing some checking by the authors. 

Line: 166-167: change the highlighted part to read as: "focused". 

Line 169: the highlighted part should be changed to read as: ", which included:" 

Lines 179-180: what are these numbers (2,587 and 1,086) presented as "surveys" representing? Are these independent survey researches or number of respondents or collected plant samples? It is important that this is clarified to avoid confusion. 

Line 183: the statement should be rephrased to end like: "preparation and consumption practices" for better comprehension. 

Lines 183-185: Are these surveys covered with the BFN project or are these from literature? If these are from the current work, the systematic review details need to be given as indicated in the introduction. If these are from literature, at least some of them need to be cited here.

Lines 195-196: data are not clear, and also the relevance of the table versus narrating the contents in a paragraph. The structure of the Table is also not appealing. 

Line 199: the cited Table is missing from the document, or not clear if this is supplemental data and provided in the submission. 

Lines 207-211: the FAO methodologies should be specified with proper citations.  Also, the statement is too wordy and needs to be broken down to smaller and clearer ones. 

Line 207: remove the conjunction "and".

line 216: spacing between number and unit required (600 g). 

Line 219: the proximate composition doesn't seem to be complete as the "crude ash" is missing, which is usually important in herbs and spices. Also, the individual mineral micro-nutrients were too many, but not clear if all are relevant. 

Lines 257-258: Change the term "harvest" to collections as these are not cultivated crops - as they are wild types, at least from the context and also as indicated in the next statement - lines: 258-259. 

Line 265: spacing is required between the magnitudes and the unit (g) here and in the entire document except for Celsius degrees and % (unless required by the journal style guides). 

Line 329: add the conjunction "and" between "antimicrobial" and "antimutagenic". 

Lines 331-333: a formal citation linking to the databases is required. Information that makes this sound like a "project report" and that doesn't add much to the manuscript should be reduced. 

Figure 7: Legends - inconsistency in spacing and punctuation between the % and the parameters. 

Line 343 to 474: Section 3.3 is the longest section with 10 bulky paragraphs and majority of which are packed with less relevant project reports than scientific arguments. This needs SERIOUS revision and condensation. 

Line 357: Move the abbreviation (FAO) after the word "Organization". 

Lines 364-368: The statement is too long (5 lines) with so many ideas stacked and repeated use of conjunctions "and" was used 5 times in this single statement. Authors are advised to break it down.  

Box 1. Why are listing documents relevant to this manuscript? Wouldn't it be good to extract the points that needed changes and why those changes are important and how easy it is to have them in effect? 

Lines 386-392: 

=> This is a very wordy (long) statement and the message is not clear at all. 

=> What makes it different from the list presented under Box 1 above it? 

=> What is the scientific merit that is worth communicating as scholarly material? 

Line 385-386: How much enhancement in terms of economy (million dollars) or percent improvement in nutritional status of the consumers? Otherwise, it is very generic and not attributable to any effort or other factors at all. 

Line 3 in box 2: The citation is the same number and the repeated "Author, Year" part should be removed. 

Line 12 in box 2: The numbered citations as per the MDPI journal styles (44,54,85) are unnecessarily also repeated as "Author(s), the year" styles and should be corrected. 

Line 12 in box 2: the word "post-harvest" must be changed to "postharvest" with no hyphenation as it is used in the literature. 

Lines 429-433: Which year did this photo taken at? What exactly happened and collectors of what species won the contest? 

Lines 475-505: Conclusions  - the contents of the paragraph are simply generic and don't show the major findings from the research or fail short of conveying the key remarks. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The MS needs to be edited:

line 2, ...............selected..........

line 30 conducted, del conceptualised

line 61, can, del to

line 70, All the studies

line 82, recommended, del resolved

line 90, Yesil et al (ref #)... del rushed to; add documented

line 92, del which and will, replace will with 'can'

line 95, edit to, on the use of species as people migrate from 

line 103, edit to, 'from consumed food...'

lines 107-1.8, hypothesised that neglected xxxxxx?

line 110, avoid using 'don't'

line 127 del go on to, use suggested

line 160, progress and not headway

line 162, conducted, and not operationlised; del decided

line 166, focused on .........

lines 127 to the end, use the past tense, and note, 'data were' and not are/is. All reporting of work done should be reported in the past tense in correct grammar. You therefore need to thoroughly revise paper. There are numerous errors on the use plurals and singulars. These need to be corrected by thorough editing.

Delivery of samples, state temperature, line 127

line 207, del and after protocols

line 269, we can only reduce the prevalence of colon cancer with a good diet line 265

Edit captions for Fig 3, Fig 4 

Figure 5, title y-axis

Fig 7 title y-axis, and remove % for the legends

line 360, del addressing, and use 'for'

line 439, cognitive

line 451, succeed and not survive

line 481, of all the food systems of stakeholders

line 503-505, edit - it does not read well

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The Introduction and Conclusion sections are NOT improved as suggested. The contents of the Introduction and the Tables therein are not clear and don't really sell the substance of the manuscript. 

The conclusion was made even bulkier than it was before. The addition of a paragraph at the top made it a bit clearer, but the remaining paragraphs should have been removed or at least condensed to clear findings, than the generic statements. 

Author Response

The Introduction and Conclusion sections are NOT improved as suggested. The contents of the Introduction and the Tables therein are not clear and don't really sell the substance of the manuscript. 

The Introduction and Conclusion section were edited down. Table 1 was removed and additional editing carried out.

The conclusion was made even bulkier than it was before. The addition of a paragraph at the top made it a bit clearer, but the remaining paragraphs should have been removed or at least condensed to clear findings, than the generic statements. 

The Conclusion section was condensed down and recommendations for greater mainstreaming provided. 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

=> Title Line3: Remove the highlighted part;

=> Lines 87-109: this paragraph is too exotic and should be removed and this helps to reduce the bulk of the production

=> Lines 115-121: If there are limitations in the previous studies on nutritional characterizations, where is this information obtained from? The paragraph contents are contradicting each other. Authors are advised to exclude the highlighted part. 

=> Lines 122-155, Please remove these paragraphs as they are either repetitions or not keeping harmony with the story (they are very exotic). Revising and condensing the remaining parts of the Introduction is also Needed. A desk review can go into a different review article and can be published separately. The introduction should be limited to the scope of the current research. Authors are advised to see a sample article published in the Journal (Sustainability). 

=> Lines 448-465: These are too generic and are not based on the concrete data from the present research. Authors are advised to remove these two paragraphs and prepare a policy brief document if needed. Scientific manuscripts are meant for the scientific community and should follow the set protocol. The first paragraph can also be improved in terms of its focus. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find Authors' responses in RED below.

Title Line3: Remove the highlighted part – The highlighted part was removed.

=> Lines 87-109: this paragraph is too exotic and should be removed and this helps to reduce the bulk of the production. This paragraph was removed.

=> Lines 115-121: If there are limitations in the previous studies on nutritional characterizations, where is this information obtained from? The paragraph contents are contradicting each other. Authors are advised to exclude the highlighted part. This paragraph was removed.

=> Lines 122-155, Please remove these paragraphs as they are either repetitions or not keeping harmony with the story (they are very exotic). Revising and condensing the remaining parts of the Introduction is also Needed. A desk review can go into a different review article and can be published separately. The introduction should be limited to the scope of the current research. Authors are advised to see a sample article published in the Journal (Sustainability). These paragraphs were for the most part removed, and the remaining parts of the introduction condensed. Some sections were included to tie into the flow of the abstract, introducing the BFN approach. The authors also wish to retain selected sections, e.g., such as the links between biodiversity, nutrition and health and policy change. Removing these sections, it is felt, would only tell part of the story. As mentioned before, the purpose of this article is not just to present scientific data on the nutritional value of WFP, but to show how the evidence can be used to influence policy and change mindsets.

=> Lines 448-465: These are too generic and are not based on the concrete data from the present research. Authors are advised to remove these two paragraphs and prepare a policy brief document if needed. Scientific manuscripts are meant for the scientific community and should follow the set protocol. The first paragraph can also be improved in terms of its focus. The Conclusions were revisited summarizing data from the research as per the reviewer's suggestions.