Eco-Value and Public Perceptions for Indigenous Farm Animal Breeds and Local Plant Varieties, Focusing on Greece

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Improve fig. 1 and figure 2

Introduction:

The introduction clearly state the purpose of the research.

Materials and Methods

The research methods are relevant and well-ordered throughout the paper. The manuscript outlines the method of conducting the experiment and collecting research materials.

Results

There are no major reservations to the results. The results are appropriately described. 

Discussion

The Discussion should be improved. Present the context of the study at the beginning and towards the end show in perspective the possibilities to valorise the results you have reached.

Carefully read whole manuscript line by line and improve the sentence formation

Author Response

Reviewer 1.

Improve fig. 1 and figure 2.

Response: Bothfigures were reconstructed, mentioning more details regarding the aspects examined, and in better quality as well.

 

Introduction:

The introduction clearly state the purpose of the research.

Materials and Methods

The research methods are relevant and well-ordered throughout the paper. The manuscript outlines the method of conducting the experiment and collecting research materials.

Results

There are no major reservations to the results. The results are appropriately described.

Re: we would like to thank the reviewer for recognizing our efforts to improve the manuscript.

 

Discussion

The Discussion should be improved. Present the context of the study at the beginning and towards the end show in perspective the possibilities to valorise the results you have reached.

Re: Following the suggestion of the reviewer, the largest part of the discussion has been rewritten, adding a part in the beginning and a part in the end, according to the reviewer’s comment.

 

Carefully read whole manuscript line by line and improve the sentence formation.

Re: The whole manuscript was revised in accordance to the reviewer’s comment in order to correct grammar and syntactical mistakes.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

After reading the corrected version of the manuscript, it is worth noting that the authors attempted to correct their work. However, the major criticisms are not eliminated.

1. Yes, the authors have added further publications to the list of references (as many as 5 links!). Currently, except for the Introduction and the Methodology section, the review itself comprises an analysis of the whole 41 works. As mentioned previously, most research papers contain more references than in this review. The number of articles to be included in the review should not be reasonably limited, but limited only to the comprehensiveness of the issue! Presumably, the authors are simply not fully familiar with the subject they examined.

2. The limited number of articles analysed affects the quality of the review.

As part of the review, there is a significant bias towards evaluating the conservation and utilisation of livestock biodiversity. The description of “agricultural (plant) block” is given in a small portion of this review. The two main reasons are as follows: the authors' field of scientific interest concerns livestock farming and the insufficient analysis of the journal publications (only 41 works). The authors should provide a more detailed analysis to assess the conservation and use of biodiversity in agricultural systems.

3. Every scientist generally has publications on the topic of the review he writes. Also, any scientist wants his work to be cited. But it is at least unethical to do so through self-citing. The amount of self-citation should be limited.

4. Reference 47 contains two works. Which article was cited in the text? Please check it out.

Author Response

Reviewer 2.

After reading the corrected version of the manuscript, it is worth noting that the authors attempted to correct their work. However, the major criticisms are not eliminated.

Re: We thank the reviewer for recognizing our effort. We believe that after considering her/his comments, the revised manuscript would eliminate the major critisism

 

1. Yes, the authors have added further publications to the list of references (as many as 5 links!). Currently, except for the Introduction and the Methodology section, the review itself comprises an analysis of the whole 41 works. As mentioned previously, most research papers contain more references than in this review. The number of articles to be included in the review should not be reasonably limited, but limited only to the comprehensiveness of the issue! Presumably, the authors are simply not fully familiar with the subject they examined.

Re: Following the reviewer’s comment the number of references has been substantially increased to the number of 70. We would also like to mention that since the review is quite focused, the literature available is limited.

 

2. The limited number of articles analysed affects the quality of the review. As part of the review, there is a significant bias towards evaluating the conservation and utilisation of livestock biodiversity. The description of “agricultural (plant) block” is given in a small portion of this review. The two main reasons are as follows: the authors' field of scientific interest concerns livestock farming and the insufficient analysis of the journal publications (only 41 works). The authors should provide a more detailed analysis to assess the conservation and use of biodiversity in agricultural systems.

Re: As already mentioned in the previous response, the number of the references was substantially increased. Furthermore, in line with the reviewer’s comment, the majority of these additions are referred to “agricultural (plant) block”.

 

3. Every scientist generally has publications on the topic of the review he writes. Also, any scientist wants his work to be cited. But it is at least unethical to do so through selfciting. The amount of self-citation should be limited.

Re: In agreement with reviewer, some references that were self-citations were replaced by other ones of the same meaning (please see references 24, 26, 28, 31)

 

4. Reference 47 contains two works. Which article was cited in the text? Please check it out.

Response: The reference 47 has been corrected and it corresponds to the new one with the number 61 to the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The authors have substantially improved the manuscript. All of my concerns have been addressed. Revisions are satisfactory and article can be processed further for publication.

Author Response

The authors have substantially improved the manuscript. All of my concerns have been addressed. Revisions are satisfactory and article can be processed further for publication.

Response: We are grateful to the third reviewer for recognizing the improvement of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The authors carefully considered all comments and questions and corrected the manuscript. On that basis, I believe this article can be accepted for publication.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, I have reviewed your article entitled “Eco-value and public perceptions for indigenous farm animal breeds and local plant varieties products, focusing on Balkans”. Although the subject of the research is appropriate and manuscript is well explained, it still needs substantial revisions. There are some comments, which are to be incorporated in order to improve the manuscript, as given below:

·  More suitable title should be selected for the article.

·  Graphical abstract will enhance the visibility of the manuscript.

·  The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the review, need of the review and major conclusion. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone.

·  List of keywords should be selected carefully.

· The novelty of the work must be identified and stated. The authors should try to explain why this review paper is relevant to the wider readership.

· The major defect of this study is the debate or Argument is not clear stated in the introduction session. Hence, the contribution is weak in this manuscript. I would suggest the author to enhance your theoretical discussion and arrives your debate or argument.

· Add some limitations, underscore the scientific value added of your paper in conclusion section.

· Please double check the manuscript for abbreviations. Abbreviations must be spelled out the first time they are mentioned in the abstract and starting again with the introduction section.

· Double check that all references are cited within the text, and that all citations within the text have a corresponding reference.

·  Authors need to check grammar, space, comma, mis-spell, large and small letters, and others.

Reviewer 2 Report

After getting acquainted with the review entitled “Eco-value and public perceptions for indigenous farm animal breeds and local plant varieties products, focusing on Balkans”, there were many questions and critical comments.
The title of this review is very ambitious. Rather than “focusing on Balkans”, the review should be referred to as “focusing on Greece”. Although some Balkan countries are occasionally mentioned (Croatia, Bulgaria, Serbia, etc.), most of the publications reviewed relate to Greece. For instance, there are no such countries as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro (which are entirely inside the Balkans), but some regions that are not associated with the Balkan (Sumatra, Ethiopia, Spain, the Alps) are mentioned.
This bias towards Greece is because of an error in selecting keywords when searching for information. Instead of the keyword "Each Balkan country separately", there was a need to search for each country separately, i.e., for “Greece”, “Montenegro”, “Serbia”, “Bulgaria”, etc.
The review comprises only 52 references! And that’s with three search engines (Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar). Most research articles have more references than this review. Whereas 11 countries are wholly or partly situated in the Balkans (and one country with limited recognition), the review is based on “4.3 references per country”.
Furthermore, there is too much self-citing in the text. Ten articles (out of 52) belong to the co-authors of this review.
The review itself is superficial and does not represent any new treatment of information beyond the collection of some papers with no systematic analysis.
There are no conclusions in the review, and any new contribution cannot be identified in the discussion.

Reviewer 3 Report

In my opinion, this paper may be interesting for reader of  Sustainability Journal. Nevertheless, there are some items that should be addressed before acceptance:

However, the manuscript is framed nicely.

The writing could be improved by strengthening the connectivity between paragraphs. There are several places where new topics are introduced and connections to the previous subject are not clear. Read whole manuscript and correct wherever required.

Introduction:

The introduction clearly state the purpose of the research.

Materials and Methods

The research methods are relevant and well-ordered throughout the paper. The manuscript outlines the method of conducting the experiment and collecting research materials.

Results

There are no major reservations to the results. The results are appropriately described. 

Discussion

The Discussion should be improved. Present the context of the study at the beginning and towards the end show in perspective the possibilities to valorise the results you have reached.

Carefully read whole manuscript line by line and improve the sentence formation.