Consumer Trust in Emerging Food Technologies: A Comparative Analysis of Croatia and India
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The manuscript presents a well-structured bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer to explore the conceptual and thematic landscape of consumer trust in emerging food technologies. The progression from literature review and hypothesis development through methodology, results, and discussion is coherent and methodologically sound.
The results are clearly presented and appropriately interpreted, with attention to key statistical outputs (e.g., significance levels, F-values, interaction effects). The comparative findings between Croatia and India are well contextualized within relevant literature, and offer valuable cross-cultural insights.
Consistency should be improved:
Capitalization of terms like "Country", "Gender", and "Place of Residence" in tables and narratives should be consistent. Lowercase are expected except when referencing the formal variable name (e.g., "The effect of country was significant…").
The use either Country ✻ Gender or Country × Gender consistently across text and tables is expected. The asterisk (*) or multiplication sign (×) is preferred in statistical reporting.
When presenting multiple tables, consider referring to each in the main text explicitly.
If multiple comparisons are conducted, specify the correction method used (e.g., Bonferroni, Tukey). Even when applying the conventional p < 0.05 threshold, mention of correction enhances robustness.
Discussion:
The discussion integrates the literature well, but some references (e.g., Xia et al., 2024; Califano et al., 2024) could be more precisely tied to your hypotheses and findings. Currently, they appear more as background than as interpretive support.
Limitations
The manuscript would benefit from a more explicit limitations section. While the study makes a valuable contribution, it is important to acknowledge certain constraints, such as: The limited number of countries included in the comparative analysis (Croatia and India), which may affect generalizability; Potential cultural or socioeconomic variables not captured in the model; The use of self-reported data, which may be subject to bias.
Acknowledging these limitations would not weaken the study, but rather demonstrate transparency.
The contribution of the paper, research gap:
The contribution to the theoretical understanding of consumer trust could be stated more explicitly: This study offers valuable insights for stakeholders aiming to bridge the gap between technological innovation and societal acceptance. The research contributes to the growing literature on food technology adoption by conceptualizing trust as a dynamic, localized, and socially embedded phenomenon.
Author Response
In attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- Why were Croatia and India chosen as the research subjects？
- What is the function of Table 2? You are supposed to list the content of literature rather than the author.
- The conclusion of the article needs to be more concise.
- What are the specific differences and reasons in the trust of consumers in emerging technologies between the two countries?
Author Response
In attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and they address the main question posed. But I would like to be just 2-3 paragraphs and some of them to be added at the discussion (the paragraph with the references).
- MORE REFERENCES NEED TO BE ADDED AT first and last paragraphs of the introduction. References should be removed from the conclusions.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
In attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWhat is the relationship between the 16 clusters in Table 2 and the 8 clusters in Table 1?
Figure 1 encompasses diverse concepts, including attitude, perception, and quality—even within the central area. Why, then, were acceptance and technological augmentation specifically selected for further elaboration in Figures 2 and 3?
Consider naming each cluster based on its conceptual meaning derived from the literature, rather than using simple numerical labels.
The literature review is relatively thorough; however, consider removing some of the older references, for example, using the year 2020 as a cutoff point.
It is recommended to incorporate your own critical analysis (not merely subjective opinions), rather than simply listing the viewpoints of previous studies. Use the literature review to identify research gaps and formulate research questions in order to highlight the contribution and necessity of this paper.
The hypotheses proposed in Chapter 2 appear abrupt. Why is this research being conducted? It is difficult to discern from the writing the significance of comparing public perceptions between the two countries.
When proposing hypotheses, you should reference previous studies or relevant theoretical models in consumer behavior.
Tables 4 and 5 provide very limited information and do not need to be presented separately; the content can be explained within the main text.
I agree that Box's M is a more sensitive statistical method, and therefore, the significance threshold is often adjusted to 0.01 instead of 0.05. However, this paper still fails to meet this basic requirement. In addition, MANOVA also requires conducting Levene’s test, which the author has overlooked. My recommendation is to consider a non-parametric analysis such as the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test instead of MANOVA.
Please include an effect size analysis, such as Hedges’ g.
Please provide details on how invalid samples were excluded, the effective response rate, and the specific survey procedure followed.
Please elaborate on the methods used to control for common method bias (Important).
The research results and discussion should be presented in two separate chapters. In the discussion section, you should interpret how your findings support or challenge existing studies.
In the conclusion chapter, include two subsections to explain the theoretical contributions and practical implications of your research.
Author Response
In attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll of my previous comments have been addressed by the author. I have no additional comments.
