Procedure for an Effective Quick and Targeted Distribution of Product to Final Beneficiaries by a Social Food Bank

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

To maximize the timely and appropriate distribution to beneficiaries of large quantities of sometimes very specific products that are soon to expire, the authors looked into a novel ad hoc decision-aid procedure that uses common and free tools to notify the distribution of the product and allow the collection request by interested beneficiaries. As it is, research articles may be suitable for MDPI's Sustainability journal for publication. Therefore, I think, with a little tweaking, the essay might be suitable for this journal. Whatever the case may be, I have some broad and specific feedback for the writers below.

General comments: The authors developed a novel ad-hoc decision-aid procedure to optimize a quick and targeted distribution to beneficiaries and validated it with the network of social food pantries of El Rebost, from Terrassa (Spain): 129 lots of food products have been successfully delivered to targeted beneficiaries. The existing formats of the research study allow it to be published in MDPI's Sustainability journal. Because of this, I think the manuscript could be published in this journal with a few small changes. 

 Specific comments:

1.   The introduction has too many paragraphs. Please reduce it to 4 or 5 paragraphs.

2.   All figures should be improved, including Figure 6.

3. The author should improve his writing of the introduction by putting it together with the literature review.

4.   The author should improve the conclusion part.

 

5. The level of English language and style needs extensive editing of the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract should be clarified, more clearly stated the purpose and methods of the study. The purpose of the research and research methodology should be more clearly indicated in the introduction, and the scientific novelty and relevance should be revealed. It is not clear for what purpose the photos are presented (Figure 2, 3 and Figure 5), the question arises whether the authors apply the qualitative research method to the photographs? The research methodology should be described. The article is more science popularization than scientific, research methodology is not presented, the discussion is more practical than scientific. Conclusions need to be improved by revealing scientific results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Title: The title suggests a quantitative analysis, but the content doesn’t have any model related to this approach. 

Abstract: The abstract is well written because it has the context, the problem, the objective, and the results. Although its structure supports the article, the objective and (as in the title) some words demand a reflection. From line 16th to line 18th there is an objective of the paper, which has the same characteristic as the title, which indicates a quantitative approach. In line 18th there is a mention of a ‘procedure’, but in section 3.2 the procedure is totally qualitative. The authors should think about these words.

 

Introduction: The section presents the problem of research and the objective. Besides, it has a well-written context. The end of the objective is different from the one presented in the Abstract.

Literature review: The description of the process and the problems is enough, but the pictures aren’t necessary. A suggestion is to clarify in the text of section 2.2 what is the set of requirements and for what or change the title of the section.

Materials&Method: Section 3.1 isn’t clear in its title. The first sentence leads the reader to a set of requirements to select beneficiaries, but the items (mainly the first and the last) have another meaning. The last item (lines 213-216) isn’t clear to me, for example, the sentence “Beneficiaries usually come to receive the monthly basket the same week of the month (first to the fourth week).” A month has 4 weeks, so what week are the ones that beneficiaries receive the basket? Are there different groups for each week? After reading this item, I read lines 231 to 235 and saw the explanation. Although the answer is in the same section, the authors should re-write this part f section 3.1. I can’t see the connection between the ‘requirements’ at the beginning of section 3.1 and the three characteristics (type of beneficiary, basket week, and proximity). The procedure description and Figure 4 are very simple in section 3.2, but figures 5 and 6 in 3.3 are not appropriate for a scientific paper. Therefore, they don't add any information, the descriptions of the implementation are enough.

Results: Table 2 demands more explanations, as an ex: ‘warning times’ - What the group did to reduce the hours of warning time for vegans? I guess that this is a demand from the managers of this project. Table 3 presents good results, but it could be more interesting if the authors do a Table before Table 3 presenting what the members of this project did to reduce the problems using this ‘solution’.

Conclusion: The term “decision-aid procedure” seems that isn’t the better option for the procedure presented in this paper. In general, the conclusion connects the results and discussion. The limitations of the work/project should be presented more explicitly. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I am grateful for the article corrections.