An Integrated Framework for Sustainable Development in Agri-Food SMEs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Please find my Comments in below; the following points will be provided for your manuscript:

 - Title:  

My Suggestion for title is: “An Integrated Framework for Sustainable Development in Agricultural SMEs”

- Abstract:  

The abstract is appropriate. 

- Keywords: 

Keywords should be replaced by: Sustainable Development, Integrated Framework, Agricultural SMEs, system-based approach

- Introduction:

In the introduction it is necessary to address the novelty of the research at the end of introduction and it should be emphasized from different aspects.

Also explicitly specify what is the problem statement?

- Methodology: 

What was the kind of research method in this study (Paradigm, type, data, time, gathering data, …)?

 Also, I suggest that the authors follow the logical course of ontology, epistemology and methodology in the material and methods section.

- Results:

The authors can develop this part in more details.

- Conclusion: 

Please mention the research limitations at the end of this section. 

What is the main effect of the study?

Minor editing of English language required...

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article concerns a topical and exciting topic from the perspective of agri-food SMEs. 

I recommend giving more space in the abstract to specific results so that the abstract will attract more readers. 

The keywords are appropriately chosen. 

The literature review works with current literature, which I commend. 

The literature review only hints at the relationship of new technologies to sustainability. Here I would recommend expanding the text slightly to make it more coherent. For example, I recommend using:

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155968

https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010247

https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8050154

There are different font sizes within the methodology section. 

The methodology section is extensive and general. I recommend it be more oriented to this particular research and article. The authors here often stray into unnecessary generalities. 

The negative of the article is also the unclear objective. The authors do not mention the paper's aim, and it is also not clear from the text; it is more a summary of certain assumptions, but it is not clear why these assumptions were made. This section limits the paper and confuses the reader as the added value is unclear. 

The text contains several diagrams that do not add significant value to the reader and are relatively simple but take up unnecessary space in the article. 

The article's conclusion is very brief, while the text does not include a discussion, which is partly in the methodology section. An article structured in this way that does not have a results section is unusual. 

I recommend a major revision of the article. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article 'An Integrated Framework for Sustainable Development in Agri-food SMEs with a Diverse Type of Production' addresses an interesting research topic, which was oriented towards the development of an integrated framework for sustainable development in agri-food SMEs with a diverse type of production. The aim was to define a record-keeping system to form the basis of integrated information in agri-food SMEs. 

The executive summary outlines the main objective of the research, the findings and indicates the practical usefulness of the study.

The executive summary presents the rationale for the research and its background. The introduction, however, I believe should be more concise. In addition to the background to the research, it should outline the directions adopted for exploring the topic. The main research thread should be more emphasised. I suggest including a 'literature review' section in the structure of the paper and moving the background supported by the literature survey there.

Overall, the structure of the paper needs to be refined - it is not readable. The "methodology" section contains all the findings of the study. The next point is the 'conclusion'.

The methodology should include a clearly defined method adopted for the research. The steps of the procedure should be clearly defined (model). In addition, it is worth adopting a hypothesis to be verified using statistical methods to emphasise the scientific nature of the study. The quantitative nature of the research is necessary in addition to the theoretical findings. This will enable the conclusions to be formed scientifically.

The research has been referred to the literature - however, I believe that the literature review in the article is worth strengthening and developing in terms of anchoring the background and implications at the discussion stage. In terms of introductory information, the article is worth studying: https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155461. 

The conclusions should be refined. The findings of the research should be strongly linked to the results. Citations should not be used in the summary. The summary should highlight the contribution of the article in relation to the gap - indicate its importance.

Diagrams should be tied in the paper and signed (e.g. line 554, 667, 554).

The text should be completed below the diagram (line 581).

Given the above, I believe that the manuscript requires significant refinement of scientific standards for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

As interesting as it may be, I am afraid the paper needs a lot of work before it can be considered for publication.

1.       Throughout the text, the authors use very different terms interchangeably.  First, they refer to 'sustainable development in agri-food SMEs', then to 'sustainable economic system in the agri-food sector', and finally to 'sustainability' of SMEs and 'sustainable growth in agri-food SMEs'. All these terms are really vague and loosely (and now always causally) linked. All these terms, which are used at different levels of analysis, should be illustrated more clearly by the authors.

2.       Given the journal’s scope, a short discussion related to the idea of sustainable development should be added in the introduction and the following two articles should be included: (a) Manioudis, M. & Meramveliotakis, G. (2022) “Broad strokes towards a grand theory in the analysis of sustainable development: a return to the classical political economy”, New Political Economy, 27(5), pp. 866-878, (b) Dasgupta, P. The idea of sustainable development. Sustain Sci 2, 5–11 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-007-0024-y

3.       The introductory section could be enriched by further discussing issues related to the systemic nature of innovation. The understanding of innovation has been widened and elaborated though the research works of the neo-Schumpeterian school and the systemic view of innovation (e.g. national systems of innovation). For example, there is a vast literature on innovation systems (e.g. Freeman, Edquist, Lundwall, Asheim, Fagerberg).

4.       The authors need to further explain how their “integrate framework” promotes the sustainable development of sector? the sustainable growth of the sector?  the sustainability of each individual firm within the sector?

5.       In this sense, Diagram 1, the so-called "Integrated Framework for Sustainable Development", should be further illustrated in order to clearly show the links between the framework and sustainable development (e.g. simply stating that I will collect data and I will record the different types of costs does not per se guarantee the achievement of sustainable development).

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have taken most of the comments into account, and I recommend it for adoption. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have improved the article. The article is now, in my opinion, suitable for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

Glad to see.the authors accomodate all of my comments.I strongly propose publicanior.

Only some minor editing.