Highlighting Wine Labels: A Systematic Literature Review of Dominant Informational Parameters as Communicative Elements

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very comprehensive and interesting article highlighting past research on wine labels. 

I have no major concerns with the manuscript as it is currently presented, though I would advise 1 final read through for editing purposes, I did catch 1 typo on page 3 line 73 - "2010-2034" (change to 2024).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend that the authors make significant revisions to the Introduction section, as it currently lacks any citations. The research questions have been developed without referencing any sources.

Additionally, there are references included that are not cited within the main body of the paper.

Please refer to the attached Word file for more details.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper represents a review of literature on dominant informational parameters as communicative elements focused on wine labels. The introduction to the paper nicely suggests that there still are opportunities to present a systematic review of literature regarding this topic. However, in my opinion, some relevant and further considerations are the following:

1) Originality

This study addresses a quite interesting topic, which suits the aims and scope of the journal. The systematic review of literature will be helpful to examine literature in the field of wine communication focused on wine labels.

2) Literature review

The literature references are quite updated and relevant to the topic. More precisely, I recommend these authors review some citations and include other authors' viewpoints and research. In addition, in order to improve the article, I recommend the authors to better explain and conceptualize the terms regarding dominant informational parameters as communicative elements, since its conceptualization is quite brief.

3) Methodology

The methodology developed is adequate for research purposes. However, some important information regarding the specific research methods is missing. For example, why do authors select the database for the literature review, and how do they do the final synthesis? I suggest explaining these methodological issues in more detail.

4) Results

In general terms, data analysis and synthesis regarding the research results are clear and well presented.

5) Limitations and strengths of the study

In my viewpoint, it is necessary to include several countries and contexts such as South America studies in the analysis… most studies were conducted in Europe, followed by Australia, North America, and Asia.

6) Data interpretation

The research data are well presented, clear and easy to read and to follow.

7) Conclusions

The authors should improve the conclusions section, thus making it more clearly what the major contribution of their paper is. I mean, why is this study could be interesting for public authorities? And for beverages companies? And for health providers? Similarly, the authors should better develop the managerial implications of their research.

8) Communication

 

In general, the article is well written in English, which makes it easy to read and to follow.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Major comments:

The study is of real interest because it attempts to run a systematic literature review in the wine communication field focused on how consumers decode dominant label information. The abstract

 

1. In the Introduction, the authors specify the novelty of this scientific work by identifying three questions the paper should answer.

2. The methodology should be better explained! I recommend the authors take the method and methodology part from the Results section (VOSviewer 1.6.20 exe tool to run a bibliographic metric) and present it at the beginning of section 2. Materials and Methods. The authors mention only that they review the articles from the main research databases in a date range from 2010 to 2024.

 

3. The results are detailed described based on VOSviewer 1.6.20 exe tool to run a bibliographic metric search to synthesize the conceptual framework of the final 186 articles and combined with the literature review that includes the main research papers on the subject assumed by the authors. The approach of the text is made coherent so that the reader understands the research.

 

4. The conclusions are well-written and expressed in the synthesis.

Minor comments:

Line 73: The period of time should be corrected 2010-2024

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have significantly improved the paper and I didn’t find any critical issue requiring revision and can be accepted in current form.