Dataset on Food Waste in Households: The Case of Latvia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The data is original, and the source is well defined. 

The data collection methodologies are described in sufficient detail to allow another researcher to reproduce the results. 

The metadata accurately describes the data and adheres to relevant disciplinary standards. 

The copyright license is described and appropriate.

The dataset is generally technically correct, however, a description of quality control measures and possible errors is lacking.

The data has been archived with a unique identifier (doi number). 

The data is in Excel, but as all data is available in the Latvian language, it impacts availability for reuse. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thanks for your comments.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

while it is evident that your work stems from a long and well-structured effort, several issues need to be addressed:

1. excessive repetition;
2. lack of a conclusion;
3. the methods section does not describe the methodology but rather contains general considerations;
4. no clear and detailed explanation of the variable semantics;
5. the dataset is not in English;
6. no mention of potential applications for the collected data or examples of its use—has the dataset been utilized for any analysis so far?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thanks for your comments.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors constructed a dataset with regards to households’ practices, opinions, attitudes and social responsibility regarding food waste. The dataset consisted responses from a total of 1336 respondents (households).

 

 

The authors in their summary section provided relevant statistics with regards to food waste in the EU for 2022. However, it would have been beneficial to find the latest relevant statistics if possible (2023/2024). Furthermore, if possible, the authors should provide relevant statistics to Latvia, since the paper focuses on collecting data from it. In addition, the authors should justify in greater depth on why food waste is a crucial issue in Latvia specifically.

 

The authors mention that their survey consisted of three parts. They authors are encouraged to create a diagram to illustrate the survey, so the reader can get the relevant information summarised.

 

The authors will need to give significantly more information with regards to the data collected both from a description pov as well as from relevant statistics.

 

Furthermore, the authors will need to describe how the questions asked reflected the objectives set.

 

In addition, the authors will need to provide significantly more information with regards to their research design.

 

The authors should provide more information on how the data was anonymised to ensure the participants’ privacy and anonymity.

 

The authors could provide information on potential related studies. If there are no related studies, the authors should focus more on how their dataset could assist in future research relevant to different areas.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thanks for your comments.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the paper is a data descriptor, including a conclusion section would be helpful to outline possible applications and analyses that could be carried out using the dataset. While some potential uses are mentioned throughout the manuscript, they are somewhat dispersed and could benefit from being clearly summarized. These aspects may limit the dataset’s usability, particularly given that it has not been translated into English. I understand that the study was conducted at the request of the Ministry of Agriculture of Latvia; however, if the dataset is not easily accessible to an international audience, it might be worth considering whether a local journal could be a more suitable venue.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx