Pesticides and Eroding Food Citizenship: Understanding Individuals’ Perspectives on the Greek Food System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses an important topic. It approaches a subject that could interest decision-makers from public institutions that develop public policies regarding citizen information about food pesticides. 

The Introduction section is well documented. It highlights the trends established at the European level. Starting from this point, the authors could have developed a more appropriate survey, steering it toward the desired outcomes. From the described Methodology, the responses were open-ended. Such a situation directs the future implementation. Normally, the themes derived after the survey implementation could have formed the basis for the research assumptions. Their approval or denial could be made by statistical correlations, even if we initially discuss simple models.

Another aspect that might add consistency to the study is integrating some quantitative data that estimate the degree to which the different implemented actions could contribute to a better understanding of the situation regarding the presence of pesticides in foods. The authors' lack of qualitative estimation is a weak point of the study. Correlating the respondents' different socio-demographic characteristics and opinions about the subject could help develop targeted measures. 

The article is on the borderline of rejection.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the Introduction, the background and significance of this study should be clearly presented and the purpose of the paper should be precisely explained. There is little logic between each paragraph in the Introduction. Given that the author is an expert in the study, this section should be better summarized and organized so that the reader can better understand this part.

2. In the Result, most is a textual statement. It is recommended that the authors supplement some appropriate parts with numbers and figures for a more visual presentation.

3. The subheading in LINE 521 is ordered incorrectly.

4. References are cited in the wrong order, in LINE 56、67、113、118 and others.

5. References are not formatted in the standard, e.g., the abbreviations of journals. It is recommended that the authors double-check and revise it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

 

The paper is excellently written and the research is well described. The only complaint is that some sentences are not complete, but parts of the sentences are repeated. The work is interesting, but I think it is my suggestion that you read it and reduce it, that is, remove some sentences that are repeated in some parts. At the same time, I think that the work is too long for this type of research, and I think that removing some sentences will make the work better.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded to the recommendation made from a point of view that does not increase the article's scientific value.