Towards Global Change and Food Security Through Transformative Accounting Information Systems: Insights from the Jordanian Food Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of A Roadmap to Global Change and Food Security via Transformative Accounting Information Systems for the Food Sector: Jordan Perspective

Dear authors, the way the article is presented untill now, is not acceptable as a scientific research. It lacks more detailed information and methodology.

1. Line 37, what is EIAs?
2. Line 24, is cost accounting (TCA) or True Cost Accounting?
3. Is this a review article or research article?
4. Section 4 “data analysis” is more a literature review than data analysis. Where is the data and how it was analyzed. Just theoretically?
5. Line 215, where is quantitative study?
6. Section 3.1 very few literature is cited about the subject.
7. Section 3.2, is these data available for public view?
8. “Accounting information systems”, have you given any example listing systems, comparing them, mixing them with the interviews...
9. Section 3.3, no method is presented to analyze the data.
10. Line 238. You going to analyze feelings too? Please put the method used for it.
11. Data analysis is too weak for the moment, to support the conclusions or recommendations.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Comments 1: Dear authors, the way the article is presented until now, is not acceptable as a scientific research. It lacks more detailed information and methodology. Response 1: Thank you for your observation. We have revised the methodology section (Section 3, pages 5–6) to provide a more detailed description of both the qualitative and quantitative components, including sample size, selection criteria, and analysis methods.

Comments 2: Line 37, what is EIAs?

Response 2: The abbreviation EIAs stands for Environmental Impact Assessments. We have now clarified this in Line 37 of the revised manuscript.

Comments 3: Line 37, what is EIAs?

Response 3: This has been clarified as True Cost Accounting (TCA) in Line 24.

Comments 4: Is this a review article or research article?

Response 4: We confirm this is a research article that uses a mixed-methods approach. The manuscript has been revised in the introduction and methodology sections to clarify this.

Comments 5: Section 4 ‘data analysis’ is more a literature review than data analysis. Where is the data and how it was analyzed?

Response 5: Thank you for this insightful comment, the sub-titles in section 4 is now renamed as the following: -        4.1: Key findings through from literature -        4.2. Empirical data analysis - Interview

Comments 6: Line 215, where is quantitative study?

Response 6: The phrase quantitative is removed.

 

Comments 7: Section 3.1 very few literature is cited about the subject.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We acknowledge that the literature directly addressing the intersection of accounting information systems (AIS) and sustainable food systems, particularly within the Jordanian context, remains limited. This limitation reflects a recognized research gap, which our study seeks to help fill this gap.

 

Comments 8: Section 3.2, is these data available for public view?

Response 8: As stated in the Ethics subsection (3.5), interview transcripts are confidential and not publicly available due to IRB constraints. We added this clarification to Page 6.

 

Comments 9: Accounting information systems: have you given any example listing systems, comparing them, mixing them with the interviews..

Response 9: Thank you for this important comment. We would like to clarify that the accounting systems currently used in the agricultural cooperatives and institutions studied in Jordan do not represent fully integrated Accounting Information Systems (AIS) in the modern sense. Rather, they are limited financial systems focused on basic bookkeeping, without direct integration with sustainability indicators or supply chain traceability.

 

Accordingly, we revised Section 3.2 to explicitly highlight this limitation in the field context and included interview insights indicating a technological gap in the adoption of true AIS. In Section 4.2, this issue was incorporated into the analysis under the theme of technological constraints, with direct quotations from participants expressing these challenges.

 

Therefore, the absence of sophisticated system examples in practice is not a shortcoming of the study, but rather a revealing research and operational gap, which our findings and recommendations seek to address. The study advocates for the transition toward advanced AIS in Jordan’s agricultural sector, which is currently underdeveloped in this regard.

These clarifications were added to Sections 3.2 and 4.2 (pages 6–7) of the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 10: Section 3.3, no method is presented to analyze the data.

Response 10: Section 3.3 has been revised

 

Comments 11: Line 238. You going to analyze feelings too? Please put the method used for it.

Response 11: Phrase feeling removed.

 

Comments 12: Data analysis is too weak for the moment, to support the conclusions or recommendations

Response 12: This is a good comment to thank you. We have rewritten Section 4.2 significantly to provide a thematic analysis in the form of structure analysis, coding methodology, four primary themes, quotes of both participants, and a summary table.

 

Besides, the Section 5 has been rewritten in a clear relation to these themes to our conclusions and recommendations that now are supported by the empirical findings in direct relation. See pages 7-9 revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an important and timely topic, exploring the potential of accounting information systems (AIS) to enhance sustainability and resilience in food supply chains, with particular reference to Jordan. The paper is generally well-structured and logically organized, effectively blending theoretical perspectives with practical insights gathered from stakeholders.

Comments:

1. Clearly stated objectives, however, please clarify the specific novelty or unique contribution of this study compared to previous research more explicitly. (Page 2, Lines 57–61 (Introduction))
2. Clearly described mixed-methods approach, but further detail regarding the sample size determination and criteria for selecting interview participants would strengthen the validity and replicability of the study. (Page 6, Lines 226–232 (Section 3.2: In-Depth Interviews)).
3. Specify how the thematic analysis was practically conducted, e.g., coding procedures or software used. (Page 6, Lines 233–238 (Section 3.3: Analysing the Data))
4. Ensure greater clarity and explicit connection between thematic categories identified and their practical implications for policy and practice. (Page 7–8, Lines 301–338 (Section 4.2: Interview Analysis); Page 8–9, Lines 339–390 (Discussion))
5. Could authors provide more detailed examples or quotes from interviews to deepen the reader’s understanding and illustrate your points vividly? (Page 7–8, Lines 309–328)
6. Authors may enhance the discussion by critically reflecting on potential limitations or biases in data collection, and how these might influence your results and conclusions.
   (Page 8–9)
7. Briefly discuss international examples or comparisons to enrich the context and potential transferability of your findings. The manuscript references international frameworks (e.g., FLW Standard), but more comparative examples (e.g., AIS use in other countries) would broaden the study’s relevance.
8. Make sure that all abreviations are explained like TCA, EIA.

Grammar comments:

Line 25: Check phrase "which are now scattered across different industries"—clarify if you mean sectors or various methodologies.

Line 44: Typographical error: "iexplained" should be "explained."

Line 49: Sentence clarity can improve—consider restructuring for smoother readability ("Crisis after crisis..." appears awkward in context).

Line 270: Clarify the sentence structure "Stakeholders can preserve food security through real-time choices..."—perhaps "Stakeholders can enhance food security by making informed real-time decisions..."

Line 224: Proofread for clarity—phrases like "were minded for relevant articles" might be better stated as "searched or reviewed for relevant articles."

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Comment 1: Clarify the specific novelty or unique contribution of this study compared to previous research.

Response 1: A new paragraph added to the introduction

 

Comment 2: Further detail regarding the sample size determination and criteria for selecting interview participants would strengthen the validity...
Response 2: We have expanded Section 3.2 to explain the purposive sampling strategy and justification for the sample size (10 interviewees) (Page 6-7).

 

Comment 3: Specify how the thematic analysis was practically conducted...
Response 3: Section 3.3 was revised to include more detail on the thematic analysis process.

 

Comment 4: Ensure greater clarity and explicit connection between thematic categories identified and their practical implications for policy...
Response 4: We have rewritten parts of Section 4.2 and the Discussion section to strengthen these connections, particularly on Pages 7–9.

 

Comment 5: Could authors provide more detailed examples or quotes from interviews...
Response 5: We have incorporated illustrative quotes from participants to enrich the analysis (Page 7–8).

 

Comment 6: Authors may enhance the discussion by critically reflecting on potential limitations or biases...
Response 6: The discussion section changed, kindly check revised copy.

 

Comment 7: Briefly discuss international examples or comparisons…

Response 7: Some previous study in India which we can found mentioned in the article.

 

 

Grammar and Style Corrections:

We finished all changes as requested.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article quality have improved, however, more detailed extension of the research would be better for article quality and overall scientific merit.