Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title and Manuscript Type: Consider revising the title to explicitly indicate it is a protocol (e.g., “Study Protocol: …”) to avoid confusion with empirical research articles.

 

Redundancy in Text: Some background descriptions (e.g., Johannesburg’s context) appear repeated in Sections 2.4 and 2.4.1. Streamlining would improve readability.

 

Sample Size Justification: The qualitative sample (20–30 vendors) is reasonable for saturation, but a brief justification or reference to similar studies would strengthen this choice.

For the customer survey (n=384), please clarify the assumed proportion (p) used in Cochran’s formula.

 

Data Analysis Details: While statistical tests are named, more detail on variable operationalization (e.g., how “business performance” is measured) would be helpful.

For thematic analysis, consider briefly describing the coding process or codebook development.

 

Limitations: The noted limitations are appropriate. You may also wish to discuss potential challenges in integrating qualitative and quantitative data.

Author Response

see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research protocol is well-structured and timely, addressing a gap in the literature on the informal food sector in South Africa. Strengths include the integration of HBM and BSC, clear objectives, and a mixed-methods approach. Data collection tools (interviews, checklist, survey) are detailed and practical, with a good balance of qualitative and quantitative elements. However, areas for improvement include:

1. Eliminate Redundancies. Sections 2.4 ("Research Area and Population") and 2.4.1 ("Research Population") repeat details on Johannesburg's population, mining heritage, and informal trade (lines 141–169). Merge these into one subsection to improve flow and reduce length. This will enhance readability without altering content, as the repetition currently disrupts the manuscript's conciseness.2. Add Details on Pilot-Testing and Tool Validation. While the data collection tools are detailed and practical, specify if they will be pilot-tested (e.g., on 5–10 vendors) for clarity, reliability, and cultural appropriateness in the Johannesburg context. Additionally, discuss measures for reliability (e.g., inter-observer agreement for the observation checklists in Annexure B) and validity (e.g., content validity through expert review or Cronbach's alpha for Likert scales in the customer survey, such as Questions 9–11 and 20–22 in Annexure C). These additions would bolster the scientific soundness by addressing potential biases or inconsistencies in data collection.3. Clarify Data Analysis. Section 2.3 mentions descriptive and inferential statistics for quantitative data and thematic analysis for qualitative data but lacks specifics. Elaborate on:  3.1) Quantitative analysis: Specify software (e.g., SPSS or R), methods for handling missing data (e.g., listwise deletion or imputation), and statistical tests (e.g., chi-square for associations between hygiene compliance and business performance indicators like sales or customer retention).
   3.2) Qualitative analysis: Detail the coding process (e.g., using NVivo software, with inductive and deductive thematic approaches) and how themes will be derived from open-ended responses (e.g., in interview questions B4, B6, and C8).
   3.3) Data integration: Explain how mixed-methods triangulation will occur, such as through joint displays or convergent validation to link vendor perceptions (from interviews) with observed practices (from checklists) and customer feedback (from surveys).
This clarification will make the protocol more replicable and transparent.   4. Customer Survey Adjustments. In Annexure C, Question 17 ("Do you believe male or female vendors are more likely to uphold hygiene practices?") introduces potential gender bias without clear justification or linkage to the study's objectives. Remove it or provide a rationale supported by literature (e.g., if exploring demographic differences in compliance behaviors). Ensure response options remain neutral to avoid influencing participants. This revision prevents unintended biases and aligns the tool more closely with ethical standards. 5. Enhance Behavioral Economics Integration. The introduction briefly mentions "behavioral economics, particularly the role of incentives, risk perception, and trust in regulatory processes" (lines 70–71), but this is underdeveloped in the theoretical framework. Expand this integration by linking it explicitly to HBM components (e.g., cues to action via incentives like free training mentioned in interview Question B7) or incorporating concepts like nudge theory to encourage compliance. This would enrich the multidimensional lens provided by HBM and BSC, making the framework more comprehensive. 6. Add Visuals. To improve presentation quality, include a diagram (e.g., a flowchart or model figure) illustrating the integration of HBM and BSC (as summarized in lines 78–88). For instance, show how perceived barriers (HBM) influence performance dimensions like customer satisfaction and operational risks (BSC). This visual aid would clarify the theoretical connections and make the protocol more engaging for readers. 7. Refine Ethical Aspects. Although ethical approvals are noted (e.g., HREC2025=07=030 (MS); NHRD), discuss participant risks more explicitly in the methods section (e.g., potential time burden for busy vendors, emotional discomfort from discussing business challenges, or stigma associated with hygiene observations). Outline mitigation strategies, such as providing debriefing sessions or resources for hygiene support post-interview. In the annexures, further emphasize voluntary participation and the right to withdraw at any time. These enhancements will strengthen the protocol's ethical robustness.

 

Overall suggestion: Add visuals (e.g., HBM/BSC framework diagram) and refine ethical aspects (participant risks). This will make the protocol more robust.

Author Response

see attached report

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Congratulations on a well-designed study protocol addressing a relevant intersection between health and safety compliance and business performance in the informal street food sector.

In regard to further advance the manuscript towards publication, you are kindly requested to address the following suggested points:

- Clarify the contribution by explicitly stating how the combined HBM–BSC framework advances existing research on food safety compliance or informal entrepreneurship, particularly from a business and management perspective.

- Specify the mixed-methods design logic, including:

• the sequencing and priority of qualitative and quantitative components;
• how integration will occur at the interpretation stage, beyond triangulation, especially when linking HBM constructs to BSC performance dimensions.
• Strengthen the sampling justification by briefly discussing feasibility, access, and expected response rates for the customer survey, and by explicitly linking the vendor interview sample size (20–30) to anticipated heterogeneity within the vendor population.

- Clarify the analytical strategy by indicating:

• which variables operationalize “business performance” and how they map onto BSC dimensions;
• how potential confounders (e.g., vendor experience, location, infrastructure access) will be handled in regression analyses.

- Revise language and style to improve fluency, reduce repetition, and ensure terminological consistency. Minor professional language editing is recommended.

I am confident that addressing these points will further strengthen the clarity, rigor, and contribution of the protocol

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English could be revised for clarity and academic tone.

Author Response

see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author well addressed my previous concern。