Capacity-Building Model to Promote Innovation and Sustainability in the Portuguese Agro-Industrial Sector
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
the paper needs extensive revision before publications. It is advisable that You take your time to prepare it for a new submission. So far, there are several flaws and the Guide for authors can be of help to fix them before resubmitting. Please find below some notes concerning the current status of the manuscript.
- Abstract contains 200 words max. https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions#preparation
- Reference [1] and [2] not found
- References missing from line 72 to line 81
- Line 81: references typo
- References [6], [10] and [17] are incomplete
- Wrong DOI for references [7] and [23]
- Wrong format for references [8], [15] and [22]
- Lines 92 and 93 contains the same reference.
- The introduction is quite long and the concepts are not clearly exposed.
- Before using acronyms (SMEs, line 104), the extended term should appear at least once
- Materials and methods are not clearly described and important information are missing (dates, sources, etc.). Currently, there are not enough information to replicate the work, that is the purpose of writing materials and methods.
- Tables need to be revised to orderly show the data. Explanatory captions are needed.
- Results (and discussion?) should be extensively revised and synthesized to highlight the outcomes of this work.
- The appendix and the paper body don't state when (year) the actions occurred. Line 317
- Are the "Contents of the actions of the training Module" (From line 390 on) relevant?
Author Response
We wish to thank the reviewers’ for going through our manuscript and making valuable comments to further improve the quality of the article. We have addressed the reviewer’s comments and hope that the revised version is suitable for publication in the Journal Sustainability - Special Issue “Innovative and Sustainable Technological Solutions for the Agri-Food Sector ".
The reviewers' comments are retyped below in normal font, and our responses and actions to address the comments are in normal blue font.
Review 1
References correction:
Reference [1] and [2] not found
References missing from line 72 to line 81
Line 81: references typo
References [6], [10] and [17] are incomplete
Wrong DOI for references [7] and [23]
Wrong format for references [8], [15] and [22]
Lines 92 and 93 contain the same reference.
Thank you for pointing out these aspects. Different corrections were made
The introduction is quite long and the concepts are not clearly exposed.
Thank you for your comment. It is indeed a long introduction, but we feel it is necessary to justify and contextualise the research. The concepts described there are further analysed and explained in the paper’s different sections. The goal of the written introduction was to explain this type of research that is different since the study does not have a more quantitative field component.
Before using acronyms (SMEs, line 104), the extended term should appear at least once
Thank you for noticing this. This typo was corrected.
Materials and methods are not clearly described and important information are missing (dates, sources, etc.). Currently, there are not enough information to replicate the work, that is the purpose of writing materials and methods.
Thank you for the comment. The materials and methods section has been changed, and part of the text from the results section is moved to this section to be better understood as the analysis was carried out. Previously might have been confused by project results that, in reality, is the capacity-building model definition.
The tables need to be revised to orderly show the data. Explanatory captions are needed.
Thank you for the comment. An explanation of the tables was added.
Results (and discussion?) should be extensively revised and synthesized to highlight the outcomes of this work.
Thank you for your comment. Some explanation text was added, and the work outcomes were highlighted.
The appendix and the paper body don't state when (year) the actions occurred. Line 317
The Appendix name was corrected. The year of the actions is not relevant since the model created is to be applied in any year. This explanation was introduced in the text.
Are the "Contents of the actions of the training Module" (From line 390 on) relevant?
These contents were written to explain in more detail the organisation and pedagogies used in the different modules.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents an important research topic. With the suggestions for revision it can be improved
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We wish to thank the reviewers’ for going through our manuscript and making valuable comments to further improve the quality of the article. We have addressed the reviewer’s comments and hope that the revised version is suitable for publication in the Journal Sustainability - Special Issue “Innovative and Sustainable Technological Solutions for the Agri-Food Sector ".
The reviewers' comments are retyped below in normal font, and our responses and actions to address the comments are in normal blue font.
Review 2
Abstract: The abstract is well written, however, the methodology can be better articulated.
Thank you for your comment. The abstract was revised to try to meet the comments.
Research Approach: The authors refer to the benchmarking process in the methodology. More detailed explanation of the rationale for the method is required. The authors also need to clearly describe the study design and data collection process to provide a basis for replicability based on the clarity of the scientific method. The authors need to clearly define the data used. Is it secondary data or primary research data collected from the different companies indicated in the paper.
Thank you for the comment. Some alterations to the text were made, and more explanation was added. There is information that might be in the wrong section (Results) that now might be clearer and help to understand the research process.
However, the discussion seems to be embedded in the presentation of results, and here the authors can rework to include more literature to strengthen the discussion of results.
Thank you for the suggestion. The results reflect the research made with the main literature revised. That is why the description of the results seems to embed the discussion. Plus, this type of result is always a discussion until they are proven to impact the learning process and knowledge and competence development. That is not the goal of the present research, but not only some explanation of this is included in the text, as this future research suggestion was included in the conclusion.
Conclusion: Once the discussion is reworked, the authors can update the conclusions to capture the key takeaways from the results and discussion in the conclusion and also include recommendations for research
Thank you for the comments. The conclusion section was altered to include the limitations and future research orientation.
Reviewer 3 Report
Abstract
Define SME (between brackets)
Two thirds of the abstract is literature, one third is this article work. I want this situation to be reversed. Elaborate more on what you investigated in this study.
Results (quantitative) should be emphasized in the abstract
Introduction
line 44-46: throw more light on valorizing lignocellulosic waste, insert citations.
I recommend those "Spanish poplar biomass as a precursor for nanocellulose extraction"
"Effect of environmental conditions on date palm fiber composites"
Talk about emergence of biomaterials as substituent to synthetic materials in all frameworks including packaging of fruits / vegetables as all other applications , in this context cite those
"In Vitro Electrochemical Corrosion Assessment of Magnesium Nanocomposites Reinforced with Samarium (III) Oxide and Silicon Dioxide Nanoparticles"
"Advances in the Development of Biodegradable Polymeric Materials for Biomedical Applications"
Materials & Methods
Table 1
"Vegetables & fruits " : No of employees "triangle", what does the triangle mean ? can you explain it in manusc.
Please dont be content with tables to describe models, add pie charts, & flow diagrams
Author Response
We wish to thank the reviewers’ for going through our manuscript and making valuable comments to improve the quality of the article further. We have addressed the reviewer’s comments and hope that the revised version is suitable for publication in the Journal Sustainability - Special Issue “Innovative and Sustainable Technological Solutions for the Agri-Food Sector ".
The reviewers' comments are retyped below in normal font, and our responses and actions to address the comments are in normal blue font.
Review 3
Define SME (between brackets)
Thank you for noticing this. This typo was corrected.
Two thirds of the abstract is literature, one third is this article work. I want this situation to be reversed. Elaborate more on what you investigated in this study.
Results (quantitative) should be emphasized in the abstract
Thank you for your comment. The abstract was revised to try to meet the comments. The results do not have a quantitative feature.
Introduction
line 44-46: throw more light on valorizing lignocellulosic waste, insert citations.
I recommend those "Spanish poplar biomass as a precursor for nanocellulose extraction"
"Effect of environmental conditions on date palm fiber composites"
Talk about emergence of biomaterials as substituent to synthetic materials in all frameworks including packaging of fruits / vegetables as all other applications , in this context cite those
"In Vitro Electrochemical Corrosion Assessment of Magnesium Nanocomposites Reinforced with Samarium (III) Oxide and Silicon Dioxide Nanoparticles"
"Advances in the Development of Biodegradable Polymeric Materials for Biomedical Applications"
Thank you for your suggestions. The relevance of waste management in agri-food industry was reinforced in the manuscript and references supporting this issue has been introduced.
Materials & Methods - Table 1 - "Vegetables & fruits " : No of employees "triangle", what does the triangle mean? can you explain it in manusc.
Thank you for noticing this. This typo was corrected.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
First of all, congratulations on the work presented.
This article addresses two very important topics today, innovation and sustainability. However, I will mention some points that can be improved.
From section 3 onwards, they should revise the spacing of the text.
Although the article is descriptive of a field experience, I think limitations and possible future research should be included to give continuity to the study presented.
I wish you the best of luck with the article.
Kind regards,
Author Response
We wish to thank the reviewers’ for going through our manuscript and making valuable comments to improve the quality of the article further. We have addressed the reviewer’s comments and hope that the revised version is suitable for publication in the Journal Sustainability - Special Issue “Innovative and Sustainable Technological Solutions for the Agri-Food Sector ".
The reviewers' comments are retyped below in normal font, and our responses and actions to address the comments are in blue normal font.
Review 4
From section 3 onwards, they should revise the spacing of the text.
Thank you for noticing this. The text was corrected
Although the article is descriptive of a field experience, I think limitations and possible future research should be included to give continuity to the study presented.
Thank you for your comment. The conclusions section has been updated and the limitations and future prospects have been included.
