Food, Climate Change, and the Challenge of Innovation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract should be revised to clarify the central focus of the paper.

The abstract should be revised to clarify the goal of the paper and the innovation of this study.

What is the goal of this research?

The originality of the paper needs to be further clarified. In addition, the objectives of this study should be clearly stated to present the novelty of the study.

The conclusion can go deeper; it would be more interesting if the authors focus more on the significance of their findings

The suggestion for future research is missing in the conclusion section.

proofreading by a native English speaker should be conducted to improve both language and organization quality. Please correct verb tense, noun plurality, and sentence structure. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Our sincere gratitude for allowing us to revise our manuscript, “Food, climate change and the challenge of innovation.” submitted in Encyclopedia. We appreciate the comments and invaluable feedback provided to tighten our manuscript and improve the entry. We are sending a new version of our manuscript. We have thoroughly reviewed all comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers and have done our utmost to incorporate this constructive feedback into our revision. We provide point-by-point responses to the comments and suggestions below:

Comment 1.

The abstract should be revised to clarify the central focus of the paper.

The abstract should be revised to clarify the goal of the paper and the innovation of this study.

We appreciate your helpful comment. We added a sentence in the abstract pointing out the goal and central focus of the entry. However, the entry is a review article, which tries to present the topic in a clear and scientifically discussion rather than present high novelty or innovativeness, in contrast with the aim of research articles. Therefore, following the format of the “Definition” section that substitutes the abstract, we present the definition of the main concepts analysed in the entry (climate change, food systems and food security) and its relationships.

Comment 2.

What is the goal of this research?

We appreciate your helpful comment. We clarify the goal of the entry by adding a sentence in the abstract and at the end of the introduction pointing out the goal and central focus of the entry.

Comment 3.

The originality of the paper needs to be further clarified. In addition, the objectives of this study should be clearly stated to present the novelty of the study.

We appreciate your helpful comment, as we mentioned in comment 1 Encyclopedia entries are review articles, which tries to present the topic in a clear and scientifically discussion rather than present novelty or innovativeness, in contrast with the aim of research articles.

Comment 4.

The conclusion can go deeper; it would be more interesting if the authors focus more on the significance of their findings.

We appreciate your helpful comment. We expand the conclusion by adding a paragraph with the importance of the food innovation technologies discussed in the entry.

Comment 5.

The suggestion for future research is missing in the conclusion section.

We appreciate your helpful comment. We added possible future research lines in the conclusion section.

Comment 6

Proofreading by a native English speaker should be conducted to improve both language and organization quality. Please correct verb tense, noun plurality, and sentence structure.

We appreciate your helpful comment. We proofread the article correcting language errors.

Kind regards, 

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The study is of a review nature. The paper may be accepted for publication subject to some corrections.

1. It is worth considering whether the areas of impact on production systems in Fig. 1 should really be included in the horizontal process layout.

2. The "Definition" section mentions the four dimensions of food security without enumerating them.

3. It would be advisable to rewrite the text in an impersonal form (see line 58).

4. There is no reference to Fig. 1 in the main text.

5. Bibliographic descriptions must be adapted to the editorial requirements of the journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Our sincere gratitude for allowing us to revise our manuscript, “Food, climate change and the challenge of innovation.” submitted in Encyclopedia. We appreciate the comments and invaluable feedback provided to tighten our manuscript and improve the entry. We are sending a new version of our manuscript. We have thoroughly reviewed all comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers and have done our utmost to incorporate this constructive feedback into our revision. Our work is significantly improved based on the reviewers' supportive and helpful developmental thoughts. We resubmit our work for continued consideration. We provide point-by-point responses to the comments and suggestions below:

Comment 1.

The study is of a review nature. The paper may be accepted for publication subject to some corrections.

It is worth considering whether the areas of impact on production systems in Fig. 1 should really be included in the horizontal process layout.

We appreciate your helpful comment. We agree with the comment of the reviewer because there is not a hierarchical relationship between the different direct and indirect impacts on production systems. Hence, we have changed the horizontal process layout in this section of the fig. 1.

Comment 2.

The "Definition" section mentions the four dimensions of food security without enumerating them.

We appreciate your helpful comment. We enumerated them in the definition.

Comment 3.

It would be advisable to rewrite the text in an impersonal form (see line 58).

We appreciate your helpful comment. We rewrote it in an impersonal form.

Comment 4.

There is no reference to Fig. 1 in the main text.

We appreciate your helpful comment. We added it.

Comment 5.

Bibliographic descriptions must be adapted to the editorial requirements of the journal.

We appreciate your helpful comment. We adapted it.

Kind regards, 

The Authors.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no more comments on this manuscript and I am convinced that it will be very interesting for international readers.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors introduced valuable corrections. I recommend the article for publication.