Who Reaches the Consumer? A Network Analysis of Market Reach Factors of Slovakia’s Short Food Supply Chains

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Theoretical Weakness in Post-Socialist Context

The authors admit that agricultural cooperatives, often associated with low-value-added commodity production in post-socialist legacies, performed surprisingly well in SFSCs. While the paper suggests this indicates "new collaborative structures," the study does not provide qualitative evidence to distinguish between legacy organizational structures and genuine new collaborative business models. This leaves the interpretation of the "cooperative" variable somewhat speculative.

2. Hypothesis Testability and Non-Confirmation

The study fails to confirm several key hypotheses, which suggests either a lack of theoretical fit for the post-socialist context or a lack of granular data:

• H1b, H2b, and H3a/b were not confirmed, indicating that the study found no evidence that larger size (in urban markets), experience, or production diversification inherently increases market reach as predicted by the existing literature.
• In Model 6, the introduction of interaction terms (distance and population density) rendered the main effect of "experience" statistically insignificant, suggesting that simple experience does not overcome logistical barriers.

3. Data Representativeness and Sampling Bias

• Line 257 and Table 1: The authors acknowledge that small producers with fewer than 10 employees are underrepresented (79.61% in the sample vs. 94.76% in the population) while larger enterprises are significantly overrepresented. Scientifically, this is problematic because short food supply chains (SFSCs) are rooted in small-scale farming. Over-sampling larger firms may bias the results toward the success of cooperatives and larger entities, potentially misrepresenting the structural reality of the "average" Slovak SFSC producer.
• Line 224-228: The reliance on the lokalny-trh.sk platform introduces a self-selection bias. Since registration is voluntary, the dataset likely captures producers with higher digital literacy and marketing motivation. The authors should discuss how this affects the generalizability of the findings to the broader agricultural population in Slovakia.

4. Methodological Inaccuracies and Model Fit

• • Lines 488–490: The authors state that for Models 1 and 4, replicating the b2degree distribution (number of ties for points of sale) proved "challenging". This suggests that the ERGM may not fully capture the underlying logic of how retail hubs form in these networks. The authors should provide more detail on the specific goodness-of-fit (GOF) deviations seen in Figure A1 for these models to ensure the results are not artifacts of a poorly fitted model.
  • Line 491-494: Variables were excluded from subnetworks where "no observations existed for certain combinations" (e.g., raw products in specialized stores) or where they caused convergence problems. Excluding these variables due to data sparsity might mask significant negative associations (e.g., certain product types being systematically excluded from specific channels).
  • Line 238: The median imputation for the year of establishment for 2.94% of the sample is a minor inaccuracy but could affect the "experience" variable. Given that experience was found to be statistically insignificant in Model 6 after introducing interaction terms, the authors should clarify whether this lack of significance could be due to insufficient granular data for these producers.

5. Logical and Conceptual Unclarities

• Line 401–402: To explain the rare distance between "on-site" points of sale and producer locations, the authors suggest "the producer has multiple production sites or facilities, or a spatially fragmented place of production". This is speculative and lacks empirical support within the dataset. Unless the platform provides data on land fragmentation, this sentence should be phrased as a hypothesis rather than a fact.
• Lines 591–592: The manuscript suggests that family farms exhibit a lower tendency to form ties because they may focus on a "narrow set of channels where they can best valorize the added value". This conclusion contradicts the positive association observed in Models 2 (Own Store) and 3 (Specialized Store). The authors need to reconcile why family farms are active in "demanding" channels but show a lower overall tie formation in the comprehensive model.
• Line 646–648 (Table 6): The finding that large enterprises are significantly less capable of supplying POS in densely populated locations (indicated by a negative interaction term in Table 6) requires more robust discussion. This contradicts the general assumption that larger firms have the logistical capacity to penetrate urban markets. The authors should explore whether this is due to larger firms focusing on regional distribution hubs rather than "on-site" or "specialized" urban retail.

6. Missing Controls and Context

• The network analysis treats ties as binary (presence or absence). It does not account for the volume or value of products sold through these ties, which are vital metrics for economic viability.
• Lines 242–243: The study explicitly excludes online stores, farmers' markets, and HoReCa channels. These are major components of SFSCs. Their absence means the "total_degree" variable (number of ties) used in the models is an incomplete metric of a producer's total market reach, which might skew the coefficients for "success" factors.
• Lines 741-744: The authors mention the west-centric nature of the data as a limitation. This is a significant scientific inaccuracy regarding the "National" scope of the paper's title. The paper would be more accurately described as an analysis of SFSCs in Western Slovakia, or the authors should provide a weighted analysis to compensate for the east’s regional underrepresentation.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your comments and effort towards improvement of our manuscript.

1. Theoretical Weakness in Post-Socialist Context

The authors admit that agricultural cooperatives, often associated with low-value-added commodity production in post-socialist legacies, performed surprisingly well in SFSCs. While the paper suggests this indicates "new collaborative structures," the study does not provide qualitative evidence to distinguish between legacy organizational structures and genuine new collaborative business models. This leaves the interpretation of the "cooperative" variable somewhat speculative.

Response: The present study has an exploratory character and is based on a quantitative platform-derived dataset that does not allow us to distinguish in detail between legacy cooperative structures and genuinely new collaborative business models. Therefore, we cannot empirically assess whether the observed performance of cooperatives reflects post-socialist organizational continuities or newly emerging cooperative arrangements. This limitation is now more clearly acknowledged in the Discussion and Conclusions and the nature of contemporary cooperatives in SFSCs is more explicitly set as a key direction for further, qualitatively oriented research.

1. Hypothesis Testability and Non-Confirmation

The study fails to confirm several key hypotheses, which suggests either a lack of theoretical fit for the post-socialist context or a lack of granular data:

• H1b, H2b, and H3a/b were not confirmed, indicating that the study found no evidence that larger size (in urban markets), experience, or production diversification inherently increases market reach as predicted by the existing literature.

Response: Product diversification did not affect market reach; however, in Model 6 the interaction between diversification and distance indicates that, for diversified producers, logistical constraints likely constitute a key barrier and firms tend to encounter capacity limits. Paradoxically, in the context of Slovak SFSC channels, diversified production may therefore reduce economies of scale for some producers. Experience and large firms are discussed in more detail in the comments below.

• In Model 6, the introduction of interaction terms (distance and population density) rendered the main effect of "experience" statistically insignificant, suggesting that simple experience does not overcome logistical barriers.

Response: Indeed, number of years in operation does not necessarily reflect accumulated market capacity. Many small producers have operated for long periods in a “survival mode,” constrained by limited capital, production capacity, and restricted growth opportunities, which prevents them from achieving economies of scale or investing in market expansion.

3. Data Representativeness and Sampling Bias

• Line 257 and Table 1: The authors acknowledge that small producers with fewer than 10 employees are underrepresented (79.61% in the sample vs. 94.76% in the population) while larger enterprises are significantly overrepresented. Scientifically, this is problematic because short food supply chains (SFSCs) are rooted in small-scale farming. Over-sampling larger firms may bias the results toward the success of cooperatives and larger entities, potentially misrepresenting the structural reality of the "average" Slovak SFSC producer.

Response: This comment helped us to better clarify the nature of SFSCs in Slovakia. The distribution channels available to the smallest producers are, in some legal forms, constrained by legislation and hygiene requirements. An example is the ‘sale from the farm gate’ regime, under which producers may sell only small quantities of their own production while meeting basic hygiene and record-keeping conditions. In the context of this research, the most relevant limitations are the spatial restrictions on sales, which are tied to on-site sales at the place of production, local markets and events, and local retail outlets within the region. In addition, based on contacts with producers, the authors have indications that a substantial group of small producers in Slovakia operates in the grey economy and deliberately avoids visibility. Part of the smallest producers thus remains outside official channels or operates in a semi-formal economy. Together with, for example, lower digital skills among older farmers, these factors are, in our view, an important source of the underrepresentation of micro-enterprises in the sample. These issues have been clarified more explicitly in the section on research limitations. In this respect, it is not only what the research reveals that is important, but also what remains hidden: the sphere of the grey and semi-grey economy, and the conditions under which producers are able to move into official channels, represents an important direction for future research.

• Line 224-228: The reliance on the lokalny-trh.sk platform introduces a self-selection bias. Since registration is voluntary, the dataset likely captures producers with higher digital literacy and marketing motivation. The authors should discuss how this affects the generalizability of the findings to the broader agricultural population in Slovakia.

Response: We acknowledge that the reliance on the lokalnytrh.sk platform entails a degree of self-selection, as participation is voluntary and more likely to attract producers with higher digital literacy and marketing motivation. This may limit the generalizability of the findings to the broader population of Slovak agricultural producers, particularly the smallest and less digitally fluent actors, and this limitation has now been more explicitly noted in the revised manuscript.

4. Methodological Inaccuracies and Model Fit

• Lines 488–490: The authors state that for Models 1 and 4, replicating the b2degree distribution (number of ties for points of sale) proved "challenging". This suggests that the ERGM may not fully capture the underlying logic of how retail hubs form in these networks. The authors should provide more detail on the specific goodness-of-fit (GOF) deviations seen in Figure A1 for these models to ensure the results are not artifacts of a poorly fitted model.

Response: We have expanded the discussion of the GOF results to specify that the main deviation concerns the POS (b2degree) distribution in Models 1 and 4. It reflects limitations of the models in reproducing extreme degrees as we utilized an unified model specification for all of the subnetworks. We also clarify that this deviation is localized to the b2degree statistic and does not affect producer degree distributions or the estimated covariate effects, which are the primary focus of interpretation.

• Line 491-494: Variables were excluded from subnetworks where "no observations existed for certain combinations" (e.g., raw products in specialized stores) or where they caused convergence problems. Excluding these variables due to data sparsity might mask significant negative associations (e.g., certain product types being systematically excluded from specific channels).

Response: These variables were exluced in the given subnetwork models because no ties were observed for those producer-chnannel combinations. This made the corresponding ERGM paramters inestimable. Indeed, no ties for the given subnetworks indicates very strong negative associations as none of the producers of raw agricultural products used specialized stores and none of the bee product producers utilized local retail chains. This was clarified in the manuscript

• Line 238: The median imputation for the year of establishment for 2.94% of the sample is a minor inaccuracy but could affect the "experience" variable. Given that experience was found to be statistically insignificant in Model 6 after introducing interaction terms, the authors should clarify whether this lack of significance could be due to insufficient granular data for these producers.

Response: We believe the insignificance of experience in Model 6 is substantive, as described in the modified version of the manuscript. The distribution of the experience variable is  right-skewed, and most producers cluster at relatively low values, which points to discontinuity after 1989 and the subsequent unstable market environment. Imputation of 2.94% of the data does not play a significant role as before imputation, we specified preliminary models, and based on them,  minimal differences were observed with the subsequent models with imputed values.

5. Logical and Conceptual Unclarities

• Line 401–402: To explain the rare distance between "on-site" points of sale and producer locations, the authors suggest "the producer has multiple production sites or facilities, or a spatially fragmented place of production". This is speculative and lacks empirical support within the dataset. Unless the platform provides data on land fragmentation, this sentence should be phrased as a hypothesis rather than a fact.

Response: The statement does not refer to land fragmentation in a cadastral sense and the text has been revised. What we observed is that producers listed several distinct on-site sale locations (different farms or production units).

• Lines 591–592: The manuscript suggests that family farms exhibit a lower tendency to form ties because they may focus on a "narrow set of channels where they can best valorize the added value". This conclusion contradicts the positive association observed in Models 2 (Own Store) and 3 (Specialized Store). The authors need to reconcile why family farms are active in "demanding" channels but show a lower overall tie formation in the comprehensive model.

Response: We clarified in the revised manuscript that this is not a contradiction. Models 2 and 3 capture participation in specific channels, while the comprehensive model reflects overall tie formation across all channel types. The results indicate that family farms are selectively active in demanding, high-value channels but remain less extensive in their total number of ties, reflecting a strategy of concentration on a narrow set of outlets rather than broad market expansion.

• Line 646–648 (Table 6): The finding that large enterprises are significantly less capable of supplying POS in densely populated locations (indicated by a negative interaction term in Table 6) requires more robust discussion. This contradicts the general assumption that larger firms have the logistical capacity to penetrate urban markets. The authors should explore whether this is due to larger firms focusing on regional distribution hubs rather than "on-site" or "specialized" urban retail.

Response: In the case of H1b, an interesting result emerges: although large firms generally dominate in the use of marketing channels and are also capable of supplying distant markets, paradoxically, as population density at the place of sale increases, the tendency of large firms to supply these outlets decreases. We assume that while larger firms supply many points of sale, in highly urbanized areas they must face competition from smaller producers offering highly differentiated niche products (such product differentiation may be associated with authenticity or other labels that are not captured by the model). In this context, the largest markets may be saturated to some extent (the visualizations show that demand is concentrated especially in Bratislava, but supply flows from many producers are also directed there). Large firms may instead target medium-sized towns, where competition is weaker and their scale provides an advantage. The relative advantage of larger firms within SFSCs therefore declines as market density increases. These results are discussed in greater detail in the Discussion section.

6. Missing Controls and Context

• The network analysis treats ties as binary (presence or absence). It does not account for the volume or value of products sold through these ties, which are vital metrics for economic viability.

Response: We acknowledge this limitation. In the Slovak context, obtaining systematic data on sales volumes or values specifically for SFSC producers is extremely difficult, and flow-level data between individual producers and places of sale are not available.The utilized dataset represents the largest available structured source on producer–place of sale linkages, allowing analysis of network structure and market access despite the absence of volume information.

• Lines 242–243: The study explicitly excludes online stores, farmers' markets, and HoReCa channels. These are major components of SFSCs. Their absence means the "total_degree" variable (number of ties) used in the models is an incomplete metric of a producer's total market reach, which might skew the coefficients for "success" factors.

Response: We agree that the exclusion of online stores, farmers’ markets, and HoReCa channels means that the total_degree variable does not capture the full spectrum of producers’ market relations. However, within the scope of the platform-based dataset, total_degree measures relative differences in market reach across comparable distribution channels. We assume that producers who maintain a higher number of ties in the observed channels are also more likely to exhibit broader market engagement in omitted channels, so the indicator reflects relative rather than absolute market reach. This limitation has been more explicitly acknowledged in the revised manuscript.

• Lines 741-744: The authors mention the west-centric nature of the data as a limitation. This is a significant scientific inaccuracy regarding the "National" scope of the paper's title. The paper would be more accurately described as an analysis of SFSCs in Western Slovakia, or the authors should provide a weighted analysis to compensate for the east’s regional underrepresentation.

Response: We acknowledge the west-centric pattern in the sample as a limitation; however, the platform is open to all producers and we are not aware of any systematic reason for the underrepresentation of eastern regions. The spatial pattern may partly reflect the actual geography of SFSC participation in Slovakia and includes long-distance ties between eastern producers and western urban markets. For these reasons, we consider the national scope of the analysis justified and therefore retain the national framing in the paper’s title.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The article focuses on " Who Reaches the Consumer? A Network Analysis of Market Reach Factors of Slovakia’s Short Food Supply Chains ".

The manuscript entitled “Who Reaches the Consumer? A Network Analysis of Market Reach Factors of Slovakia’s Short Food Supply Chains” addresses an important and timely topic related to the functioning of short food supply chains (SFSCs) and producers’ access to markets. The study is based on an original and well-documented dataset and applies advanced network analytical methods (ERGM).

The manuscript makes a valuable contribution, particularly by focusing on a post-socialist context and by distinguishing between different types of direct and intermediated distribution channels.

However, minor to moderate revisions are required to improve clarity, strengthen the articulation of the theoretical contribution, and refine the interpretation of results.

Major comments

1. Clarification of the theoretical contribution

While the paper is well grounded in the literature, the specific theoretical contribution could be made more explicit, particularly in the Introduction. The authors are encouraged to clearly state how their study advances existing research beyond prior SFSC typologies and market access studies (e.g., through the use of ERGM, the national-scale perspective, or the post-socialist institutional context).

2. Hypotheses structure and readability

The number of hypotheses is relatively large. Although they are logically derived, their presentation could be streamlined or grouped thematically (e.g., producer capacity, value-based differentiation, organizational form). This would improve readability and help readers follow the logic from hypotheses to results.

3. Interpretation of results

The ERGM methodology is applied correctly and rigorously. However, some result interpretations remain descriptive. In several places, the discussion would benefit from deeper engagement with the underlying mechanisms explaining why certain producer types (e.g., cooperatives, organic producers, family farms) are more successful in accessing distant or high-demand markets. This would strengthen the analytical contribution.

4. Discussion of contextual specificity

The manuscript emphasizes the post-socialist context of Slovakia, which is a clear strength. However, the Discussion section could more explicitly address which findings are likely context-specific and which may be generalizable to other countries or regions. This would enhance the broader relevance of the study.

Accordingly, it is opinion of this reviewer to accept with major revisions the proposed manuscript for a publication on this journal.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your comments and effort towards improvement of our manuscript.

1. Clarification of the theoretical contribution

While the paper is well grounded in the literature, the specific theoretical contribution could be made more explicit, particularly in the Introduction. The authors are encouraged to clearly state how their study advances existing research beyond prior SFSC typologies and market access studies (e.g., through the use of ERGM, the national-scale perspective, or the post-socialist institutional context).

Response: The Introduction has been revised to make the theoretical contribution explicit by emphasizing the use of a network-based (ERGM) approach, the national-scale perspective, and the post-socialist context as key advances beyond existing SFSC typologies and market-access studies.

2. Hypotheses structure and readability

The number of hypotheses is relatively large. Although they are logically derived, their presentation could be streamlined or grouped thematically (e.g., producer capacity, value-based differentiation, organizational form). This would improve readability and help readers follow the logic from hypotheses to results.

Response: The hypotheses were embedded within the relevant parts of the literature review according to three thematic domains: producer capacity, value-based and product-related strategies, and organizational form.

3. Interpretation of results

The ERGM methodology is applied correctly and rigorously. However, some result interpretations remain descriptive. In several places, the discussion would benefit from deeper engagement with the underlying mechanisms explaining why certain producer types (e.g., cooperatives, organic producers, family farms) are more successful in accessing distant or high-demand markets. This would strengthen the analytical contribution.

Response: We have revised the Discussion section and tried to more explicitly address the mechanisms underlying the observed patterns.

4. Discussion of contextual specificity

The manuscript emphasizes the post-socialist context of Slovakia, which is a clear strength. However, the Discussion section could more explicitly address which findings are likely context-specific and which may be generalizable to other countries or regions. This would enhance the broader relevance of the study.

Response: The Discussion has been expanded to distinguish between findings that are specific to the post-socialist context (mainly the role of legacy structures) and those that are likely transferable to other settings (value based product differentiation and organizational capacity for accessing distant and high-demand markets).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript “Who Reaches the Consumer? A Network Analysis of Market Reach Factors of Slovakia’s Short Food Supply Chains” focused on the investigation of factors shaping the ability of the short food supply chains producers to reach consumers through different distribution channels and to access markets with higher demand. The topic of the study is current and of great interest to “Agriculture” journal readers. The methodology adopted - network analysis - is suitable for the objectives of the study and well implemented by the authors. In my opinion, the manuscript only needs some minor changes to make it more readable and complete:

Abstract

• Lines 16-17: The authors should not use the term “the study confirms...” in the Abstract because the research hypotheses have not yet been stated and the literature review has not been shown. Modify the sentence.

Keywords

• Lines 24: Replace the keyword "short food supply chains" because it is already used in the title.

Introduction

• Lines 28-30: The authors should better explain the relationship between short food supply chains and climate change in the “Introduction” section.
• Lines44-45: Add a reference to the sentence “These and other challenges are...face limited scalability and access to markets.

Literature review and hypotheses development

• I fully agree with having used the results of the literature review to formulate the research hypotheses. However, it would be necessary to specify how the literature search was conducted: What keywords were used? In which search engine (Scopus, WoS, Google Scholar)? What timeframe? What criteria were used? Add this information to the first part of the “Literature review and hypotheses development” section.
• Line 94: Modify as follows: “...by Marsden et al. [24] and Renting et al. [4]...”.

Methodology

• Lines 229-230: Considering the sentence “Every producer listed on the platform reported at least one point of sale”, Does this mean that you have treated producers who indicated multiple points of sale in the same way as those who indicated only one point of sale (but without certainty that they had others)? Please clarify this in the text.
• Lines 224 and 234: According to what criteria were 9 producers excluded? (from 995 to 986).
• Lines 252-261 and Table 1: In my opinion, this part (with Table 1) is more suitable as the first paragraph of the “Results” section in order to describe the sample of producers.
• Table 1 and related text: What about the year of operation and product types (two information collected by the platform – see lines 226-227)? Add this information to the description of sample of producers because in my opinion they are interesting.

Results

The “Results” section is well done and complete with information (even too much, making it not easy to follow in some parts). In my opinion, the authors should summarize the text with the models and add a descriptive table summarizing the models.

• Move the description of the sample (lines 252-261 and Table 1) in the “Results” section as first paragraph.

Discussion

I really appreciated the “Discussion” structured around individual research hypotheses. This structure allows for easy interpretation and reading of the results. Congratulations!

Conclusions

The first part of “Conclusions” section is a repetition of what was previously stated. In my opinion, the initial repetitive part should be eliminated, while the authors should add: (1) practical implications for a possible improvement of short food supply chains in Slovakia based on their own findings; (2) possible future developments of the study.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your comments and effort towards improvement of our manuscript.

Abstract

• Lines 16-17: The authors should not use the term “the study confirms...” in the Abstract because the research hypotheses have not yet been stated and the literature review has not been shown. Modify the sentence.

Response: The sentence has been modified

Keywords

• Lines 24: Replace the keyword "short food supply chains" because it is already used in the title.

Response: The key word has been replaced

Introduction

• Lines 28-30: The authors should better explain the relationship between short food supply chains and climate change in the “Introduction” section.

Response: The relationship between short food supply chains and climate change has been clarified in the Introduction by explicitly linking SFSCs to resilience against climate-related disruptions and to the reduction of environmental impacts.

• Lines44-45: Add a reference to the sentence “These and other challenges are...face limited scalability and access to markets.

Response: A reference has been added

Literature review and hypotheses development

• I fully agree with having used the results of the literature review to formulate the research hypotheses. However, it would be necessary to specify how the literature search was conducted: What keywords were used? In which search engine (Scopus, WoS, Google Scholar)? What timeframe? What criteria were used? Add this information to the first part of the “Literature review and hypotheses development” section.

Response: We have added a short methodological note to the beginning of the literature review section specifying the search strategy, time frame, databases used, and the main keywords guiding the literature selection.

• Line 94: Modify as follows: “...by Marsden et al. [24] and Renting et al. [4]...”.

Response: The text has been modified

Methodology

• Lines 229-230: Considering the sentence “Every producer listed on the platform reported at least one point of sale”, Does this mean that you have treated producers who indicated multiple points of sale in the same way as those who indicated only one point of sale (but without certainty that they had others)? Please clarify this in the text.

Response: We have revised the methodology section to explicitly state that the network is constructed at the producer–point of sale tie level, so producers reporting multiple points of sale are represented by multiple ties, while those reporting only one point of sale are represented by a single tie; they are therefore not treated as equivalent in the analysis.

• Lines 224 and 234: According to what criteria were 9 producers excluded? (from 995 to 986).

Response: Of the nine excluded cases, five records contained incomplete or inconsistent information on the platform that did not allow reliable identification of the producer, two entities operated exclusively in mainstream distribution channels and did not use any SFSC-type points of sale, and one entity was not an agri-food producer.

• Lines 252-261 and Table 1: In my opinion, this part (with Table 1) is more suitable as the first paragraph of the “Results” section in order to describe the sample of producers.
• Table 1 and related text: What about the year of operation and product types (two information collected by the platform – see lines 226-227)? Add this information to the description of sample of producers because in my opinion they are interesting.

Response: The section on sample representativeness was retained in the Methodology section; however, it was revised and now provides a more comprehensive description of the limitations of the research sample. At the beginning of the Results section, a characterization of producers was added with respect to their regional location, size, product portfolio, and number of years in operation. Visualizations of these characteristics were included in Appendix A in the form of figures.

Results

The “Results” section is well done and complete with information (even too much, making it not easy to follow in some parts). In my opinion, the authors should summarize the text with the models and add a descriptive table summarizing the models.

Response: „We agree that a more compact presentation of the models could improve readability. However, in response to other reviewers’ comments, the manuscript was  revised by expanding and deepening the Discussion section to strengthen the interpretation of results. Given the current length  and the need to balance different review requests, we decided not to add an additional summary table. Instead, we improved the structure and clarity.“

• Move the description of the sample (lines 252-261 and Table 1) in the “Results” section as first paragraph.

Response: As was explained above, we opted to retain the Table 1 in the Methodology section.

Discussion

I really appreciated the “Discussion” structured around individual research hypotheses. This structure allows for easy interpretation and reading of the results. Congratulations!

Conclusions

The first part of “Conclusions” section is a repetition of what was previously stated. In my opinion, the initial repetitive part should be eliminated, while the authors should add: (1) practical implications for a possible improvement of short food supply chains in Slovakia based on their own findings; (2) possible future developments of the study.

Response: The Conclusions section has been revised to reduce repetition and to place greater emphasis on practical implications for improving SFSCs. In addition, a separate paragraph outlining directions for future research has been added.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with the analysis of the relationship between the structure of agricultural holdings, socioeconomic characteristics and the sustainability of family farms in Slovakia. It was done using econometric modeling. The topic is current and relevant to the field of agrarian economy and rural development, but the work in its current form has a number of conceptual, methodological and structural deficiencies that need to be corrected in order to meet the standards of a scientific journal.

In the introduction, the wider issue of family farms and their significance is clearly presented, but the introduction remains predominantly descriptive and does not lead the reader to a precisely defined research problem. There is a lack of clearly and explicitly formulated work goals. It is necessary to clearly state in one or two sentences what the primary goal of the research is, and then highlight any specific goals. Also, the contribution of the paper is not clearly highlighted: the authors should explain how their research differs from existing studies, whether it is a new set of data, a new methodology, a different context or a combination of the above. The motivation for choosing Slovakia as a case study is poorly explained and should be additionally linked to the structural specificities of agriculture in that country or to gaps in the existing literature.

The literature review is extensive, but insufficiently focused. The problem was noticed that a large number of papers are cited without a clear connection to the specific research questions of this paper. The literature on sustainability, family farms and socioeconomic factors is partially relevant, but the review is more like a general description of the topic than a critical synthesis. There is a lack of a clear logic for grouping papers (e.g. according to methodology, results or geographical context), as well as identification of the research gap that this paper fills. Also, part of the cited literature is relatively old and it would be useful to include more recent works, especially those published in the last five years, in order to show the relevance of the research.

The methodological part is one of the key segments of the work, but it requires additional clarifications. The description of the data used is insufficiently detailed. It is necessary to clearly state the period covered by the analysis, the criteria for the selection of the sample, as well as any limitations of the database. Although the ERGM model is listed as the main analytical tool, it is not sufficiently related to the research objectives. The authors should explain more clearly why this model is the most appropriate for the analysis of the relationships they examine and what its advantages are compared to alternative approaches. Also, the definition of variables is fragmentary; it is recommended that all variables be systematically explained in one place, with a clear indication of the expected signs of the coefficients.

The results are presented through several tables and figures, but their interpretation is insufficiently developed. The tables contain a large amount of information, but they are not always sufficiently readable or self-explanatory. There is a lack of clear titles and detailed notes that would explain exactly what individual coefficients represent. In the text, the results are often just described, without a deeper interpretation and without connection with the previous research mentioned in the literature review. The figures are technically correct, but their purpose is not always clear and in some cases they seem redundant compared to the tables. It is recommended to reduce the number of graphic displays or provide a clearer explanation of their added value.

The discussion of the results is not sufficiently clearly separated from the actual presentation of the results. It is necessary to expand the discussion and focus on explaining why the results were obtained as they are, how they fit into the existing literature and what are their implications for rural development policy and the sustainability of family farms. Limitations of the research were mentioned very narrowly or implicitly; it is recommended that methodological and empirical limitations, as well as directions for future research, be clearly stated.

The conclusion is short and mostly repeats the previously presented findings, without clearly emphasizing the scientific and practical contribution of the work. It should be expanded so that it clearly summarizes the key results in relation to the set objectives, highlights the contribution of the work and offers concrete recommendations or implications.

References are mostly relevant, but there are inconsistencies in citation style and formatting, indicating the need for technical redaction. Also, the text occasionally refers to works that are not clearly related to the analysis, while some important sources in the field of sustainable agriculture and family farms are missing. It is necessary to harmonize the list of literature with the sources actually used and check the consistency of citations throughout the work.

Overall, the paper has a solid empirical basis and a relevant topic, but requires significant corrections in terms of clarity of objectives, focus of literature review, explanation of methodology and interpretation of results in order to reach the required scientific level.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your comments and effort towards improvement of our manuscript.

The paper deals with the analysis of the relationship between the structure of agricultural holdings, socioeconomic characteristics and the sustainability of family farms in Slovakia. It was done using econometric modeling. The topic is current and relevant to the field of agrarian economy and rural development, but the work in its current form has a number of conceptual, methodological and structural deficiencies that need to be corrected in order to meet the standards of a scientific journal.

In the introduction, the wider issue of family farms and their significance is clearly presented, but the introduction remains predominantly descriptive and does not lead the reader to a precisely defined research problem. There is a lack of clearly and explicitly formulated work goals. It is necessary to clearly state in one or two sentences what the primary goal of the research is, and then highlight any specific goals.

Response: We have reformulated the Introduction to clearly state the primary goal of the study in one sentence and to specify the related sub-goals (network structure, channel use, and access to high-demand markets), thereby defining a precise research problem.

Also, the contribution of the paper is not clearly highlighted: the authors should explain how their research differs from existing studies, whether it is a new set of data, a new methodology, a different context or a combination of the above. The motivation for choosing Slovakia as a case study is poorly explained and should be additionally linked to the structural specificities of agriculture in that country or to gaps in the existing literature.

Response: The revised Introduction now explicitly highlights how this study differs from prior research through its unique dataset, network-based methodology, and focus on a post-socialist agricultural system. The motivation for selecting Slovakia is better explained.

The literature review is extensive, but insufficiently focused. The problem was noticed that a large number of papers are cited without a clear connection to the specific research questions of this paper. The literature on sustainability, family farms and socioeconomic factors is partially relevant, but the review is more like a general description of the topic than a critical synthesis. There is a lack of a clear logic for grouping papers (e.g. according to methodology, results or geographical context), as well as identification of the research gap that this paper fills. Also, part of the cited literature is relatively old and it would be useful to include more recent works, especially those published in the last five years, in order to show the relevance of the research.

Response: The literature review has been  revised to address this concern. It is now structured more explicitly around the study’s research questions. Recent empirical and review studies  have been added to reflect current debates on market access and channel choice.

The methodological part is one of the key segments of the work, but it requires additional clarifications. The description of the data used is insufficiently detailed. It is necessary to clearly state the period covered by the analysis, the criteria for the selection of the sample, as well as any limitations of the database.

Response: The methodological section has been revised to provide a more detailed description of the data. We now explicitly state the period covered by the database and the extraction date (March 2025), clarify the criteria for sample selection and exclusion, and report the final sample size. In addition, we have expanded the discussion of data limitations, including incomplete channel coverage, non-exhaustive producer representation, missing values, and imputation procedures.

Although the ERGM model is listed as the main analytical tool, it is not sufficiently related to the research objectives. The authors should explain more clearly why this model is the most appropriate for the analysis of the relationships they examine and what its advantages are compared to alternative approaches. Also, the definition of variables is fragmentary; it is recommended that all variables be systematically explained in one place, with a clear indication of the expected signs of the coefficients.

Response: We have revised the methodology section to more explicitly link the use of ERGM to the research objectives. The revised text now explains why ERGM is the most appropriate tool for modeling producer–point of sale relationships, and clarifies its advantages over conventional regression and descriptive network approaches in accounting for interdependencies and network structure.. We have revised the manuscript so that variables are presented and described more systematically in table 2. The table contains their descriptions, variable types, corresponding ergm terms, and the expected signs of coefficients.

The results are presented through several tables and figures, but their interpretation is insufficiently developed. The tables contain a large amount of information, but they are not always sufficiently readable or self-explanatory. There is a lack of clear titles and detailed notes that would explain exactly what individual coefficients represent. In the text, the results are often just described, without a deeper interpretation and without connection with the previous research mentioned in the literature review. The figures are technically correct, but their purpose is not always clear and in some cases they seem redundant compared to the tables. It is recommended to reduce the number of graphic displays or provide a clearer explanation of their added value.

Response: Notes explaining their content were added to the tables and figures, and in some cases the titles were revised to better reflect the content of the tables.

The discussion of the results is not sufficiently clearly separated from the actual presentation of the results. It is necessary to expand the discussion and focus on explaining why the results were obtained as they are, how they fit into the existing literature and what are their implications for rural development policy and the sustainability of family farms.

Response: We have restructured the Discussion to more clearly separate empirical results from their interpretation. The revised text focuses on explaining why the observed effects arise and situates them more explicitly within the relevant literature

Limitations of the research were mentioned very narrowly or implicitly; it is recommended that methodological and empirical limitations, as well as directions for future research, be clearly stated.

Response: The limitations are now stated explicitly in a dedicated paragraph. Directions for future research are clearly formulated in the final part of the Conclusions.

The conclusion is short and mostly repeats the previously presented findings, without clearly emphasizing the scientific and practical contribution of the work. It should be expanded so that it clearly summarizes the key results in relation to the set objectives, highlights the contribution of the work and offers concrete recommendations or implications.

Response: The Conclusions have been expanded to highlight the methodological and conceptual contribution of the network approach. In addition, a separate paragraph outlining directions for future research has been added.

References are mostly relevant, but there are inconsistencies in citation style and formatting, indicating the need for technical redaction. Also, the text occasionally refers to works that are not clearly related to the analysis, while some important sources in the field of sustainable agriculture and family farms are missing. It is necessary to harmonize the list of literature with the sources actually used and check the consistency of citations throughout the work.

Response: References have been  revised to ensure consistency in citation style and formatting. We have reviewed the reference list to ensure closer alignment between the cited literature and the analytical focus of the paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have looked at the paper. The authors have revised it in detail and my suggestion is that it be accepted for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is okay.