Adoption of Plant-Based Diets: A Process Perspective on Adopters’ Cognitive Propensity
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
I have several remarks about your manuscript:
1. The manuscript is poorly constructed.
2. "Materials and methods chapter" must be included. Explain better the methodology.
3. Revise Table 1 according to MDPI instructions.
4. Figures must be better explained. You could include a short description under the figures.
5. Conclusion is not clear. It looks like a discussion. You must revise it.
6. References should be revised according to MDPI "Instructions for Authors".
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #1,
Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment where you can find (point by point) the explanation of how each of them has been resolved. Please also see the new version of the manuscript, which we hope you appreciate.
Once again, thank you. Best,
The Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Congratulations on your work. I have only some minor suggestions of improvement.
While previous research on the plurality of definitions of social innovation appears not to have solved the perceived ambiguity surrounding the concept, there is some agreement on the literature about the existence of two views on the concept. Sociological grounded conceptualizations understand social innovation as new ways of creating and implementing social change. The conceptual focus tends to be on social practices and on the way they can be combined. On the other side, economic conceptualizations of social innovation are more outcome-oriented and related to the “ideas”, “services” or new “systemic” transformations and related social impacts. Considering this second perspective, I wonder what is the impact of this model, what is the specific output and who it serves. The study would benefit if the authors comment the implementation of the model. How can the model be used in practice, for example, for policy intervention?
In table 1 the authors indicate that the sample method for Case Study 1 was random. I have some doubts about this classification. Real random samples are extremely difficult to secure. The authors should clarify the procedures they followed to secure a random sample. Many factors can affect the selection procedures: for example, if the customers were selected during a specific time frame of the day, the sample is not random. If a significant number of customers refused to participate in the study, the sample cannot be considered random (customers that refuse to participate have a specific profile and are also part of the population). The technique to secure a random sample is complex, relies on using a selection method that provides each participant with an equal chance of being selected, giving each participant the same probability of being selected.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #2,
Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment where you can find (point by point) the explanation of how each of them has been resolved. Please also see the new version of the manuscript, which we hope you appreciate.
Once again, thank you. Best,
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Greetings,
The article is well done. Some modifications are necessary:
Many of the references used are old. Please explain their need or choose more time-appropriate references ! Some reference are overused (Tarde, 1903,
Page 198- move the name of the next subchapter on the next page
Line 357- space between This certain
Tarde 1903, Rogers 1962, 1985 and 2003 appear way too much, Sam 1989
Lines 421-427- remove bold
Line 499- . not,
Line 532- on the next page
Lines 615-617 and 627-629 are the same. Please add only once and explain both elements in the same sentence
Line 785- on the next page
Line 851 - what does n a mean?
Line 966- please rephrase and then add the title
Line 1016- please move the name under the figure and not on the next page (make the figure smaller)
For figure 4 and 5 please add reference in text (where the information from the next presents the information in the figure)
Figure 4- make the stage visible in Communication stage
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #3,
Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment where you can find (point by point) the explanation of how each of them has been resolved. Please also see the new version of the manuscript, which we hope you appreciate.
Once again, thank you. Best,
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
I still do not consider this work as suitable for publishing.
