Definition of Food Consumption, Loss, and Waste

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper offers a new approach to the definition of food consumption, loss and waste, but it seems to me that it is more of a philosophical discussion of these terms.  As this type of analysis is not common in this area of science, a more detailed explanation of what it is for, how it is performed and what the aims/results of the analysis itself and its application are may be required for the population unfamiliar with ontological analysis. In my opinion, there are many statements and meaningful definitions that should be referenced in part of the discussion. Beyond that, I miss a clearer conclusion

 

Look at the text with regard to spaces and punctuation marks (in the text and in the title numbers).

 

Please change the subheading CLW to 2.3 to better follow the graphical representation and text.

 

Please add references in the discussion that support the text

Author Response

Please find attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper examines an important set of issues. Before the paper can move forward, I suggest the following revisions:

First, some of the assumptions made in the paper need more references and backup. To say that the global food system has three clear challenges (food availability, food loss, and food waste) is an opinion not necessarily supported by everyone. This statement could be made differently, first by explaining the different points of view and then making the case why they are the three most in need of further study.

Second, the introduction is not sufficient as currently constructed. The introduction should introduce broader literature and research on the topic. Then, it should explain what the research gap is and how it will be filled by the research in this paper. I think as constructed the paper jumps right into the specifics of the paper without doing the hard work to contextualize the study.

The materials and methods section also jumps right into specifics without articulating the rationale for this type of methodology. What has been done so far in this type of research methodologically speaking and how would this type of new method be useful. What are its strengths and weaknesses? This big picture would be helpful and possibly strengthened with use of a conceptual diagram.

Next, although this is a review paper, I think the Discussion section could more systematically work through what has been discussed and how this contributes to existing research on this topic. At the moment, I think the paper's is not conceptually wrapped together in part because the front end of the paper is not fully articulated. Also, the middle/end of the paper could use a conceptual diagram or table to explain these connections more clearly.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Generally good, although a reread to maximize writing would be beneficial

Author Response

Please find attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for giving me the chance to review the manuscript titled "An Ontological Framework of Food Consumption, Loss, and Waste." The authors have put forward an intriguing ontological approach aimed at deepening our understanding of food consumption, loss, and waste on a global scale. I truly appreciate the effort to offer a new lens through which we can view these critical issues.

1. Methodological Appreciation:

The use of an ontological framework to structure this study is thoughtful. It’s clear that the authors have put significant effort into devising a model that seeks to encapsulate the complex and interconnected nature of our global food system.

2. Familiar Concepts:

Upon a detailed review, it is evident that the topics of food consumption, loss, and waste, as discussed in the manuscript, align closely with definitions and frameworks already established by key organizations like the UN, FAO, and EC. These institutions have thoroughly explored these areas and have provided comprehensive frameworks that are widely recognized and implemented across various sectors globally.

3. Novelty and Practical Application:

While the ontological framework offers an interesting theoretical perspective, the manuscript does not introduce substantial new insights that extend beyond the well-established definitions and models. Essentially, it repackages known information into a new format but stops short of demonstrating how this reconfiguration leads to practical improvements or fresh theoretical advancements.

4. Concluding Thoughts and Recommendations:

The paper is methodologically solid. However, the contribution in terms of new knowledge or practical application appears limited, as the core concepts are already extensively covered by existing global frameworks.

Given these points, I must regretfully recommend rejecting this manuscript.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript employs academic language that is generally appropriate for its intended scholarly audience. However, it would benefit from simplifying complex sentence structures to enhance clarity and readability. Minor revisions to address these aspects would refine the manuscript and improve its overall presentation.

Author Response

Please find attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

The main purpose of the article is present a logically constructed ontological framework on food consumption, loss, and waste. The review article is a comphrensive review of the concept of food loss and waste, and considers all important dimensions of the concept, such as stage, food, users, and objectives. In my opinion, the article is well structured as a review article, it is well argue, and fits with the scope of the journal. Furthermore, it should be note that the article constributes to clarifying the concepts and dimensions involved on food losses and waste through a clear and some kind novel ontology. I would only suggest adding some research limitations in the conclusion and discuss future research opportunities regarding the empirical applications of this food loss and waste ontology.

Kind regards, 

Reviewer.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your endorsement. New sections on the limitations and future research opportunities have been added, and the conclusion enhanced slightly. We hope the additions will suffice.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, food loss and waste have done a relatively good combing, forming a new research framework, which is worthy of recognition. There are two suggestions for the author to improve this study

First, it is necessary to strengthen the reference of the latest literature, including loss and waste in different scenarios, places inside and outside the family (public canteens, cafes, hotels, campuses, hospitals, etc.), and comparisons between different countries (developing and developed countries).

Second, some fonts in the manuscript are red and need to be adjusted

Third, the marginal contribution of this study needs to be more clearly defined

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English expression is very standard and I don't have any suggestions

Author Response

Thank you for your positive comments. We have added a section with references on differentiation and integration of FLW based on the factors mentioned by the reviewer. We have also added briefly to the conclusion highlighting the contribution of the study. Last, we reviewed the paper and ensured consistency of the font. Since we have tracked the changes some of the changed text may appear in red font. We hope the additions are adequate.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper will be a good contribution to the journal.

Author Response

Thank you for your comment. We appreciate your endorsement.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While I appreciate the authors' efforts to update the manuscript in response to the feedback, I remain unconvinced that the revisions sufficiently address the fundamental concerns regarding novelty and contribution to the existing literature. The enhancements made to the discussion and conclusion, though thoughtful, still largely reaffirm existing frameworks without introducing significant new insights. Therefore, I maintain that the manuscript may not yet provide a substantial contribution to the current body of knowledge in its field.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript employs academic language that is generally appropriate for its intended scholarly audience.

Author Response

Thank you for the comment, but we beg to disagree with the reviewer’s response. This paper will contribute to systematic understanding of the consumption, food waste, and food loss system. Usually, the system does not include food consumption with food waste and food loss. We hope the additional sections on differentiation and integration of FLW, opportunities for empirical research, research limitations, and extension of conclusion will convince the reviewer.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revisions made to the manuscript. However, the updates do not address the core concerns about novelty and contribution to the field. The fundamental elements of the paper remain unchanged, and it still closely aligns with existing frameworks without providing new insights.