Review Reports
- Viktoriya Sturm1,*,
- Myrna van Leeuwen2 and
- Niels de Beus3
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Herfried Lammer Reviewer 2: Estevão Freire Reviewer 3: Budi Harsanto Reviewer 4: Ivaylo Ivanov Reviewer 5: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
on page 8 you mention several time " in literature" please add some references as examples
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article deals with the framework for the representation of the value chains of bio-based materials in the EU, named BioMAT (Bio-based MATerials), which comprises two elements: the BioMAT model, discussed in a previous article by the authors, and the BioMAT database, discussed in this article.
From line 90 to line 115 (materials and methods), I understand that it could be located at the end of the introduction Section. There is no discussion about the data presented in Fig. 8; a more detailed discussion of the data presented in Fig 11 is lacking.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Here are some observations and feedback that hopefully can help improve the manuscript.
Abstract
It is better to add more explicit research objectives, key methods, key findings and novelty in the abstract.
Introduction
In paragraph 3 it said“Knowledge-based policy making must be based on two pillars”. However, this statement is not supported by reference.
It would be better if the authors mention and briefly discuss similar databases, although their characteristics and context may differ.
In the last paragraph it said “In order to overcome the knowledge gaps mentioned above, a new consistent framework for the representation of the value chains of bio-based materials in the EU and its Member States is developed" It's more practical contribution, it would be better if the authors elaborate more on the academic contribution to the literature.
Materials and methods
It would be better to explain at the beginning of this section the initial concept of BioMAT which is supported by previous research to make it easier for readers to understand.
In the explanation of Figures 1 and 4 it is mentioned how the overlap between BioMAT and AGMEMOD is. (1) What is the clear difference between the two? (Supported by previous research results); (2) What are the advantages of BioMAT compared to AGMEMOD, so that BioMAT can be said as an extension of the AGMEMOD model?
What is the difference between PRODCOM, SBS and COMEXT?
In the discussion of figure 3 in section Step 4, it is stated that the amount of visible household use is calculated (“Visible use” = “Output” + “Import” – “Export”). Why is this step not shown in figure 3?
"According to Starch Europe approximately 60% of the total starch available in the EU is allocated to food and feed". There no reference yet to this statement.
Authors suggested ot explain in this section about validation. Is there a way to validate this database?
Results
Results looks fine and nice.
In figure 5 – figure 10 it is better if the figures are interpreted clearly, then if the figures are taken from another source, include the reference.
Discussion
No discussion in this manuscript. The authors suggested to add discussion to the manuscript.
Conclusion
It is suggested to add implication to the academic, practice, and policymaking.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
It would be better to add in the abstract and in the introduction the aim of research and the contributions of article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Minor revision is required.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
-