Mountain Food Products: A Cluster Analysis Based on Young Consumers’ Perceptions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have gone through the article critically. I have given my comments to further improve this article.

1. The proposed title can be modified by specifying the exact methodology incorporated in the field of soft computing.

2. It is suggested to provide a detailed comparative analysis on existing methodologies.

3. The abstract needs significant proofreading as there are many short, incomplete, and somewhere very complex sentences that are difficult to convey the intended objectives.

4. It should be mentioned in the captions of the figure clearly what each sub-figure exactly represents. Also, the captions need to be upgraded and keep a well-structured format.

5. It is suggested to do complete proofreading as many sentences found meaningless and complex.

6. It is suggested to include elaborations of all abbreviations used in the article correctly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 
Thank you for your comments and suggestions, which allowed us to improve the work and clarify certain parts of the text. Here are the replies to the comments. We hope that the work reflects what was requested.
Please find attached the latest version of the document. Changes, corrections and additions are highlighted in yellow. 

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 
Thank you for your comments and suggestions, which allowed us to improve the work and clarify certain parts of the text. We hope that the work reflects what was requested.
Please find attached our replies and the latest version of the document. Changes, corrections and additions are highlighted in yellow. 

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The reviewed study is interesting and has an appropriate structure. The article is distinguished by a well-described research methodology and a broad literature review. To improve the study, I recommend a few changes.

1.  The title of the manuscript should be changed. In its current form, it is a compilation of three different elements.

2.  The formulated aim of the research is very general and inappropriate – “…this paper aims at contributing to the open debate  on potential value of food mountain products….  .(lines 51-53) Specifically, the study aspires to contribute to the literature dedicated to mountain products….” (lines 53) Each scientific article enriches the literature.

3.    I suggest formulating a research hypothesis(es) in the manuscript

4.    In the chapter "Literature review", the form of the three sentences, should be changed (lines 99-101, 115-117 and  142).  Instead of the phrases " has to be intended ", "has to be recognized" and "has to be considered", the past tense should be used and the groups of issues analyzed in the literature should be indicated.

5.  In the description of the research methodology, three groups of respondents were indicated by age (line 297), while in Table 1, only two groups were distinguished.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 
Thank you for your comments and suggestions, which allowed us to improve the work and clarify certain parts of the text. We hope that the work reflects what was requested.
Please find attached our replies and the latest version of the document. Changes, corrections and additions are highlighted in yellow. 

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf