A Case Study of Consumer’s Attitudes towards Agro-Food Markets in Danube Microregion in COVID-19 Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author/s,

I have gone through your manuscript and have the following comments:

Although the manuscript explains a very timely and valid study in the present form, it seems that the manuscript is incomplete and suffers from some validations with respect to the problem under study.

 The objectives of the study in the abstract are not clear. This is the most important section of the paper. Author/s are suggested to make sufficient modifications in the abstract to make it more clear, crisp, and lucid with well-drafted research objectives, the unique contribution of your study, its originality, and most significant findings. I would suggest the author/s include a paragraph explaining what will follow in the manuscript, which will be extremely helpful for the journal readership.

The introduction section is very weak.  Try to put in more studies done between 2023 and 2024, which will provide a more novel perspective on this issue. Please be consistent with your statements, especially in this section.
Methodology needs to be strong. It needs better explanations for a lot many important aspects. How you handled the biases that might have occurred during the data collection process. What did you do for the initial screening of the questionnaires?? Were there any questionnaires having missing values or discrepancies?? Sampling universe taken requires a better explanation and validation.

Author/s should provide a better detail of the results explained in Tables. Data interpretation also seems very loosely presented.

Implications are very weak... Authors are suggested to align their discussions with their objectives and propose refined implications... In the present form implications are not looking effective with the study results.

Written language requires modifications with respect to grammatical and punctuation errors which are visible throughout the manuscript. It is always better to get the manuscript proof read by versed professors in the field... Throughout the manuscript, I found errors with regards to the in-text citation. Pls follow the journal citation guidelines. There are inconsistencies in the references also.

I have provided my comment in the major comments section

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

we would like to thank you for your effort and time to review the manuscript. We have accepted your suggestion as much as possible (in upload version) and detailed response to all comments, point by point is in the Reviewer report.

If You have further comments, we are at your disposal.

Sincerely,

                                                                                                           Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

See my detail comments below.

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to review this paper.

While the issue of food shortage is undoubtedly a valid concern, there are several areas within the paper that require clarification and improvement. I have outlined these below:

1. 1. The abstract contains references to specific statistical techniques such as descriptive statistics, PCA, ANOVA, and t-tests. It is customary in academic writing to omit the mention of specific techniques in the abstract, as it is assumed that these analyses have been conducted as part of the research process. However, this information could be better utilized elsewhere in the paper to provide more context or detail.

2. 
   2. The motivation for conducting the research is not clearly articulated, which hinders understanding of the rationale behind the study. This lack of clarity is evident even in the abstract, where it is mentioned that the surveyed population was generally not afraid of food shortages. This raises questions about the relevance of the research and its implications.

3. 
   3. One of the major shortcomings of the current research is the lack of detail regarding random sampling methodology. Authors should provide a comprehensive explanation of how the sampling frame was prepared, how respondents were approached through various means, and what methods were used to establish contact. This information is crucial for understanding the validity and reliability of the study's findings.

4. 
   4. The authors missed an opportunity to enhance the robustness of their analysis by not considering advanced multivariate techniques such as Covariance-based Structural Equation Modeling (CB-SEM) or Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). By conceptualizing a model with relevant variables, the authors could have provided a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing food shortage perceptions. As it stands, the research appears to be somewhat underdeveloped in this regard.

5. 
   5. Finally, the manuscript would benefit from a discussion of the managerial and societal implications of the findings. Identifying and discussing potential implications for policy-makers, stakeholders, and the broader community would add depth and relevance to the research.
   
   6. I am surprised to see that authors conducted the survey and still Informed Consent Statement is "Not applicable". Any specific reasons for this?
   
   7. Similarly, Institutional Review Board Statement is also "Not applicable". Authors need to explain this.

Overall, the manuscript lacks significantly. Authors need to majorly revamp the manuscript and significantly strengthen it to showcase its contribution in the field.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

we sincerely thank you for your valuable suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript and the COVID journal.

In addition, we have responded positively or provided a satisfactory response to all comments from you (in upload version). Detailed point-by-point response are in Reviewer report.

If You have any other comments, we are at your disposal.

Sincerely,

                                                                                                    Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript very well.

The authors have revised the manuscript very well.

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in present form.

No more comments.