Assessing Supply Chain Innovations for Building Resilient Food Supply Chains: An Emerging Economy Perspective
, Manu Sharma 2,3, Banu Y. Ekren 4,5, Yigit Kazancoglu 6, Sunil Luthra 7 and Mukesh Prasad 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In my opinion the work cannot be published in the present form.
1) The data collection process has been presented vaguely. The authors are recommended to provide a questionnaire in the appendix.
2) How did the authors dealt with qualitative criteria through the SWARA approach. There is absolutely no discussion regarding the same.
3) The evaluation provided by the considered experts is missing and should have been presented.
4) A comparative assessment with the other methods is missing.
5) The validation of the obtained results is missing.
Author Response
Dear Sir/ Madam,
We would like to submit our manuscript titled “Assessing Supply chain Innovations for Building Resilient Food Supply Chains: An Emerging Economy Perspective (sustainability-2105961)”
At the outset, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit our revised manuscript. It is desired to express again sincere appreciation for the comments & suggestions that have been made by the reviewers and Editor considering the initial version of this manuscript. The editor and reviewers’ comments have been taken into careful consideration and the suggested changes have been implemented accordingly All the changes have been highlighted (in red) in the revised version of our manuscript. Moreover, we made some editing changes and proof reading by the professional has been done. Once again thank you for highlighting the key improvement/changes needed to give us a clear direction.
Thank you very much for your academic support.
With Best Regards,
Corresponding Author
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have very well written the manuscript. I appreciate the positive efforts being put in by the authors.
The authors should improve the discussion and findings in accordance with the results obtained.
Research implications should be clearly mentioned as per the outcomes of the study.
Limitations of the study must be properly written.
Author Response
Dear Professor,
Greetings of the Day!!!
At the outset, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit our revised manuscript. It is desired to express again sincere appreciation for the comments & suggestions that have been made by the reviewers and Editor considering the initial version of this manuscript. The editor and reviewers’ comments have been taken into careful consideration and the suggested changes have been implemented accordingly All the changes have been highlighted (in red) in the revised version of our manuscript. Moreover, we made some editing changes and proof reading by the professional has been done. Once again thank you for highlighting the key improvement/changes needed to give us a clear direction.
Yours sincerely,
Corresponding Author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Row 82 – ‘ the past studies…….’ – please mentioned what are the past studies.
2. Row 92 – The abbreviations ‘AFSC’ - stands for , not mentioned in the paper.
- ‘Distruptions in various categories’ – what are the categories?
3. Row 97 – ‘ there exists less evidence in the literature…’ – author should show the list of the past studies .
4. Row 110-111 : I would like to suggest the words eg no prior or no study should be replaced with lacking or less or neglected.
5. Row 115 – is there any evident or citation form past studies?
Author Response
Dear Professor,
Greetings of the Day!!!
At the outset, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit our revised manuscript. It is desired to express again sincere appreciation for the comments & suggestions that have been made by the reviewers and Editor considering the initial version of this manuscript. The editor and reviewers’ comments have been taken into careful consideration and the suggested changes have been implemented accordingly All the changes have been highlighted (in red) in the revised version of our manuscript. Moreover, we made some editing changes and proof reading by the professional has been done. Once again thank you for highlighting the key improvement/changes needed to give us a clear direction.
Yours sincerely,
Corresponding Author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
