Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled economies-2402921 was aimed at designing an assessment methodology regarding the impact of agri-food supply channels on the efficiency and connectivity of supply chains.

 

To improve the quality of the manuscript, I propose the following:

(1) The author(s) discuss the linkage between sustainability and agricultural competitiveness in the abstract (line 9) and introduction (line 29), but the theoretical foundation is missing from Section 2 in this regard. I suggest the author(s) further describe this relationship. I hope that the following reference will help the author(s) to describe the connection between sustainability and agricultural competitiveness: Constantin, M.; Sapena, J.; Apetrei, A.; Pătărlăgeanu, S.R. Deliver Smart, Not More! Building Economically Sustainable Competitiveness on the Ground of High Agri-Food Trade Specialization in the EU. Foods 2023, 12, 232. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12020232. Moreover, I find it important for the author(s) to emphasize in the paper how this linkage between sustainability and competitiveness is reflected or integrated in their design of the methodology that assesses the impact of agri-food supply channels on the efficiency and connectivity of supply chains.

(2) Only later in the paper it is revealed to the readers that this study was carried out based on the data collected from Kazakhstan (line 196). I suggest that the author(s) explain the reasons behind selecting Kazakhstan as the sample for developing their assessment methodology–Why is Kazakhstan a good solution to test and ground your assessment model(s) on it?

(3) I suggest placing the descriptive statistics from line 226-271 in a global perspective by presenting the contribution of Kazakhstan to the global agri-food value chain. Other comparison with similar countries would also add more value to the paper.

(4) The methodological aspects of the regression models should be further explained and grounded in the literature with other author(s) who had similar approaches to the study of agri-food supply channels impact on efficiency and connectivity.

(5) In Table 8, please include the p-value of F-statistic.

Please revise the structure of the paragraphs all-throughout the manuscript (the style of writing a paragraph). Right now, they appear very fragmented and inconsistent.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors will surely find them when revising the manuscript. This paper has the  little to contribute in the literature, but some important points have to be clarified or fixed before we can proceed and positive action can be taken. I will see how the authors handle the comments. My suggestion is also to rewrite this section to answer the following questions fully: (i) Why is this topic relevant, and what is known about it? In summary, the author has conducted a significant body of research. However, much more needs to be done to bring it more into the shape of a scholarly paper in a leading management journal, and to enhance its internal rigour.

Abstract is written very broadly There is little doubt that the author has gone to a great deal of effort; this paper represents a substantial body of work.  However, at the moment, it is rather disorganized; a great deal of the research conducted is not properly reported on the study aim, There is no minimum contextualization of the aspects/context or information about the

core theme of the manuscript, such as the study's objective, is not clearly explained. Some qualificative adjectives in the abstract must not be present, and the content should be clarified and include the main findings.

The Introduction does not follow the expected structure, and there are many missing

essential aspects. There is no clear structure to follow. I suggest presenting the context, the

measurement element, the tools/companies, and the main objectives and/or research

Question. Some aspects are mixed, and some specific assumptions are based on aspects that could no longer be valid or outdated by new research studies. There are some missing references to justify the text statements. It is necessary to state how some of this study is different from the previously published studies.

-In the case of this study, it is important to introduce the fact that the study sample will be performed in a specific region; why? And what is its important e?. The Introduction must contain overall aspects of the work but not a detailed explanation of the methods. It is highly recommended to analyze and mention previous studies. Some terminology employed by the authors state a false or inappropriate message.

Literature review_I was expecting the authors to start their theoretical background section with the theoretical underpinnings of the study .The literature review is not correctly presented, and the structure and sentences must be Rewritten. The literature must just not introduce the themes of the study problems. It must include a whole picture of the problem statement and review of critically literature.. Some of the main aspects are not properly explained, and others are too broad and not essential from the approach authors have undertaken. Most important, definitions are not explained of the core concepts.

 

-in methods, there is no specific explanation of why you choose the data collection. The methods are not appropriate to the study, they are applied incorrectly, and data analysis assumptions are not elaborate. However, there is also a little reference to other existent studies that use similar methodologies and that have been published recently. I recommend the authors search for those recent articles to improve the research using the most updated tools.

 

 

English editing is needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article concerns an important issue, which is the efficiency of the functioning of the food supply chain, on the example of a selected country, i.e. Kazakhstan. The methods used seem appropriate and sufficient. The topic is important in the context of ensuring food security on the market, especially in a turbulent environment such as a pandemic or war. I have some technical comments:

Line 39-42 - a footnote to this data is needed

Line 64 - since numerous articles are mentioned, please give more examples of articles, not just 1

Line 302 - what are the abbreviations: Il, PP and PI?

Please check that all abbreviations used in tables and text are explained

Table 1- why is "billion tenge" in the title? you need to give a conversion of the national currency (tenge) to an international currency, e.g. US dollars or euros

Table 1- if we are talking about the value of something (in dollars), e.g. sales, it is not the volume but the value

Figure 2 - what are the titers on the axes? It is hardly readable

Best regards

Please check the English page again, because some sentences are not very understandable, too complex. Maybe it's worth giving the text to be checked by a native speaker so that it is better understood.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

It is not clear why there is one abstract in the Review Report Form and quite another in the downloaded article.

The recommendations contained in the conclusions are of a very general nature and at the same time there is no visible connection between the introduction and the conclusions. The purpose in the introduction and in the abstract is also formulated quite broadly. From the content of the recommendations contained in the conclusions, it is difficult to understand which of them and for whom they are intended.

The tables in the text are cumbersome and difficult to understand.

The analysis mainly takes the form of repetition of the material contained in the tables, less attention is paid to clarifying the reasons for the dynamic changes revealed in the course of research.

There are cases of normative form of presentation of material in the text of article: «The supply chain will be considered optimal when the connectivity ratio approaches to one» - why?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have improved the quality of the paper according to the suggestions.

Improvements were made.

Author Response

Please see the attachment!

Minor editing of English language required

We have once again edited the article in English by a specialist with the aim to improve. The text highlights the places where it has been improved and edited.

To clarify the design of the study, we have added changes to the text of the article (see text).

Are the methods adequately described?

No changes have been made to the article. However, it is necessary to explain our understanding of how adequately the methods are described.

The data of descriptive statistics of variables allow us to further use them in building regression models. The degree of conformity of the actual data on product supply channels to regression models is confirmed by calculations of statistical characteristics. The research methods allowed us to obtain adequate and reliable regression dependencies, which is confirmed by calculations.

Are the results clearly presented?

No changes have been made to the article. However, we would like to explain once again how we have presented the results of the study (see report).

-Further, in Table 8, we present the results of modeling according to Table 3. The results of the assessment of factors affecting the efficiency and links in the supply chains of food products give us important information about their magnitude and the nature of their impact on the efficiency and links of supply chains.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf