Influence of Agricultural Chains on the Carbon Footprint in the Context of European Green Pact and Crises
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents very useful analyses of the agriculture activity in EU member countries in terms of carbon footprint. However, it is not kind to readers. The reviewer requests the authors to consider the following points.
- Chart1: it is difficult to identify the countries since the lines are thin. Please revise it more visible. For example, it is no need to use space in the titles, such as ‘Evolution of GDP’. It can be written inside the chat as ‘GDP’.
- Table 2&3: Also, it is very difficult to read them.
- The authors put the hypotheses, H1-6. Please list these hypotheses.
- The authors also consider the significant digits, especially the Confidence intervals in Table 1.
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam,
First of all, thank you for the time dedicated to review the article.
Secondly, we responded to your suggestions as follows:
- Chart1: it is difficult to identify the countries since the lines are thin. Please revise it more visible. For example, it is no need to use space in the titles, such as ‘Evolution of GDP’. It can be written inside the chat as ‘GDP’.
Chart 1 has been modified. The lines have been strengthened, and from the title has been deleted "Evolution of".
- Table 2&3: Also, it is very difficult to read them.
Tables 2 and 3 have been modified. They have been written in the classic horizontal form and have been framed accordingly on page.
- The authors put the hypotheses, H1-6. Please list these hypotheses.
We listed all 6 hypotheses in Part 2 of the paper, Materials and Methodology, in the sub-chapter where we described the data (2.1).
- The authors also consider the significant digits, especially the Confidence intervals in Table 1.
In Table 1 we reduced the digits from confidence intervals. We have left four digits after the decimal point in order to smooth the appearance of the probability values.
All changes have been highlighted in blue. Also, all linguistic changes have been highlighted in red.
We hope that we have understood your suggestions correctly, and the changes made to the paper are in line with them. If additional interventions on the text are necessary, we are open to make them.
Once again thank you and all the best!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
Title:
For me the title mixes subjects and doesn't delve into COVID and Ukraine... For me the Title should be reformulated without these 2 points.
Abstract and Introduction are good, but pull out the parts about COVID and Ukraine.
Methods should be better explained. It is too short and the technique should be better presented.
Results:
Chart 1. Indicators` evolution (1995-2019) is to small and they should be bigger enough to be easily viewed.
Tables 2 and 3 are terrible to read, they should be reworded.
This item seems unnecessary to me (5. The role of agri-food chains in the context of the energy and food crises generated 535
by the Russian-Ukrainian conflict)
Conclusions:
Conclusions should be more direct and shorter.
References are OK.
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam,
First of all, thank you for the time dedicated to review the article.
Secondly, we responded to your suggestions as follows:
- Title: For me the title mixes subjects and doesn't delve into COVID and Ukraine... For me the Title should be reformulated without these 2 points.
We changed the title of the article and we removed all references to conflict from the text.
- Abstract and Introduction are good, but pull out the parts about COVID and Ukraine.
Similar to the title, we dropped the text referring to the Ukraine conflict in the Abstract.
- Methods should be better explained. It is too short and the technique should be better presented.
We developed, as far as possible, the methodology applied.
- Results:
Chart 1. Indicators` evolution (1995-2019) is to small and they should be bigger enough to be easily viewed.
Chart 1 has been modified to make it more readable. At the suggestion of Reviewer 1 we have modified/simplified the title of the graphs.
Tables 2 and 3 are terrible to read, they should be reworded.
Tables 2 and 3 have been amended. They have been written in the classical form, horizontally, and framed on the page according to the requirements of the journal.
This item seems unnecessary to me (5. The role of agri-food chains in the context of the energy and food crises generated by the Russian-Ukrainian conflict)
The part of the text referring to the conflict in Ukraine has been removed.
- Conclusions: Conclusions should be more direct and shorter. References are OK.
We shortened a part of the Conclusions but not too much in order not to miss essential aspects.
We hope that we understood your suggestions correctly and responded appropriately to them. If you feel that additional work on the text is needed, we are open to do it.
All changes are in blue and all linguistic changes are in red.
Once again, thank you and all the best!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
the corrections improved your paper and the final result was good.
