Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents a detailed overview of the Motivations and challenges for food companies in using IoT sensors for reducing food waste – Some insights and a road-map for the future. Noteworthy, it is a good article with sufficient information and novelty. The manuscript meets the journal criteria and holds priority as a topic of the reader's interest. The topic of your manuscript sounds interesting and has an appropriate design. Overall information presented in this article provides a good foundation for future studies, and I approve its publication after some suggestions.

1)Need to improve the abstract and, if possible, add some conclusion commennets.

2) Line 232-239, 517- 534, please rearrange these lines according to Journal format.

3)Please increase the quality of Figure 3. 

4) Conclusion section.  The author needs to add some future recommendations at the end.  

5) Please arrange Refs according to Sustainability Journal format

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, the action research method is used to study the challenges for food companies in using IoT sensors for reducing food waste. The quality of the manuscript is not suitable for the publication. The detailed comments are provided in the next section.

1.     Comments

I have various critical observations regarding the quality of the manuscript. My comments are as follow:

a. The abstract is written in very poor manner. Please mention the research method in the abstract section.

b. The introduction section should provide some relevant real-world agrifood supply chain examples with specific focus on the need for the current research and set the motivation for the research questions, which is completely missing.

c. The significance and novelty part of the manuscript is not clear to me. Neither this study confronts /contributes to grand challenges of the society/industry nor opening new pastures for scholarly discourse. Please improve this aspect.

d. Disheartening! The structure of the manuscript is inconsistent. In the current form of the manuscript, the second section is "Minimizing food waste in agrifood supply chains" and placed just after the introduction. I am not able to understand this. The major focus is required on formatting and overall structure of the manuscript. Please add a literature review section and place all related parts as the sub-sections.

e. I am wondering whether this research is casting a wider net from the application point of view or not. The scope and actionability part are not mentioned in the introduction section. Authors must highlight inconsistencies of prior research and consequences of practice.

f. Please add the sections for theoretical and practical implication and describe in details. Authors are suggested to mention the recommendation as the sub-section of theoretical or practical implications.

Overall, the quality of the manuscript is not suitable for publication in the current form. Therefore, I suggest for the minor revision.

Thanks.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please to have a look at the file below

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In the table 2, page 5, line 4 (blockchain), column Aplication to support food waste, in the citation of Kopanaki et al. 2021, the word food (in the last line) are written as foo. 

In the table 2, page 6, line 3 (CCT), column Aplication in food supply chain, in the citation of Singh et al. 2018, in the last line is written CCT, Iot, andk! What is andk?

In line 417 the term Industry 4.0 needs a reference 

In table 5, line 3, third column is written something strange: "...for food storage,m facilitating collaboration..."

I don't understand the line 499: " They will be explained in greater details in subsequent papers in this special issue". The same authors have another paper alredy published in this special issue? 

 

The section 5.3, Roadmaps, it was written in a way that it looks like the conclusion of the paper. So I think this section could merged into the conclusion.

I believe that the work could be even more relevant if the software infrastructure (server, client, comunication protocol, ect...) used in the Technology demonstrations of Table 3 were explained in more details.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf