Digital Maturity of Administration Entities in a State-Led Food Certification System Using the Example of Baden-Württemberg

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focuses on the digital maturity of administrative entities in the state - led food certification system in Baden - Württemberg. The research is of great practical significance. Overall, the paper has a complete structure, scientific research methods, and valuable conclusions. However, there is still room for improvement. The following are the specific review comments:

1.Although the relevant topics have been reviewed, the depth and breadth can be further strengthened. For example, when elaborating on the literature related to digital maturity, more comparisons of the advantages and disadvantages of different assessment frameworks could be made to highlight the unique value of the DMA framework used in this study. The review of the research status of digitalization in food certification systems could be more comprehensive, covering practical experiences from more countries or regions.

2. The discussion on the limitations of the sample in the paper is rather brief. A response rate of 58% may lead to sample bias. It is necessary to further explore the impact of this bias on the generality and reliability of the research results. In addition, the research is only conducted in Baden - Württemberg, and caution should be exercised when generalizing the conclusions to other regions. This limitation should be more clearly pointed out in the paper.

3. The measures that public entities can take, such as providing funding, training, and infrastructure support, lack specific implementation paths and cost - benefit analysis. The suggestions should be further refined, and the difficulties and potential problems in actual operation should be considered to enhance the operability of the suggestions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction includes the essential elements to contextualize the research. It clearly states the main objective and outlines several research questions that support the analysis of the results. Suggested improvement: the authors could more explicitly highlight the scientific gap the study aims to address and briefly expand on the state of the art regarding the use of blockchain in fish traceability, in order to better justify the study’s originality.

The literature review presents relevant references, explains what maturity models are, and provides background information on certification systems.

In the methodology, the authors used a collaboratively developed traceability protocol, validated by experts and tested in the field, which aligns well with the study’s objectives. A useful addition would be to include a figure at the beginning of the section summarizing all the research steps. This would help readers better visualize the overall structure of the research and facilitate replication in other regions or countries.

Still in the methodology, the authors could strengthen the description of the protocol validation process by clarifying the criteria used to ensure data reliability and validity (e.g., how experts were selected and what metrics were applied in the qualitative system evaluation).

The authors present the results in separate sections using tables, figures, and diagrams that enhance clarity. A brief summary of the main findings following the detailed presentation would improve critical reading and comprehension.

The conclusions are well grounded in the results. They reinforce the effectiveness of the developed protocol and the applied technology, highlighting practical benefits perceived by stakeholders in the supply chain—such as transparency, trust, and efficiency—while also acknowledging limitations and pointing to future research directions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of "Digital Maturity of Administration Entities in a State-Led Food Certification System Using the Example of Baden-Württemberg"

 

This paper investigates the digital maturity of private and semi-private stakeholders within a state-led food certification system in Baden-Württemberg, Germany, utilizing the European Digital Maturity Assessment (DMA) framework. The study seeks to determine the current level of digital maturity, propose improvement strategies, and evaluate the suitability of the DMA framework for this specific context. While the article offers valuable insights, the following areas could be enhanced:

 

1. Introduction and Problem Statement: The introduction effectively highlights the increasing significance of digital transformation in food certification systems. However, the specific problem within the Baden-Württemberg context that motivates this study could be more clearly defined. The current statement that little is known about the digital maturity of these systems or how to assess it presents a general knowledge gap. To strengthen the introduction, the authors should begin by identifying a more specific challenge or observation within the Baden-Württemberg food certification system that necessitates this digital maturity assessment. For instance, are there known inefficiencies, a lack of coordination, or specific policy objectives that this research directly aims to address? Emphasizing a concrete local problem would establish a more compelling rationale for the study.

 

2. Literature Review and Conceptual Framework: The literature review in this article requires significant improvement. It currently includes very few citations, and concerningly, several of these originate from non-academic and non-scientific sources. The authors should substantially expand their citation base to include more scholarly work. Furthermore, the connection between the broad concept of digital maturity and the specific administrative tasks within this certification system needs more explicit development. The literature review could benefit from a more direct articulation of how digital maturity in the identified dimensions—such as Digital Business Strategy, Digital Readiness, and Automation & AI—influences these particular administrative functions. The authors should more closely integrate their discussion of administrative tasks with their review of digital maturity models. For example, when exploring Automation and AI, they could briefly illustrate how automation could specifically streamline tasks like Data Processing and Verification within the described certification system. This would create a more cohesive and robust conceptual framework.

 

3. Non-respondents: The article indicates that 25 out of 43 organizations were surveyed. While the 58% response rate is commendable, a brief discussion regarding potential non-response bias would be beneficial. Were there any noticeable trends among the organizations that did not participate? The authors should include one or two sentences in the methodology or limitations section acknowledging the response rate and briefly addressing whether the non-participating organizations might share characteristics that could skew the overall results. If this information is not available, simply acknowledging this as a limitation would suffice.

 

4. Discussion: The paper notes variability in digital maturity scores and the need for tailored support. The discussion could further explore the reasons for this variability beyond just organizational type. Are there factors such as organization size, organization age, existing legacy systems, or specific sub-sectors within the food industry that might contribute to these differences? The authors should briefly speculate on other potential underlying factors (if not directly measured, then as avenues for future research) that might explain the observed variability in digital maturity scores. This would add depth to the interpretation.

 

5. In the manuscript there are 2 figures labeled as "Figure 1".

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been revised according to the comments and no further issues are identified.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for replying to my comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I am happy to confirm that the changes and improvements made have significantly strengthened the quality and clarity of your work. The revised version addresses the concerns raised during the initial review process in a comprehensive manner.