Economic Analysis of the Impact of Waste on the Production and Consumption of Dates in Saudi Arabia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting the paper. Please review the following comments and suggestions to help enhance the manuscript.

Abstract – Okay, but it needs some revision. The second sentence has an unclear reference to 'They.' Also, consider adding 1-3 key findings to the abstract for greater impact.

1.     Introduction- The authors present valuable arguments, but they need to be better supported with relevant literature. Additionally, the introduction could benefit from incorporating more key information to engage the readers' interest. The research problem and objectives of the paper are clearly articulated and effectively presented.

The 'Previous Studies' section could be strengthened by presenting a cohesive review of the literature that underscores the significance of prior work and highlights the research gap that motivated the study’s objectives. Additionally, maintaining a clear connection and smooth flow between each study discussed will enhance the overall presentation and help the reader better understanding.

 

2.     Materials and methods: The entire section requires thorough editing. While the data is well understood, the methods and various ratios presented need clearer explanations. It is essential to logically argue why each method is included, how it will be utilized, and how these methods are interconnected. The reader should easily grasp how these methods contribute to achieving the paper's stated objectives.

Pay close attention to providing theoretical justifications, equations, and the empirical equations for the variables. The use of variables should be well-defended.

Ensure the correct usage of coefficients and ratios throughout the discussion, distinguishing between them appropriately. Additionally, clarify the concept of 'stationarity' in the context of time series analysis.

 

3.     Results and Discussion: The authors have included numerous tables and graphs, which is commendable. However, these visual elements need to be more thoroughly explained within the context of the set objectives to ensure clarity and relevance.

4.     Conclusion: Some points require further clarification. For example, the recommendation to 'expands the use of modern technologies for post-harvest transportation and storage'?

 

References- Please do check again, follow journal guidelines

 

Note:  The language in the manuscript has some errors and inconsistencies. A thorough review would help fix these issues.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language in the manuscript has some errors and inconsistencies. A thorough review would help fix these issues.  

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

Thank you for submitting the paper. Please review the following comments and suggestions to help enhance the manuscript.

Abstract – Okay, but it needs some revision. The second sentence has an unclear reference to 'They.' Also, consider adding 1-3 key findings to the abstract for greater impact.

We corrected the grammatical errors. We have added some important information to the research, but we are committed to a limited number of words written in the abstract.

1. Introduction- The authors present valuable arguments, but they need to be better supported with relevant literature. Additionally, the introduction could benefit from incorporating more key information to engage the readers' interest. The research problem and objectives of the paper are clearly articulated and effectively presented.

The 'Previous Studies' section could be strengthened by presenting a cohesive review of the literature that underscores the significance of prior work and highlights the research gap that motivated the study’s objectives. Additionally, maintaining a clear connection and smooth flow between each study discussed will enhance the overall presentation and help the reader better understanding.

Some relevant literature has been added to introduction section. In addition, we have added background information (page 1&2).

In previous studies section, we have rewritten this section to have strengthened by providing a coherent review of the literature that emphasizes the importance of previous work (page 3&4).

1. Materials and methods: The entire section requires thorough editing. While the data is well understood, the methods and various ratios presented need clearer explanations. It is essential to logically argue why each method is included, how it will be utilized, and how these methods are interconnected. The reader should easily grasp how these methods contribute to achieving the paper's stated objectives.

Pay close attention to providing theoretical justifications, equations, and the empirical equations for the variables. The use of variables should be well-defended.

We have explained the methods and calculations in more detail. We have added reasons for the importance of these calculations and the steps for calculating the food security coefficient. We have provided justifications for the equations used and the expected economic hypothesis for each variable. (Page 4 & 5)

Ensure the correct usage of coefficients and ratios throughout the discussion, distinguishing between them appropriately. Additionally, clarify the concept of 'stationarity' in the context of time series analysis.

The reviewer mentioned the inquiry about “stability” in the research, and we inform that the analysis of unit root tests was done so that there is homogeneity or integration between the variables. This analysis was also done to determine whether the variable used at the level or by taking the first differences for the same variable. All this done in this in page 5,9 and 10

In general, the mathematical formula for the Phillips-Perron (PP) test is as follows:

The first difference represents the change in a time series variable over time. The null hypothesis is that the time series of the variable contains a unit root, meaning the series is not stationary. The alternative hypothesis is that the time series does not contain a unit root, indicating that it is stationary.

The problem of the presence of a unit root in the time series arises when the regression coefficient in the autoregressive model of the time series is equal to one, as in the following model:

where represents the variable under study, ​ represents the same variable but lagged by one period, and represents the random error term. When we estimate this model using the ordinary least squares method, we obtain the . If this estimate is equal to one, it indicates that the time series is not stationary and is characterized by a root equal to unity; hence the term "unit root."

After conducting the unit root test on the time series of the variable under study, if it turns out that it is not stationary at the level, we repeat the test at the first difference of this series. If the result indicates that the time series is still not stationary, we repeat the test again at the second difference, continuing this process until we achieve stationarity. We then say that the original series of the variable is integrated of the degree at which it stabilized. Finally, we verify that they are all integrated by joint integration.

1. Results and Discussion: The authors have included numerous tables and graphs, which is commendable. However, these visual elements need to be more thoroughly explained within the context of the set objectives to ensure clarity and relevance.

Some points have been explained. However, this is scientific research and we cannot include all the results in the table in the explanation, but we have summarized the most important data related to the research objectives.

1. Conclusion: Some points require further clarification. For example, the recommendation to 'expands the use of modern technologies for post-harvest transportation and storage'?

The phrase "expands the use of modern technologies for post-harvest transportation and storage" refers to increasing the implementation of advanced technologies to improve the processes involved in moving and storing agricultural products after they have been harvested. This can include improved packaging, temperature control, automation, and monitoring systems. Overall, this expansion aims to reduce waste, maintain product quality, and enhance efficiency in the supply chain.

References- Please do check again, follow journal guidelines

References have been reviewed.

Note: The language in the manuscript has some errors and inconsistencies. A thorough review would help fix these issues.

Proofreading was done by MDPI Author services

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

first of all, it is necessary to sort the keywords alphabetically. The second chapter must be thoroughly supplemented and expanded, including the mention of literature, especially the scientific articles in the WoS and Scopus databases, which you used in your scientific study. It is also necessary to describe and explain the use of basic scientific research methods such as analysis, synthesis, deduction, comparison and others. addresses this question very appropriately

Peráček, Tomas. (2022). E-commerce and its limits in the context of consumer protection: the case of the Slovak Republic. Juridical Tribune - Tribuna Juridica, 12 (1), pp. 35-50, doi: 10.24818/TBJ/2022/12/1.03.

Keep in mind that the results of your work can also be studied by lay people and it is necessary for them to understand them.

In order to increase the scientific value, he recommends expanding the theoretical basis with indexed works, e.g. European authors such as the already mentioned Peráček (2022). Authors such as

Dumitru, O.I. and Tomescu, A.V. 2020. European consumer law in the digital single market, Juridical Tribune. 10(2), pp. 222–238 available at https://www.tribunajuridica.eu/arhiva/An10v2/4.%20Ovidiu%20Ioan%20Dumitru&Andrei%20%20Viorel%20Tomescu.pdf

However, it is necessary to "clean up" the references very carefully, some of which are listed over three lines, such as e.g. lines 10,11,12 or references 36-42 which are just patterns from the template. Such a mess indicates the haste of the authors when submitting the article. However, this shortcoming can be easily removed.

I look forward to the revised version of your manuscript.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

first of all, it is necessary to sort the keywords alphabetically. The second chapter must be thoroughly supplemented and expanded, including the mention of literature, especially the scientific articles in the WoS and Scopus databases, which you used in your scientific study. It is also necessary to describe and explain the use of basic scientific research methods such as analysis, synthesis, deduction, comparison and others. addresses this question very appropriately

Necessary modifications have been made to the introduction (page 1&2) and previous studies (page 3& 4), as well as an explanation of the equations (page 4& 5).

Peráček, Tomas. (2022). E-commerce and its limits in the context of consumer protection: the case of the Slovak Republic. Juridical Tribune - Tribuna Juridica, 12 (1), pp. 35-50, doi: 10.24818/TBJ/2022/12/1.03.

Keep in mind that the results of your work can also be studied by lay people and it is necessary for them to understand them.

In order to increase the scientific value, he recommends expanding the theoretical basis with indexed works, e.g. European authors such as the already mentioned Peráček (2022). Authors such as

Dumitru, O.I. and Tomescu, A.V. 2020. European consumer law in the digital single market, Juridical Tribune. 10(2), pp. 222–238 available at https://www.tribunajuridica.eu/arhiva/An10v2/4.%20Ovidiu%20Ioan%20Dumitru&Andrei%20%20 Viorel%20Tomescu.pdf

These two researches are closer to theoretical researches, but our research is scientific and contains mathematical equations and econometrics. The required improvements have been made, which we see as a good addition to the research.

However, it is necessary to "clean up" the references very carefully, some of which are listed over three lines, such as e.g. lines 10,11,12 or references 36-42 which are just patterns from the template. Such a mess indicates the haste of the authors when submitting the article. However, this shortcoming can be easily removed.

References have been reviewed and clean up.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments have been addressed satisfactorily. Including any limitations of the study at the end of the conclusion section would further enhance the value of the manuscript.

Line 58- 59 – If this is a citation, please do add this to the references.

 

Author Response

Response to reviwer #1

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Improved

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Improved

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Improved

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Improved

Is the article adequately referenced?

Improved

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Improved

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments have been addressed satisfactorily. Including any limitations of the study at the end of the conclusion section would further enhance the value of the manuscript?

Some restrictions have been added in the conclusion.

Lines 58–59: If this is a citation, please do add this to the references.

Reference added

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thoroughly read the revised version of the manuscript as well as the authors' responses to my recommendations. I have to state that the authors probably uploaded answers to the recommendations of another reviewer to my recommendations.

I discovered that the authors only partially incorporated my recommendations. The introduction is really very short, the authors do not sufficiently address the question of the importance of their research and its likely contribution. In the beginning, the research questions/hypotheses should be stated, since the authors processed the obtained data very well.

As part of the methodology, basic scientific research methods such as analysis, synthesis, description should also be described, as the authors do in the recommended works. In addition, the authors ignore the requirement of legislative treatment of consumer protection, which would increase the scientific value of the work and complement the diversity of opinions used. The works of only one group of scientists dominate almost exclusively.

In the end, the limitations of the study as well as the issue of future research should also be addressed.

The authors also insufficiently addressed my last comment, which is the proper addition of data from individual sources, they were partially added, but several remain only indicated, such as e.g. reference 1.,22.., 23.

Author Response

Response to reviwer#2

 

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

The research was linked to previous research and future topics.

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Research questions and hypotheses are clearly stated.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Improved

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Improved

Is the article adequately referenced?

All references are documented.

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Improved

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I discovered that the authors only partially incorporated my recommendations. The introduction is really very short, the authors do not sufficiently address the question of the importance of their research and its likely contribution. In the beginning, the research questions/hypotheses should be stated, since the authors processed the obtained data very well.

Some studies write the introduction including the research problem, but in this study, we separated the research problem from the introduction, and the research questions, hypotheses, and its importance were added.

As part of the methodology, basic scientific research methods such as analysis, synthesis, description should also be described, as the authors do in the recommended works. In addition, the authors ignore the requirement of legislative treatment of consumer protection, which would increase the scientific value of the work and complement the diversity of opinions used. The works of only one group of scientists dominate almost exclusively.

We thank you for your comments regarding the methodology and scope of the literature discussed in our study. Regarding the inclusion of basic research methods, we recognize the importance of identifying the basic research methods used in this study. We have provided an additional description of our methodological framework (a description of the variables entered into the model and a definition of some of the indicators used in the research). Regarding the legislative treatment of consumer protection, we recognize the importance of incorporating a legislative perspective on consumer protection into our analysis to enhance the scientific value of our work. We have discussed some of the relevant legislative frameworks and their effects on consumer protection in the context of our study in the introduction, as well as when presenting the results and also in the conclusion. Finally, we appreciate your comment regarding the dominance of one group of scholars in our references in the research methodology. The methodology included the published references available to us, which are (6 research references from reference No. 24 to reference No. 29), each reference addresses a different paragraph from the other reference.

In the end, the limitations of the study as well as the issue of future research should also be addressed.

Study limitations and future research are added in the conclusion.

The authors also insufficiently addressed my last comment, which is the proper addition of data from individual sources, they were partially added, but several remain only indicated, such as e.g. reference 1.,22.., 23

All data is referred to in its original references.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree with publication