Consumer Awareness of Biodegradability of Food Products Packaging

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- "The introduction" should make a stronger case for why biodegradable packaging is desirable - especially from a climate change perspective since it was invoked.

- Line 41 et seq. (e.g., 46-48, 51-52) - for these statements, it would be helpful to have some links with the source of the information.

- Line 51 - 54 - is "enviromental awarness" exactly the same as "climate change awareness"? It would be worthwhile to discuss the impact of packaging management on climate change.

- In my opinion the issue of biodegradable packaging should be better described - to what extent can they replace plastic ? What is the scale of their use so far, what are their advantages and disadvantages (besides environmental) - how does their use affect costs ? -is there any literature on this subject ? Are there any statistics on the subject ?

- I would suggest clarifying the research problem and reducing the number of hypotheses. Currently, these hypotheses are very technical and only relate to particular questions in the survey. I would suggest considering what scientific problem they solve ? In the current version, the article only discusses the survey, without addressing the research problem that the survey was supposed to solve.

- Was the research sample representative? If so, why was the statistical significance of the hypotheses not tested ?

- I also don't understand the point of asking which packaging of chocolates (and other products) is biodegradable ? If the respondent does not know these products (and I think many don't), how can he/she judge from the photo whether the packaging is biodegradable ? (were they asked about their knowledge of these products ?) What did the Authors want to test with these questions? In my opinion, it was not a substantive question - rather just a "guess" but maybe I am wrong - if so, please clarify. If it can't be explained, then the whole study seems irrelevant - I don't know what research problem can be solved this way. It would help if the Authors clarified how the survey questions relate to the research problem.

- Also problematic is the title, which in my opinion, is inconsistent with the content. The content does not refer to "the role of packing in the sale of organic products" only to the ability to distinguish between biodegradable and non-biodegradable packaging (in different consumer groups).

- The paper focuses on the case of Poland - the relevance of the findings to a foreign reader needs to be highlighted. The literature review relates too weakly to the world literature - it should be strengthened.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article dives into the marketing issue of organic products. It captures a slightly niche of topic in the branding package.  

This article is far from publication for two simple reasons:
1. The title is not academically presented. The phrase "results of own research" is wrong. Modern scholars strive to gain better academic presentation by conducting research. Thus, it is normally their research; however, they never have to argue and point out if it is their research, especially in the title. From this point, I believe the authors need to submerge into the world of academic writing and see past papers upon drafting their manuscripts.

2. The abstract is too long with information that can be best suited in the introduction. It is not informative and aligned with best practices in academic writing.

3. English needs to be improved, either by its quality or its parts of speech, as evident in the abstract.

The article investigates the packaging of organic products. It could be interesting if the article is drafted according to the best-practice of academic writing. In its initial form, they are highly insufficient.

It may add substantive information. However, the way the paper is drafted still needs further polishing.


The authors have to redraft the papers more academically. It is not nice if the abstract is structured in a long and tedious drafting. One or two sentences regarding the research phenomenon are sufficient. The authors need to provide the aims, the research method, the findings, and the implication in a simplified manner. This approach has been the most widely used of abstracts in the academic journals. The English are not carefully presented. I still find a problem in the parts of speech, just by glancing at the abstract.  

The references need further additions.

The English are not good. You need better proofreading and a senior member of the faculty to consult your paper's drafting.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.     The manuscript is more about the survery of the ability of various groups (age, sex, health condition, education level, place of live/size of city, etc) to recognize the biodegrdability of packagings of various food. It seems that the title does not well generalize the content of the manuscript

2.     Line 126 “However, conducted in 2017 research in Poland revealed that…… should better read “However research conducted in 2017 in Poland reveraled that……”

3.     Line 35 “cabon monoxide” should be “carbon dioxide”

4.     Tables should be better presented. Currently the presentation of Table 1, Table 4 is kinds of confusing. Wider line spaces shall be used to separate different items.

The quality of English is fine.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I believe that the article is largely based on the questionable assumption that the food products asked about are perfectly familiar to respondents. This is its significant weakness, which, however, cannot be eliminated at this stage. Given the important subject matter and the fact that the authors have taken into account many of the comments made, I ultimately support the publication of this manuscript. Packaging issues have been quite rarely studied so far, so it is probably worth spreading knowledge about this problem, even if it is not perfectly researched. For the future, I would suggest more caution in the research assumptions made.

Author Response

We appreciate your comments and the opportunity to improve our manuscript. In the future, we will be more careful about research assumptions. The manuscript was revised and supplemented as recommended by the second reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author,

Your paper still needs serious polishing for these reasons:

1. You need a senior academician to guide you through academic writing and the use of eloquent English. For example, you construct this phrase in the abstract: "The article’s authors...." The possessive pronoun in this line is wrong as it indicates that the articles own the authors. 

2. The abstract must clarify its purpose, research method, findings, and potential implications in a better writing flow. I still find it hard to read.

3. Line 24-25 provides arguments that need citations.

4.  It is unnecessary to mention an article like line 57 unless it is groundbreaking or a seminal paper. 

5. The second paragraph lacks focus, with too much information. You start with the Polish market condition, followed by the American consumer attitudes, and coupled with bouncing information. I suggest the authors check the first sentence and create 5-6 sentences to support the main idea in the first sentences. This effort will simplify your paper.

6. Who is the author in line 97?

7. Unnecessary bracket in line 123.

8. The literature review is not well crafted and consistent. It starts with the conversation about packaging, followed by eco-marketing in line 123 and zero waste management in line 130. So many concepts in a single paragraph. 

9. Line 168???

10. Line 153 can be constructed as a new start for a paragraph. 

11. Hypothesis 3 is not well grounded. 

12. H6-7 are not well grounded theoretically.

13. Line 215 is odd for the word of "discovery". Proofread it.

14. Line 409-410 needs proofreading. 

The article needs a senior proofreader to adjust the writing according to the best practices of academic publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for all your comments. Changes have been made to the manuscript regarding comments.
1.    You need a senior academician to guide you through academic writing and the use of eloquent English. For example, you construct this phrase in the abstract: "The article’s authors...." The possessive pronoun in this line is wrong as it indicates that the articles own the authors. 
This has been fixed. The manuscript was checked by a native speaker. However, a glitch has occurred.
2.    The abstract must clarify its purpose, research method, findings, and potential implications in a better writing flow. I still find it hard to read.
The abstract has been corrected and supplemented.
3. Line 24-25 provides arguments that need citations.
Appropriate citation added.
4.  It is unnecessary to mention an article like line 57 unless it is groundbreaking or a seminal paper. 
This quote has been removed.
5. The second paragraph lacks focus, with too much information. You start with the Polish market condition, followed by the American consumer attitudes, and coupled with bouncing information. I suggest the authors check the first sentence and create 5-6 sentences to support the main idea in the first sentences. This effort will simplify your paper.
The second paragraph has been completed.
6. Who is the author in line 97?
It is the authors of this manuscript that has been changed.
7. Unnecessary bracket in line 123.
This has been corrected.
8. The literature review is not well crafted and consistent. It starts with the conversation about packaging, followed by eco-marketing in line 123 and zero waste management in line 130. So many concepts in a single paragraph. 
The paragraph has been split. From the consumer's point of view, the concept of zero waste is combined with eco-marketing. This is a cause and effect relationship, therefore the content has not been changed.
9. Line 168???
This has been corrected.
10. Line 153 can be constructed as a new start for a paragraph. 
This has been corrected.
11. Hypothesis 3 is not well grounded. 
Hypothesis 3 was supported by a better review of the literature.
12. H6-7 are not well grounded theoretically.
Hypotheses 6 and 7 were supported by relevant literature.
13. Line 215 is odd for the word of "discovery". Proofread it.
This has been corrected. Word “identification” will be better here. 
14. Line 409-410 needs proofreading. 
This has been corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf