Sustainability in the Food Industry: Trends, Thematic Axes, and Emerging Topics from a Bibliometric Analysis

Sustainability in the Food Industry: Trends,... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1004" }, "headline": "Sustainability in the Food Industry: Trends, Thematic Axes, and Emerging Topics from a Bibliometric Analysis", "datePublished": "2025-09-29T16:22:51", "dateModified": "2026-05-12T09:31:26", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Alejandro Valencia-Arias" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Manuel Humberto Vásquez Coronado" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Diana Carolina Velasco Cardona" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Jackeline Valencia" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Martha Luz Benjumea-Arias" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Edgar Roland Tuesta Torres" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Sebastián Cardona-Acevedo" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": "With increasing concern about the environmental and social impacts of the food industry, sustainability has become a central focus of scientific research. To better understand how this field has evolved, a bibliometric analysis was conducted to identify publication trends, key themes, and emerging topics. The analysis was based on data from Scopus and Web of Science and examined the evolution of scientific output related to sustainability in the food industry. Methods included keyword co-occurrence analysis, assessments of country and author productivity, and thematic evolution analysis. In addition, a Cartesian framework was used to classify key terms according to their relevance and recency. The results show an exponential growth in scientific output, with notable increases in 2019, 2021, 2022, and 2023, reaching a statistical significance of 99.65%. Three main country clusters were identified, with the United Kingdom, the United States, and Italy standing out for their productivity and impact. At the author level, Mangla and Luthra were the most productive, while Land, Beske, and Van Der Vorst had the greatest impact on the field. Thematic evolution analysis revealed a transition from early research focused on “soil erosion” to more recent themes such as “circular economy,” “supply chain management,” “food safety,” and “wastewater treatment.” The keyword co-occurrence network identified seven thematic clusters, with the most prominent cluster centered on “sustainability,” “waste management,” and “short supply chain.” Emerging topics included “Covid-19,” “blockchain,” and the “agri-food sector.” Overall, the study demonstrates a clear evolution and diversification of sustainability research in the food industry, underscoring the importance of emerging topics and international collaboration. It also proposes a multidisciplinary research agenda that prioritizes food security, sustainable agriculture, and supply chain management, and emphasizes the integration of innovative technologies to address current environmental, economic, and social challenges." } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1004", "name": "Sustainability in the Food Industry: Trends, Thematic Axes, and Emerging..." } } ] } Home Browse Sustainability in the Food Industry: Trends, Thematic Axes, and Emerging... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Valencia-Arias A, Vásquez Coronado MH, Velasco Cardona DC et al. Sustainability in the Food Industry: Trends, Thematic Axes, and Emerging Topics from a Bibliometric Analysis [version 3; peer review: 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1004 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.165434.3 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Systematic Review Revised Sustainability in the Food Industry: Trends, Thematic Axes, and Emerging Topics from a Bibliometric Analysis [version 3; peer review: 3 approved with reservations] Previously titled: "Sustainability in the Food System: trends, key themes, and emerging topics" Alejandro Valencia-Arias https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9434-6923 1 , Manuel Humberto Vásquez Coronado 2 , Diana Carolina Velasco Cardona 3 , [...] Jackeline Valencia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6524-9577 4 , Martha Luz Benjumea-Arias 5 , Edgar Roland Tuesta Torres 6 , Sebastián Cardona-Acevedo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6192-2928 5,7 Alejandro Valencia-Arias https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9434-6923 1 , Manuel Humberto Vásquez Coronado 2 , [...] Diana Carolina Velasco Cardona 3 , Jackeline Valencia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6524-9577 4 , Martha Luz Benjumea-Arias 5 , Edgar Roland Tuesta Torres 6 , Sebastián Cardona-Acevedo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6192-2928 5,7 PUBLISHED 12 May 2026 Author details Author details 1 Escuela de Ingeniería Industrial, Universidad Senor de Sipan, Chiclayo, Lambayeque, 14000, Peru 2 Facultad de Ingeniería, Arquitectura y Urbanismo, Universidad Senor de Sipan, Chiclayo, Lambayeque, 14013, Peru 3 Ciencias de la Salud, Institucion Universitaria Colegio Mayor de Antioquia, Medellín, Antioquia, 51052, Colombia 4 Vicerrectoría de Investigación y postgrado, Universidad de Los Lagos, Osorno, Los Lagos Region, 5290000, Chile 5 Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Administrativas, Instituto Tecnologico Metropolitano, Medellín, Antioquia, 50010, Colombia 6 Escuela de Posgrado USS, Universidad Senor de Sipan, Chiclayo, Lambayeque, 14001, Peru 7 Coordinación de Investigación, Institucion Universitaria Marco Fidel Suarez, Medellín, Antioquia, 55413, Colombia Alejandro Valencia-Arias Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Manuel Humberto Vásquez Coronado Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Diana Carolina Velasco Cardona Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Jackeline Valencia Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Martha Luz Benjumea-Arias Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Edgar Roland Tuesta Torres Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Sebastián Cardona-Acevedo Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Ecology and Global Change gateway. Abstract With increasing concern about the environmental and social impacts of the food industry, sustainability has become a central focus of scientific research. To better understand how this field has evolved, a bibliometric analysis was conducted to identify publication trends, key themes, and emerging topics. The analysis was based on data from Scopus and Web of Science and examined the evolution of scientific output related to sustainability in the food industry. Methods included keyword co-occurrence analysis, assessments of country and author productivity, and thematic evolution analysis. In addition, a Cartesian framework was used to classify key terms according to their relevance and recency. The results show an exponential growth in scientific output, with notable increases in 2019, 2021, 2022, and 2023, reaching a statistical significance of 99.65%. Three main country clusters were identified, with the United Kingdom, the United States, and Italy standing out for their productivity and impact. At the author level, Mangla and Luthra were the most productive, while Land, Beske, and Van Der Vorst had the greatest impact on the field. Thematic evolution analysis revealed a transition from early research focused on “soil erosion” to more recent themes such as “circular economy,” “supply chain management,” “food safety,” and “wastewater treatment.” The keyword co-occurrence network identified seven thematic clusters, with the most prominent cluster centered on “sustainability,” “waste management,” and “short supply chain.” Emerging topics included “Covid-19,” “blockchain,” and the “agri-food sector.” Overall, the study demonstrates a clear evolution and diversification of sustainability research in the food industry, underscoring the importance of emerging topics and international collaboration. It also proposes a multidisciplinary research agenda that prioritizes food security, sustainable agriculture, and supply chain management, and emphasizes the integration of innovative technologies to address current environmental, economic, and social challenges. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Supply chain, circular economy, disruptive technologies, PRISMA-2020, environmental impact. Corresponding Author(s) Alejandro Valencia-Arias ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Alejandro Valencia-Arias Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2026 Valencia-Arias A et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Valencia-Arias A, Vásquez Coronado MH, Velasco Cardona DC et al. Sustainability in the Food Industry: Trends, Thematic Axes, and Emerging Topics from a Bibliometric Analysis [version 3; peer review: 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1004 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.165434.3 ) First published: 29 Sep 2025, 14 :1004 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.165434.1 ) Latest published: 12 May 2026, 14 :1004 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.165434.3 ) Revised Amendments from Version 2 This revised version incorporates substantial methodological, analytical, and reporting improvements in response to peer review. The search strategy was expanded from a title-only approach to a title–abstract–keywords (TAK) framework across Scopus and Web of Science, reducing selection bias and improving coverage. Boolean logic was restructured and fully reproducible search strings were provided. A sensitivity analysis comparing both strategies was also included. The study is now explicitly framed as a bibliometric analysis, with PRISMA 2020 used solely as a reporting guideline. Methodological transparency was strengthened through detailed descriptions of data cleaning, coding procedures, and the use of Microsoft Excel®, as well as explicit parameter settings in VOSviewer for thematic analysis. Statistical interpretation was clarified by reporting regression-based trend analysis using R² as a measure of model fit rather than inferential significance. The discussion was enhanced with a more critical synthesis of findings, and bibliometric visualizations were improved with clearer captions and interpretations. Additionally, all datasets, search outputs, and analysis files have been made openly available via Zenodo to ensure reproducibility and compliance with open science standards. Minor revisions were also made to improve clarity, conciseness, and grammar. This revised version incorporates substantial methodological, analytical, and reporting improvements in response to peer review. The search strategy was expanded from a title-only approach to a title–abstract–keywords (TAK) framework across Scopus and Web of Science, reducing selection bias and improving coverage. Boolean logic was restructured and fully reproducible search strings were provided. A sensitivity analysis comparing both strategies was also included. The study is now explicitly framed as a bibliometric analysis, with PRISMA 2020 used solely as a reporting guideline. Methodological transparency was strengthened through detailed descriptions of data cleaning, coding procedures, and the use of Microsoft Excel®, as well as explicit parameter settings in VOSviewer for thematic analysis. Statistical interpretation was clarified by reporting regression-based trend analysis using R² as a measure of model fit rather than inferential significance. The discussion was enhanced with a more critical synthesis of findings, and bibliometric visualizations were improved with clearer captions and interpretations. Additionally, all datasets, search outputs, and analysis files have been made openly available via Zenodo to ensure reproducibility and compliance with open science standards. Minor revisions were also made to improve clarity, conciseness, and grammar. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Mohammad Fazle Rabbi See the authors' detailed response to the review by Konanani Thwala See the authors' detailed response to the review by Sophie Michel READ REVIEWER RESPONSES 1. Introduction Sustainability in the food industry has become a central concern in contemporary academic and policy debates due to the growing recognition of the environmental, social, and economic impacts associated with food production, processing, distribution, and consumption ( Echchakoui, 2020 ). Within this broad debate, the food industry is understood as the set of industrial and organizational activities responsible for transforming agricultural outputs into food products and distributing them through complex supply chains ( Mavani et al., 2022 ), while the food system constitutes a wider socio-technical framework that integrates production, processing, distribution, consumption, and waste management. Food production represents the primary stage of this system ( Daszkiewicz, 2022 ), and food security refers to the condition in which populations have stable physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food ( Savary et al., 2022 ). Clarifying these distinctions is essential to avoid conceptual overlap and to precisely delimit the analytical scope of sustainability research in this domain. Reconciling increasing global food demand with the preservation of finite natural resources and the resilience of socio-economic systems has positioned sustainability in the food industry as a strategic priority within broader sustainability agendas. Beyond mitigating the negative externalities of conventional practices, this perspective calls for a structural rethinking of how food systems are designed, governed, and managed, particularly in relation to industrial processes and supply chain configurations ( Friedman & Ormiston, 2022 ). In response to these challenges, research on sustainability in the food industry has expanded significantly, encompassing a wide range of approaches and analytical perspectives. Prior studies have addressed decision-making processes in food supply chains ( Zanoni & Zavanella, 2012 ), conceptual frameworks for sustainable supply chain management ( Mastos & Gotzamani, 2022 ), and the assessment of sustainability performance across food networks ( Carvalho et al., 2022 ). Other contributions have examined sector-specific challenges, including water use regulation in agricultural production ( Sutcliffe et al., 2023 ), biodiversity monitoring in long-distance supply chains ( Beck-O’Brien & Bringezu, 2021 ), and inventory control in perishable food systems using advanced optimization techniques ( Luo & Deng, 2023 ). Collectively, this body of work reflects the multidimensional and systemic nature of sustainability challenges across the food value chain. Within this expanding body of literature, technological innovation has emerged as a central enabling factor for advancing sustainability objectives in the food industry. Recent scholarship emphasizes the role of digital and Industry 4.0 technologies, such as blockchain, additive manufacturing, data-driven decision-support systems, artificial intelligence, and the Internet of Things, in enhancing transparency, efficiency, traceability, and resource optimization in food supply chains ( Friedman & Ormiston, 2022 ; Panghal, 2023 ; M. Kumar, 2023a ). These technologies are increasingly framed not merely as operational tools, but as strategic mechanisms capable of addressing the complex interactions between food security, human health, environmental constraints, and planetary boundaries ( Panghal, 2023 ). At the same time, policy-oriented studies and needs assessments underline the importance of coordinated research and outreach efforts to support the transition toward more sustainable agricultural and food production practices, highlighting technology adoption as a critical lever for systemic change ( Lamm, 2023 ). The relevance of this technological dimension has been further reinforced by recent global disruptions and systemic stressors. Events such as the H1N1 pandemic exposed structural vulnerabilities in global food supply chains, revealing the need to strengthen resilience while maintaining sustainability objectives ( Le, 2023 ). Parallel concerns related to water scarcity and climate change, particularly in irrigated food production under increasing global water stress, further emphasize the necessity of technology-enabled adaptation strategies within the food industry ( Mohan, 2022 ). Despite the rapid growth of literature in this field, significant research gaps remain. Notably, the integration of sustainability principles and digital technologies within food supply chain management continues to be fragmented, with limited systematic evidence on how technological innovations are shaping the evolution of sustainability-oriented research agendas across the food industry ( Mangla, 2018 ; Mastos & Gotzamani, 2022 ). Moreover, while specific supply chains present unique sustainability challenges related to certification, ethical considerations, and resource management, these issues are often examined in isolation, limiting the development of integrative perspectives ( Abderahman et al., 2021 ). Sustainability in exceptional or extreme contexts, including food production in constrained environments such as international space stations, remains similarly underexplored from a systemic and technology-oriented standpoint ( Carillo et al., 2020 ). These gaps reveal not only thematic blind spots, but also a lack of integrative analyses capable of capturing how technological innovation is reshaping the structure, priorities, and trajectories of sustainability research in the food industry. In this context, bibliometric analysis represents a valuable methodological approach for systematically mapping the intellectual landscape of the field, identifying dominant and emerging technology-related themes, influential contributions, and underdeveloped areas requiring further investigation ( Abderahman et al., 2021 ; Carillo et al., 2020 ; Mastos & Gotzamani, 2022 ). Accordingly, the present study adopts a focused yet integrative perspective, aiming to examine the evolution of research on sustainability in the food industry through a comprehensive bibliometric analysis, with particular attention to the role of technological and digital innovations. By analyzing publication trends, thematic structures, key references, and emerging keywords, the study seeks to clarify how sustainability and technology have co-evolved within the scientific literature, while simultaneously identifying critical research gaps and future research priorities. Guided by this objective, the study addresses the following research questions: 1. In which years have research trends on sustainability in the food industry been most prominent? 2. What is the growth rate of scientific publications related to sustainability in the food industry? 3. Which references constitute the primary intellectual foundations of this research field? 4. How have research themes related to food industry sustainability evolved over time, particularly in relation to technological innovation? 5. What are the dominant thematic areas within sustainability research in the food industry? 6. Which technology-related keywords are emerging as focal points in recent research? 7. Which topics should be prioritized in future research agendas on sustainability and technology in the food industry? By answering these questions, this article provides a structured and up-to-date synthesis of sustainability research in the food industry, explicitly emphasizing the role of technology as a driver of transformation. Beyond mapping existing knowledge, it offers a multidisciplinary research agenda that supports both theoretical advancement and practical decision-making. The study bridges conceptual development and applied insights, thereby contributing to more informed policy design and management strategies aimed at fostering sustainable, resilient, and technology-enabled food systems. 1.1 Literature review Research on sustainability in the food industry has intensified in recent decades as a response to escalating environmental pressures, resource constraints, and the growing demand for more responsible production and consumption models. This body of literature reflects a gradual shift from isolated environmental assessments toward more systemic and integrative approaches that consider technological, organizational, and social dimensions of food systems. Recent studies highlight the transformative role of digital technologies such as blockchain, artificial intelligence, and precision agriculture in enhancing operational efficiency, traceability, and resource optimization across food supply chains ( Şimşek et al., 2024 ; Galanakis, 2020 ). Within this technological trajectory, blockchain has received particular attention due to its potential to improve transparency, trust, and data security in food supply chains, which are critical enablers of sustainability-oriented governance ( Niknejad et al., 2021 ). Similarly, the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies, including digitalization and the Internet of Things, has been shown to support more efficient and sustainable food processing and production systems ( Režek et al., 2021 ). These innovations contribute not only to waste reduction and process optimization, but also to the development of more circular and resilient business models within the food industry ( Brennan, 2024 ). Despite these advances, literature consistently underscores the persistence of structural challenges affecting the sustainability of food systems. Issues such as food insecurity, climate instability, pressure on natural resources, and increasing food loss and waste continue to undermine the long-term viability of the sector. The COVID 19 pandemic acted as a critical stress test, exposing vulnerabilities in global food supply chains and amplifying concerns related to food safety, logistics, and equitable access to food ( Rizou, 2020 ; Şimşek et al., 2024 ). In response, scholars have emphasized the importance of resilience-oriented strategies, including localization, diversification of supply networks, and the strengthening of contingency and risk mitigation mechanisms ( Boyacı Gündüz, 2021 ; Galanakis, 2023 ). From a supply chain perspective, sustainability research has increasingly focused on both upstream and downstream processes. Studies examining agricultural production highlight the role of organizational and contextual factors such as competitive conditions and proximity to raw materials in shaping the adoption of sustainability instruments by firms ( Rueda et al., 2017 ). At the same time, life cycle assessment approaches have been applied to evaluate the environmental impacts of food products and packaging, proposing design improvements through material substitution, weight reduction, and circular design principles ( Del Borghi, 2014 ; Kazancoglu, 2023 ). These contributions reflect a growing emphasis on aligning technical efficiency with environmental performance across the entire product life cycle. Beyond production and logistics, recent literature has expanded the analytical lens to incorporate social, territorial, and communicative dimensions of sustainability in the food industry. Consumer perceptions and ethical expectations are increasingly recognized as key drivers of change, influencing corporate strategies and sustainability-oriented innovation ( Galanakis, 2020 ). In this regard, communication practices, particularly through digital and social media channels, have been examined as mechanisms through which food companies articulate and legitimize their sustainability commitments, with particular attention to social dimensions related to people and community engagement ( Garner & Mady, 2023 ). Complementarily, decision support approaches such as the analytic hierarchy process have been proposed to prioritize sustainability criteria, emphasizing local social and economic development as a strategic objective for food companies ( D’Adamo, 2023 ). Collectively, this literature illustrates the multifaceted nature of sustainability in the food industry, encompassing technological innovation, supply chain configuration, environmental performance, and socio territorial embeddedness. However, despite the richness of existing contributions, research remains fragmented across disciplinary boundaries and thematic silos. The lack of integrative assessments that capture the structural evolution of the field, identify dominant and emerging research streams, and systematically map underexplored areas limits the cumulative development of knowledge. In this context, the present study adopts the food system as an implicit integrative framework and employs a bibliometric approach to address this fragmentation. The search strategy is conceptually grounded in key structural and operational components of food systems associated with sustainability. The use of the term sustainability in the title ensures the inclusion of studies explicitly addressing environmental, social, and economic dimensions. The inclusion of food production captures research focused on primary production as the material foundation of food systems, where sustainability outcomes are closely linked to resource management and productive capacity ( Campi et al., 2021 ). The term food supply chain reflects the functional subsystem connecting production and consumption, whose configuration directly influences efficiency, resilience, and sustainability, particularly through alternatives such as short supply chains ( Jia et al., 2024 ). The inclusion of food industry allows for the analysis of industrial and corporate actors involved in processing, transformation, and distribution, and their structural influence on sustainability outcomes, governance, and public health ( Baker et al., 2021 ). Finally, incorporating the gastronomic industry extends the analytical scope to the consumption interface, recognizing gastronomy as a cultural and economic mediator capable of shaping more sustainable, localized, and socially embedded food systems ( Sgroi, 2022 ). Overall, the literature review highlights both the depth and the dispersion of sustainability research in the food industry. While significant progress has been made in technological innovation, waste reduction, and supply chain efficiency, less attention has been devoted to integrating these advances into a coherent and cumulative knowledge structure. This gap reinforces the relevance of bibliometric analysis as a tool for synthesizing existing research, identifying emerging themes, and informing a more coordinated and forward-looking research agenda on sustainability in the food industry. 2. Materials and methods To achieve the proposed objectives, exploratory research based on secondary sources was conducted. A bibliometric analysis was performed, adopting selected reporting principles from the PRISMA 2020 statement to enhance transparency in the data collection and selection process ( Page, 2021 ). This study is a bibliometric analysis rather than a systematic review; therefore, PRISMA 2020 was applied as a reporting guideline rather than as a strict methodological framework. Selected elements were used to document the identification, screening, and inclusion of records, while components specific to systematic reviews were not applied. To ensure methodological coherence, the study follows established practices in bibliometric research, including structured database queries, metadata normalization, and co-occurrence and thematic mapping techniques using specialized tools such as VOSviewer ( Donthu et al., 2021 ; Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017 ). Therefore, PRISMA should be interpreted as a complementary reporting support rather than the core methodological framework of the study. 2.1 Inclusion criteria The inclusion criteria focused on peer-reviewed journal articles indexed in Scopus and Web of Science that addressed sustainability in the food industry. Documents were selected based on the presence of relevant terms related to sustainability and food systems within the title, abstract, or keywords, in accordance with the defined search strategy. Only records with complete and standardized metadata were included to ensure data consistency and analytical reliability. The exclusion process consisted of three stages. First, records with incomplete or inconsistent indexing were removed. Second, duplicate records were identified and eliminated. Third, documents not aligned with the research focus were excluded. This process ensured the quality, coherence, and relevance of the final dataset. 2.2 Sources of information During the database selection process for this research, two of the most comprehensive and widely recognized sources of scientific information were chosen: Scopus and Web of Science. These databases are known for their extensive coverage of various disciplines and subject areas. The selection of Scopus and Web of Science as the sole sources of information was based on their high standards of editorial quality, the scientific impact of the journals they index, and the level of standardization of their metadata ( Echchakoui, 2020 ). These characteristics facilitate the systematic organization, normalization, and interpretation of bibliometric data, which is essential for conducting robust network analyses, thematic mappings, and trend identification. Furthermore, the use of these databases ensures greater comparability and replicability of results, as they represent the main international channels for the dissemination of high-impact scientific research in sustainability and food-related studies. 2.3 Search strategy The initial restriction to the title field introduced a potential systematic selection bias, as key concepts in interdisciplinary fields are often developed in abstracts or keywords rather than titles, risking underestimation of the knowledge base and reduced accuracy in thematic mapping. To address this, the search strategy was expanded to include title, abstract, and keyword fields. In Scopus, the TITLE-ABS-KEY field was applied, while in Web of Science the Topic (TS) field was used. Boolean logic was refined using OR operators to group food system concepts and AND to link them with sustainability, ensuring precise retrieval and reducing irrelevant records. The final search strings were: Scopus: TITLE-ABS-KEY (sustainab*) AND (“food production” OR “food industry” OR "“food supply chain” OR “gastronomic industry”) Web of Science: TS=(sustainab*) AND (“food production” OR “food industry” OR “food supply chain” OR “gastronomy”) A sensitivity analysis comparing the initial title-restricted approach with the expanded configuration confirmed that the latter increased corpus coverage while maintaining stability in core thematic clusters, supporting the methodological validity of the adopted search strategy. The analysis included peer-reviewed journal articles from both databases without disciplinary restrictions, provided sustainability and the food industry constituted the central focus of the study. 2.4 Data management For the development of this bibliometric study on sustainability in the food industry, we utilized the Microsoft Excel ® tool to extract, store, and manipulate the information obtained from the databases. This tool allowed for efficient organization and systematization of the collected data, which facilitated the bibliometric analysis carried out later. Additionally, the bibliometric indicators were graphically represented using a combination of the free software VOSviewer ® and Microsoft Excel ® . VOSviewer ® was utilized to create co-occurrence maps and thematic networks, while Microsoft Excel ® was used to generate graphs. This procedure corresponds to a technological approach previously applied to bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer ® ( Hirawan, 2022 ). This enriches the analytical possibilities of the present study. 2.5 Selection procedure Following the PRISMA 2020 statement guidelines, it is crucial to indicate the use of an automatic internal classifier for record selection assistance ( Page, 2021 ). Validating this case internally and externally is essential to raise awareness of the risks associated with omitting relevant studies or incorrectly assigning classifications. This study utilized automation tools developed in Microsoft Excel ® in accordance with the recommended guidelines. 2.6 Data collection process The study followed the guidelines provided by the PRISMA 2020 statement ( Page, 2021 ) or data collection. Data extraction from reports indexed in the Scopus and Web of Science databases was performed using Microsoft Excel ® . The analytical process in Excel included three stages: data cleaning, coding, and organization. First, the dataset was reviewed to remove duplicate records, correct inconsistencies in author names, titles, and keywords, and standardize text fields. Second, coding rules were applied to classify variables such as publication year, research themes, and document types based on predefined criteria. Finally, automated Excel functions and algorithms (e.g., conditional formulas, logical functions, and pivot tables) were used to filter, organize, and generate descriptive summaries of the dataset. All authors involved in this research served as reviewers of the validation process of the data obtained from both databases, working independently to ensure an impartial evaluation of the results. A collaborative data confirmation process was then carried out until absolute convergence of the results was achieved, ensuring precision and coherence of the collected data in accordance with validation and confirmation guidelines recommended in scientific literature. 2.7 Data elements For this research on the sustainability of the food industry, we studied data related specifically to our research objective. We collected information from articles that matched our search equation for each database. It was decided to exclude non-relevant information to maintain coherence and quality of the dataset. This ensures that incomplete elements do not distort the understanding of the knowledge base on the topic. Assessment of the risk of bias of the study 2.8. Based on the bias assessment guidelines observed in the included studies, it is necessary to provide detailed information on the methods and tools used. A consistent approach was used in this review. In addition, as all authors were involved in data collection, the risk of bias was assessed using a similar methodology, which ensured consistency between data collection and bias assessment. Finally, Microsoft Excel ® was used as an automated tool throughout the process. 2.9 Measures of impact In the context of bibliometrics on sustainability in the food industry, impact measures are specified. Although more commonly applied in primary research, they can also be adapted to the approach of secondary research sources. The focus is on quantitative aspects that can be extracted from the data. This includes bibliographical information. The metrics analyzed to evaluate the research output include the number of publications, number of citations, and the temporal usage of each keyword. Tools such as Microsoft Excel ® are used for data systematization and processing. Additionally, VOSviewer ® is utilized to identify thematic nodes and associations within the literature. By utilizing these tools and following established guidelines, a comprehensive understanding of sustainability patterns and trends in the food industry can be obtained, even without utilizing traditional impact measures. Automated tools developed in Microsoft Excel ® were used to support the classification, structuring, and graphical representation of bibliometric data, operating through equations and logical rules applied to standardized metadata to organize records and generate descriptive indicators. To this end, descriptive and exploratory statistical operations were applied, including the calculation of frequencies, measures of central tendency, temporal distribution of publications, citation and keyword counts, growth analysis through trend fitting and interannual comparisons, as well as co-occurrence matrices and data aggregation and normalization procedures. The resulting outputs were represented through graphs and bibliometric maps to describe the structure and evolution of the field of study from a quantitative and non-inferential perspective. Validation of these tools was carried out through iterative cross-checks between automated results and manual reviews of record samples, allowing for rule adjustments when inconsistencies were identified. Potential sources of error related to metadata quality, the limitations of fixed rules in capturing complex semantic nuances, and thematic ambiguity in certain documents were acknowledged; therefore, automated outputs were continuously supervised and complemented by human review. 2.10 Synthesis methods The studies’ eligibility in each synthesis was determined based on the context provided by this bibliometrics, following rigorous methodological processes. The characteristics of the study intervention were tabulated and compared, generating a contrast for each synthesis. Statistical issues related to missing summary or data conversions were addressed to prepare the data for presentation and synthesis. By following these methodological steps, we applied bibliometric indicators to evaluate the quantity, quality, and structure of the results obtained ( Durieux & Gevenois, 2010 ). Finally, we implemented the indicators in a fully automated manner using Microsoft Excel ® and applied them only to documents that passed the three exclusion phases defined in the study. The identification of thematic areas followed an inductive and data-driven analytical procedure. Themes were not defined as a priori; instead, they were derived from bibliometric techniques aimed at detecting relational patterns among keywords, including co-occurrence analysis and thematic mapping. These techniques were used to reveal the underlying structure of the research field, while the substantive interpretation of the resulting themes was developed in the Results and Discussion sections. 2.11 Assessment of reporting bias In this bibliometric research on the sustainability of the food industry, it is important to address the risk of bias that may arise from the absence of results in the syntheses due to reporting bias. Additionally, we recognize the possibility of biases in certain synonyms identified in thesauri such as the IEEE, which will be reflected in the inclusion criteria, search strategy, and data collection. This research is based on a critical evaluation and careful interpretation of the results to ensure the solidity of the study. However, it is important to note that following the characteristics of clear, objective language and conventional structure may unintentionally lead to the omission of relevant information. Additionally, exclusion criteria based on incomplete indexing, conference proceedings, and non-relevant texts may result in the loss of valuable data for knowledge in the area of study. 2.12 Quality control procedures and reviewer consistency To ensure methodological reliability, specific quality control procedures were established to verify data consistency, stability, and accuracy throughout the analytical process. These procedures included sequential reviews of the dataset at different stages of the analysis to identify unjustified variations in record classification, coding, or structuring. In addition, logical coherence checks were applied across bibliometric variables, allowing the detection of potential errors arising from automated sorting or grouping processes. Reviewer agreement was assessed through the systematic comparison of independently made decisions regarding record inclusion, exclusion, and categorization. Concordance was examined in terms of absolute agreement and decision stability over time, with consistent application of criteria across reviewers considered an indicator of methodological rigor. Identified differences were used as feedback to refine the operational application of the criteria and to improve internal consistency of the analysis. Discrepancy management followed a stepwise procedure. First, records with divergent decisions were jointly re-evaluated, explicitly contrasting each case against the predefined operational criteria. When discrepancies persisted, a methodological discussion was conducted to clarify criterion interpretation and ensure uniform application. In cases where immediate consensus was not achieved, final decisions were reached through collegial deliberation, prioritizing coherence of the analytical corpus and stability of the applied categories. This approach reduced individual arbitrariness and strengthened the overall methodological robustness of the study. 2.13 Evaluation of certainty The review’s assessment of certainty differs significantly from primary studies. Rather than evaluating individual results, it provides a global assessment that encompasses various aspects of the methodological process. These include the independent application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, the definition and measurement of bibliometric indicators, and the reporting of possible biases inherent in the methodological design. This section covers the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, the definition and measurement of bibliometric indicators, and the reporting of potential biases in the methodological design. The discussion phase addresses the assessment of certainty, which is further reinforced by discussing limitations. This approach allows for a better understanding of the implications and scope of the results obtained. The applied strategy enables a comprehensive evaluation of the confidence level perceived in the evidence, considering the methodological aspects, possible biases, and limitations inherent to this type of research. To summarize the methodological design, refer to the recommended flow chart presented in Figure 1 . Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart. Own elaboration based on scopus and web of science. The diagram displays the identification of articles in three stages. Firstly, the search strategy is executed in selected information sources, and duplicate documents are excluded. Secondly, the defined eligibility criteria are applied to exclude irrelevant records. Finally, 525 articles are obtained, which form the basis of analysis in this bibliometric research. 3. Results The results are presented in alignment with the research questions, providing a structured overview of publication trends, key contributors, geographical distribution, thematic evolution, and emerging concepts in sustainability research within the food industry. This methodological presentation not only clarifies the scope of the research, but also enhances understanding of current and future directions in the field. Through bibliometric analysis, descriptive statistics were obtained to characterize the evolution of sustainability research in the food industry. To examine publication trends over time, a regression analysis was conducted using the annual number of publications as the dependent variable. The exponential trend shown in Figure 2 reflects a strong model fit (R 2 = 0.9965), indicating that the model explains most of the observed variation in the data. In this context, the value refers to the goodness of fit of the trend model rather than inferential statistical significance. The most productive years in terms of scientific output were 2019, 2021, 2022, and 2023, reflecting a clear increase in scientific attention to this topic in recent years. Figure 2. Publications by year. The figure shows the annual number of scientific publications on sustainability in the food industry over the study period. The trend line illustrates the overall growth pattern of the literature. Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Scopus and Web of Science data. The exponential growth pattern was identified through a descriptive regression analysis applied to the annual number of publications. An exponential trendline was fitted to the time series using Microsoft Excel ® , and the reported value (99.65%) corresponds to the coefficient of determination (R 2 ), which indicates the goodness of fit of the model. This analysis aims to illustrate the overall growth tendency of scientific production rather than to provide predictive or causal inferences. On the other hand, when it comes to research references, three distinct groups of authors emerge, each playing a prominent role in terms of their level of scientific productivity and academic impact. These results are illustrated in Figure 3 , which uses a Cartesian plane to determine the position of each group of authors based on the total number of citations they have received. The text identifies three groups of authors based on their scientific productivity and impact. Mangla and Luthra are distinguished for their outstanding scientific productivity and relevance of their contributions. Figure 3. Main authors. The figure presents the distribution of authors based on their scientific productivity and citation impact. The positioning reflects differences in the relationship between the number of publications and the number of citations. Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Scopus and Web of Science data. Land, Beske, Seuring, and Van Der Vorst are considered references in terms of impact, despite having a more moderate scientific productivity. Finally, the third group is led by author Kumar, who is distinguished by his scientific productivity, although it does not translate into the same number of citations. These results confirm the existence of different dynamics that converge between productivity and impact parameters within this field of research, providing a comprehensive overview of the composition and contributions of authors in this discipline. This study identified three groups of journals based on their prominence and level of productivity and impact, as shown in Figure 4 . The first group includes the journals International Journal of Production Economics, Journal of Cleaner Production, and Sustainability. These journals are highly important in terms of their scientific productivity and the impact generated by their publications. Figure 4. Major journals. The figure shows the main journals in the field, classified according to their level of scientific productivity and citation impact. The distribution highlights differences between highly productive and highly cited journals. Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Scopus and Web of Science data. The second group of journals includes the International Journal of Production Research, which has a significant impact but moderate scientific productivity. The third group is led by the journal Sustainable Production and Consumption, which is highly scientifically productive but receives fewer citations. The bibliometric analysis has identified three distinct groups of countries based on their level of productivity and impact, as shown in Figure 5 . The first group comprises countries highly relevant to sustainability in the food industry, such as the United Kingdom, the United States, and Italy. These countries are recognized for their high levels of scientific productivity and academic impact. Figure 5. Main countries. The figure presents the distribution of countries based on their scientific productivity and citation impact in sustainability research in the food industry. The positioning reflects differences in research output and influence. Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Scopus and Web of Science data. The most cited studies on sustainability in the food industry in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy reveal diverse regional approaches. In the United States, research highlights private investments as key drivers for addressing environmental issues in the agri-food sector. The study analyzes the decision-making process and conditions that lead to the adoption of sustainability instruments ( Rueda et al., 2017 ). Meanwhile, the Italian study by Del Borghi (2014) focuses on the environmental impacts of tomato-based products and proposes technical and managerial solutions through a Life Cycle Assessment. The UK research by Otles et al. (2015) addresses the global challenge of food waste management, highlighting waste recovery strategies and regulatory policies to improve the sustainability of the food industry worldwide. These regional variations provide valuable insights into sustainability, emphasizing the significance of localized approaches to addressing the environmental and social complexities of the food industry. The second group consists of Holland and Germany, which are considered references in terms of impact, although their scientific productivity is more moderate. On the other hand, the third group of reference countries is led by India, a country that stands out above all for its scientific productivity, but not necessarily for the number of citations it receives. The thematic evolution reflects a transition from early biophysical concerns, such as soil erosion, toward more integrative and systemic approaches, including circular economy and supply chain management. This shift can be associated with the increasing complexity of sustainability challenges, the rise of interdisciplinary research frameworks, and the influence of global policy agendas on food systems. The dominance of themes over time was determined based on the longitudinal frequency and co-occurrence of keywords, serving as an indicator of their relative prominence within the scientific discourse. Figure 6 shows the results of an exhaustive analysis of thematic evolution, exploring the trend in the use of predominant keywords from 1989 to 2023. The initial year, 1989, identified the predominance of key concepts such as ‘soil erosion’, marking a milestone in early research in the field. In recent years, there has been a predominance of terms such as ‘circular economy’, ‘supply chain management’, ‘food safety’, ‘wastewater treatment’, and ‘food security’ in this discipline. These terms highlight the current trends of research and reflection while recognizing the changing nature of the field. Figure 6. Thematic development. The figure shows the temporal evolution of the dominant keywords in the literature on sustainability in the food industry from 1989 to 2023. Terms positioned in later periods indicate more recent thematic prominence, whereas earlier terms reflect the initial conceptual orientation of the field. The figure illustrates the transition from early environmental concerns toward more systemic and management-oriented sustainability themes. Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Scopus and Web of Science data. The thematic development map reveals a clear longitudinal transition in the field. Early research was mainly oriented toward biophysical and resource-related concerns, such as soil erosion, whereas more recent themes are associated with circular economy, supply chain management, food safety, wastewater treatment, and food security. This shift suggests that sustainability research in the food industry has moved from relatively narrow environmental concerns toward broader systemic approaches that integrate operational, technological, and resilience-oriented dimensions. In analytical terms, the map indicates not only thematic diversification, but also the consolidation of sustainability as a multidimensional research domain shaped by contemporary global challenges. In this literature review study, a matrix of 7 thematic clusters is used to illustrate the central structure of the co-occurrence of keywords indexed in each scientific article, which is essential in the field of sustainability in the food industry. The purple cluster, composed of terms such as ‘sustainability’, ‘waste management’, and ‘short food supply chain’, predominates, showing its high conceptual coherence. Following the red cluster is the blue cluster, which is defined by terms such as ‘food security’, ‘food production’, ‘climate change’, ‘biodiversity’, and ‘agriculture’, covering a wide range of interrelated topics. Additionally, clusters of green, yellow, orange, and turquoise coexist, adding layers of thematic affinity and providing a clear visual structure regarding the key conceptual relationships in the subject of this study. Finally, the investigation includes a unique approach by proposing a Cartesian system, as shown in Figure 8 . The system is based on the frequency of use in relation to the validity of each relevant keyword in the context of this research. The validity was determined by observing the average year of use in relation to the scientific literature. This generates four quadrants for the comprehensive analysis of the dynamics described above. The four quadrants are created by plotting the frequency of use on the X-axis and validity on the Y-axis. Quadrant 4 shows the concepts in decline, where keywords such as ‘agriculture’ and ‘food’ are observed to be less prominent in terms of their usage over time. On the other hand, Quadrant 2 displays terms with low frequency but high validity, categorized as emerging topics. These include ‘Covid-19’, ‘Circular Economy’, ‘Blockchain’, ‘Agri-Food Sector’, and ‘Climate Change’, which are considered current research trends. Meanwhile, quadrant 1 contains consolidated and growing concepts. In this case, the term ‘food security’ is present, demonstrating its deep-rooted relevance and persistent adoption in current academic discourse addressing sustainability in the food industry. The Cartesian system was designed to visualize keyword dynamics based on frequency of occurrence and temporal recency of use. The metric initially referred to as “validity” corresponds to the average year of appearance of each keyword and is better understood as an indicator of temporal relevance. Quadrant thresholds were defined using the mean values of both frequency and temporal recency, allowing for a relative classification of keywords as emerging, consolidated, declining, or peripheral within the analyzed corpus. From an interpretive perspective, the Cartesian distribution of keywords provides insights into how concepts evolve over time. Keywords located in the emerging quadrant represent topics that have gained recent attention but have not yet reached high consolidation, such as Covid-19, blockchain, and circular economy. In contrast, food security appears as a consolidated and growing concept, reflecting its stable and central role in the literature. Meanwhile, terms such as agriculture and food, although historically important, appear in declining positions because the field has progressively shifted toward more specific and operational concepts. Therefore, the figure does not imply that these topics have lost substantive importance, but rather that the vocabulary of the field has become more specialized and analytically differentiated over time. 4. Discussion This section interprets the main findings of the bibliometric analysis, focusing on scientific production trends, key contributors, thematic evolution, and emerging research directions. It also examines the practical implications, limitations, and research gaps identified, providing a foundation for a future research agenda in sustainability within the food industry. 4.1 Integrated analysis of scientific production growth and key references in food industry sustainability The bibliometric analysis reveals a sustained growth in scientific production on sustainability in the food industry throughout the analyzed period (see Figure 2 ), with a marked increase from 2019 onwards and a peak in 2022. This trend reflects the growing academic interest in addressing sustainability through multidimensional approaches that integrate environmental, economic, and technological perspectives. During this period, research increasingly focused on global challenges such as CO 2 emissions, population growth, food production, and energy consumption, particularly in developing economies ( Rehman, 2022 ). At the same time, innovation-oriented studies examined the role of emerging technologies, such as blockchain, in enhancing transparency and efficiency within sustainable food supply chains at a global scale ( Friedman & Ormiston, 2022 ). The years 2021 and 2023 further consolidated this trajectory, with research addressing the design of sustainable perishable food supply networks and their contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals, including empirical case studies in the dairy sector ( Jouzdani & Govindan, 2021 ). Other studies explored sustainable practices in agri-food supply chains under conditions of uncertainty and complex market dynamics ( Joshi et al., 2023 ; Gholian-Jouybari, 2023 ). Earlier contributions had already laid important foundations by assessing the economic, environmental, and social sustainability of short food supply chains ( Malak-Rawlikowska et al., 2019 ) and by examining the role of information and communication technologies in promoting the sustainable growth of small and medium-sized enterprises in the food industry ( Singh et al., 2019 ). Collectively, these studies illustrate a progressive shift toward integrated analytical frameworks that combine operational efficiency, technological innovation, and systemic sustainability. This quantitative expansion of the literature is closely aligned with the consolidation of a core group of influential authors, journals, and countries shaping the intellectual structure of the field. In terms of key research references (see Figure 3 ), authors such as Mangla and Luthra stand out due to their high academic productivity and scientific impact, particularly in studies addressing enabling factors for implementing sustainable initiatives in agri-food supply chains and the application of digital technologies to support sustainable SME growth ( Mangla, 2018 ; Singh et al., 2019 ). Additional influential contributions from authors such as Beske, Seuring, and Van der Vorst have advanced the field by integrating concepts of sustainable supply chain management, dynamic capabilities, simulation modeling, and holistic decision-making that jointly consider product quality, logistics, and sustainability objectives ( Beske et al., 2014 ; Vorst et al., 2009 ). From an editorial perspective, journals such as International Journal of Production Economics, Journal of Cleaner Production, Sustainability, and International Journal of Production Research emerge as the most prolific and influential outlets in this research domain (see Figure 4 ). These journals have played a central role in consolidating sustainability as a core research theme within the food industry by publishing studies on sustainable supply chain management, technological innovation, life cycle assessment, and the transition toward more sustainable agri-food systems ( Beske et al., 2014 ; Grimm et al., 2014 ; Notarnicola et al., 2012 ; Saurabh & Dey, 2021 ). Regarding the geographical distribution of scientific production (see Figure 5 ), countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Italy, the Netherlands, and Germany emerge as leading contributors to research on food industry sustainability. The United Kingdom has been particularly influential through studies on local food supply chains, producer sustainability, and ecological entrepreneurship ( Ilbery & Maye, 2005 ; Marsden & Smith, 2005 ). The United States and Italy have contributed substantially through research on sustainable management practices, environmental assessment, and strategic decision-making in agri-food supply chains ( Grimm et al., 2014 ; Zanoni & Zavanella, 2012 ; Del Borghi, 2014 ). Similarly, Germany and the Netherlands have played a key role in advancing analytical models and sustainable management practices applicable to food supply chains ( Beske et al., 2014 ; Vorst et al., 2009 ). Overall, integrating the analysis of scientific production growth with the examination of key references, journals, and countries reveals not only a quantitative expansion of research on sustainability in the food industry, but also the consolidation of a well-defined intellectual structure. This structure is characterized by influential academic actors and geographically concentrated research hubs that collectively shape contemporary research agendas and methodological approaches within the field. 4.2 Analysis of food sustainability theme evolution and thematic clusters Regarding thematic evolution, early research on sustainability in the food industry was primarily oriented toward environmental concerns related to food production, with a strong emphasis on soil erosion and land degradation ( Brklacich, 1989 ). Over time, this focus expanded substantially (see Figure 6 ), incorporating broader and more complex dimensions such as circular economy, supply chain management, food safety, wastewater treatment, and food security. This evolution reflects a growing awareness of the need to address sustainability challenges in the food industry from a more integrated and systemic perspective, capable of responding to changing dynamics and emerging global demands. From 2019 onwards, food security emerged as a central research theme, particularly in relation to technological and energy-based solutions for sustainable food production. For example, Kinney et al. (2019) analyzed the use of geothermal energy to improve food access in remote communities in northern Canada, highlighting the role of renewable energy in enhancing food security. In 2020, attention shifted toward wastewater treatment as a critical issue for environmental management and public health, with studies proposing more efficient and sustainable pretreatment processes for food industry effluents ( Boguniewicz-Zablocka, 2020 ). In 2021, food security regained prominence through research addressing the sustainability of agri-food supply chains under conditions of uncertainty, including epidemic outbreaks, and emphasizing the enabling role of digital technologies such as the Internet of Things ( Yadav et al., 2021 ). Subsequently, supply chain management became particularly salient in 2022, as studies highlighted the contribution of quality practices and transparency in fresh food supply chains to organizational sustainability and waste reduction ( Siddh et al., 2021 ). More recently, in 2023, the circular economy emerged as a dominant conceptual framework, with research examining its potential to drive sustainable development through waste reduction and resource reuse within food supply chains ( Kumar, 2023a ). Complementing this temporal analysis, the co-occurrence network of keywords reveals the internal thematic structure of the field (see Figure 7 ). The network was generated using VOS viewer, applying a keyword co-occurrence analysis. Prior to the analysis, keywords were normalized by merging synonyms and similar terms (e.g., singular/plural forms and spelling variations) to ensure consistency in the dataset. A minimum occurrence threshold was established for keyword inclusion in the network, allowing the identification of the most relevant terms in literature. The clustering procedure was performed using the VOS viewer clustering algorithm based on association strength, which groups keywords according to the intensity of their co-occurrence relationships. Figure 7. Keyword co-occurrence network. The X-axis represents keyword frequency, and the Y-axis represents temporal relevance, operationalized as the average year of keyword occurrence in the dataset. The four quadrants classify keywords according to their relative position as consolidated, emerging, declining, or peripheral topics. This figure supports the identification of current priorities and shifting conceptual dynamics within the field. Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Scopus and Web of Science data. The most prominent cluster, identified in purple, centers on sustainability, waste management, and short food supply chains, emphasizing the role of waste reduction strategies in improving the overall sustainability of fresh food supply chains ( Kaipia et al., 2013 ). A second major cluster, shown in blue, encompasses food security, food production, climate change, biodiversity, and agriculture, reflecting broader systemic and environmental concerns related to resilience and long-term sustainability. Together, these clusters illustrate how sustainability research in the food industry has evolved around interconnected yet distinct thematic pillars. The keyword co-occurrence network should be interpreted as a representation of the intellectual structure of the field. Larger nodes indicate concepts with greater visibility in the literature, while stronger links reflect terms that are frequently studied together. In this case, the predominance of the cluster centered on sustainability, waste management, and short food supply chains suggests that resource efficiency and localized supply strategies constitute a major thematic core of the field. At the same time, the relative separation between some clusters indicates that literature still develops several sustainability-related themes in a fragmented manner. This is particularly relevant for understanding the limited integration between technology-oriented approaches, food security, and broader systemic resilience, thereby revealing opportunities for future interdisciplinary research. However, a closer examination of the co-occurrence network suggests that links between these clusters remain relatively weak, particularly between waste management-oriented supply chain research and themes related to food security, digital technologies, and production resilience. This pattern indicates that much of the literature approaches sustainability from compartmentalized perspectives rather than integrated frameworks. Consequently, research that explicitly bridges circular economic practices, food security objectives, technological adoption, and systemic resilience remains limited, highlighting important opportunities for future interdisciplinary and cross-thematic studies. 4.3 Functional and evolutionary analysis of key concepts in food sustainability research The bibliometric analysis reveals notable changes in the relevance and function of key concepts associated with sustainability in the food industry (see Figure 8 ). Traditionally central terms such as “agriculture” and “food” have shown a decline in their frequency of use in recent years. Although these concepts historically constituted the backbone of food sustainability research, their reduced presence suggests a shift in scholarly attention toward more specialized and functionally defined themes. Currently, “agriculture” appears mainly in studies that explicitly link sustainable agricultural practices with food production and poverty reduction, particularly in developing contexts ( Omodero, 2021 ). Similarly, despite the foundational role of “food” in sustainability debates related to food safety, waste, and distribution, its declining frequency indicates a transition toward more precise and operational terminology within the field ( A. Kumar, 2020 ). Figure 8. Validity and frequency of keywords. The X-axis represents keyword frequency, and the Y-axis represents temporal relevance, operationalized as the average year of keyword occurrence in the dataset. The four quadrants classify keywords according to their relative position as consolidated, emerging, declining, or peripheral topics. This figure supports the identification of current priorities and shifting conceptual dynamics within the field. Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Scopus and Web of Science data. This semantic shift is further reflected in the emergence and consolidation of new thematic priorities. In Quadrant 2, the analysis highlights Covid-19, circular economy, and blockchain as concepts of growing relevance. The Covid-19 pandemic has had a transformative effect on sustainable food supply chains, emphasizing the need for resilience, adaptability, and real-time monitoring (V. Kumar, 2023b ). The circular economy has become a key paradigm for addressing environmental challenges in the food sector, promoting resource efficiency, waste minimization, and closed-loop systems through practices such as life cycle assessment and eco-design ( Krishnan, 2020 ). At the same time, blockchain technology has emerged as a disruptive tool capable of enhancing transparency, traceability, and trust across food supply chains by enabling decentralized and immutable data records ( Joo & Han, 2021 ). In contrast, Quadrant 1 captures concepts that have consolidated their relevance over time, with food security standing out as a central and enduring concern. Food security remains a fundamental pillar for global stability and population well-being, encompassing not only food availability but also access, utilization, and nutritional adequacy. Research in this area has addressed the role of sustainable agriculture in ensuring food security in developing countries ( Pawlak & Kołodziejczak, 2020 ), as well as emerging challenges such as natural epidemics. Recent studies emphasize the integration of digital technologies, particularly the Internet of Things (IoT), to enhance the resilience and sustainability of agri-food supply chains under crisis conditions ( Yadav et al., 2021 ). To further structure these findings, Table 1 presents a functional classification of emerging and growing keywords related to sustainability in the food industry. Keywords were categorized according to their predominant function, associated tools, applications, and defining characteristics, considering their frequency, validity, thematic clustering, and temporal evolution. This classification highlights key areas such as Covid-19, circular economy, blockchain, climate change, the agri-food sector, and food security, providing a synthesized view of current research priorities and future opportunities. By linking conceptual evolution with functional roles, this integrated analysis offers a clearer understanding of how sustainability research in the food industry is evolving toward more applied, technology-driven, and system-oriented approaches. Table 1. Classification of keywords according to their function. Own elaboration based on scopus and web of science. Keyword Associated tools Applications Characteristics Covid-19 Contact Tracing, Data Analytics Pandemic Response Real-time Monitoring Circular Economy Life Cycle Assessment, Eco-design Resource Optimization Closed-loop Systems Blockchain Decentralization, Smart Contracts Supply Chain Transparency Immutable Ledger Agri-Food Sector Precision Agriculture, Farm Management Sustainable Production Traceability Climate Change Carbon Footprint, Adaptation Strategies Mitigation and Resilience Climate Models Food Security Nutritional Assessment, Food Access Food Availability Vulnerability Assessment 4.4 Other related studies and literature review Compared to the findings of our study, the results of the literature review highlight a landscape in which sustainability in the food industry is seen as an ever-evolving field, with an increasing focus on the adoption of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, blockchain and precision agriculture ( Galanakis, 2020 ; Şimşek et al., 2024 ). However, our results reveal an even more recent trend, with a significant increase in scientific production between 2021 and 2023, reflecting a surge in interest in this topic. The key difference lies in the fact that while the technologies mentioned in the literature are recognised as key factors for improving sustainability, our research identifies a concentration of terms such as ‘circular economy’ and ‘food security’, which stand out as consolidated and growing concepts in current research. This finding supports the idea that as emerging technologies gain traction, traditional concepts such as food security remain central to academic discussions. Furthermore, when looking at authorship patterns and key contributions, figures such as Mangla and Luthra emerge as key references in terms of productivity and impact, which is consistent with the identification of countries such as the UK, the US and Italy as the most productive and influential in the field of food sustainability. However, our research goes further by identifying three groups of countries with different dynamics of productivity and impact. The case studies mentioned in the literature, such as those by Rueda et al. (2017) and Otles et al. (2015) , address critical aspects of sustainability in different regions, while our findings show a growing interest in global issues such as climate change and the circular economy. This suggests that while regional research remains relevant, there is an increasing global interconnectedness around food sustainability, with a particular focus on resilience and adaptation to global crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast to the present research, which focuses on the bibliometric evolution of sustainability in the food industry, ( Herrero, 2010 ) emphasize the importance of mixed cropping and livestock systems as significant contributors to global food production. They highlight the need for policies aimed at intensifying agricultural production through efficient input management to reduce waste and environmental impact. Rana, Tricase, and De Cesare, Rana et al. (2021) discuss the potential of blockchain technology in the agri-food supply chain and its contribution to sustainability. Although the author’s research highlights the relevance of key terms such as ‘Circular Economy’ and ‘Blockchain’, Herrero et al. and Rana et al. offer specific approaches related to sustainable agricultural production and the application of technology in the supply chain, respectively. However, Nicholls et al. (2020) emphasize the role of small-scale food production in urban areas in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They examine how urban and peri-urban agriculture, with its small scale and diverse crops, can provide a sustainable alternative by addressing multiple SDGs, including biodiversity and local food production. This study focuses on the evolution of key terms and approaches in the literature on food sustainability. Compared to Garcia et al. (2020) research, which emphasizes the need for a ‘One Health’ approach to ensure food safety and sustainable production, this study offers a more focused view of emerging trends and themes in academic research on sustainability in the food industry. Nicholls et al. demonstrate the significance of sustainable local production. Garcia et al. propose a broader ‘One Health’ framework that addresses the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health in food production. It is important to consider both perspectives when evaluating sustainable food production. From the perspective of transitions toward sustainability, the thematic shift identified in this study reflects a broader movement from specific environmental concerns toward systemic and integrative frameworks, such as the circular economy and food system resilience. This evolution is consistent with theories of socio-technical transitions, which argue that changes in scientific agendas tend to reflect transformations in public policy priorities, technological innovation, and social expectations. Recent evidence shows that research on sustainability in the food industry has experienced rapid and sustained growth, particularly since 2018, establishing itself as an emerging and highly dynamic field with a clearly defined intellectual structure ( Şimşek et al., 2024 ). The growing centrality of issues such as food systems, food supply chains, food security, climate change, food waste, and the circular economy confirms a shift towards multidimensional and integrated analytical approaches, beyond isolated environmental issues. From the perspective of food system transformation, the concentration of scientific production in certain regions and thematic clusters highlights how dominant scientific agendas shape the global understanding of sustainability challenges. Bibliometric evidence indicates that countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy act as central nodes in the production and dissemination of knowledge, while regions such as Africa and Latin America are less represented, revealing persistent geographical asymmetries in scientific visibility and influence ( Şimşek et al., 2024 ). These patterns are closely linked to the role of the food industry as a key player in the transition to sustainability, as companies respond to pressure from policymakers, consumers, and other stakeholders to reduce their environmental footprint, improve supply chain transparency, promote ethical sourcing, and adopt circular economy principles ( Prasanna et al., 2025 ). Likewise, the literature emphasizes that the sustainability of food systems cannot be addressed exclusively from the primary production stage but must consider the entire food value chain in a comprehensive manner, including processing, distribution, and consumption. While the pre-harvest phases contribute significantly to key environmental indicators, such as greenhouse gas emissions, the post-harvest stages play a critical role in maintaining food quality, reducing losses, and increasing the overall efficiency of the system ( Schottroff et al., 2022 ). In this context, tools such as Life Cycle Assessment have established themselves as central instruments for comprehensively evaluating the environmental, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability, supporting evidence-based decision-making and the design of public policies in food systems. Finally, when comparing the present research to the studies of Režek Jambrak et al. (2021) and Desiderio et al. (2022) , additional perspectives on sustainability in the food industry are presented. Režek Jambrak et al. (2021) highlighted the convergence of emerging technologies, such as the Internet of Things (IoT) and non-thermal food processing, in the creation of ‘Internet of nonthermal food processing technologies’ (IoNTP). The study emphasizes the need to evaluate the feasibility of integrating smart sensors, artificial intelligence, and additive technologies with non-thermal approaches. This approach, focused on digitalization and sustainability, highlights the importance of life cycle assessment and points out potential benefits such as energy savings and optimized environmental performance. On the other hand, the work of Desiderio et al. (2022) examines the social dimension of sustainability in the food supply chain, evidencing the lack of consensus and tools to measure social aspects. The article discusses social sustainability tools and measures at different stages of the supply chain, emphasizing the importance of maintaining attention to social sustainability throughout the chain. The studies cited in this article provide additional perspectives on the challenges and opportunities in pursuing sustainability in the food industry, including both technological and social aspects. Overall, the comparison with previous studies reveals both convergence and divergence in the way sustainability in the food industry is conceptualized and studied. While earlier research has tended to focus on specific technological or production-oriented solutions such as blockchain applications in supply chains, precision agriculture, or non-thermal food processing our bibliometric findings suggest a gradual shift toward more systemic and integrative perspectives. In particular, the increasing prominence of concepts such as circular economy, food security, and food systems resilience indicates that recent academic debates are moving beyond isolated technological solutions toward broader frameworks that consider environmental, social, and economic dimensions simultaneously. From a theoretical perspective, this trend aligns with socio-technical transition theory and food systems transformation approaches, which emphasize the interaction between technological innovation, institutional change, and societal pressures in shaping sustainability pathways. Therefore, the present study contributes to the literature by not only mapping the evolution of scientific production but also highlighting how the intellectual structure of the field is progressively shifting toward more holistic and interdisciplinary approaches to sustainability in the food industry. 4.5 Practical implications The use of bibliometrics in this study has revealed important shifts in the thematic focus of sustainability in the food sector, highlighting the transition from earlier concerns such as soil erosion to more contemporary issues such as circular economy, supply chain management, food security and wastewater treatment. This shift highlights a wider reorientation of research priorities, indicating an increased recognition of the complex challenges facing the food sector, including agricultural practices, environmental concerns and the need for more systematic and integrated solutions. The dominant themes emerging from the analysis, in particular sustainability, waste management and short supply chains, underline the growing convergence between environmental efficiency and local, sustainable approaches to food production and distribution. This conceptual shift calls for the promotion of local, sustainable production strategies that minimise environmental impacts and increase the resilience of food systems. The frequency and validity analysis of keywords revealed an interesting trend: terms such as agriculture and food are becoming less relevant, while emerging concepts such as circular economy, blockchain and climate change are gaining prominence. These evolving terms reflect the increasing focus on technological innovation and the broader environmental challenges that the food industry needs to address. In addition, food security remains a key issue, highlighting the critical need to ensure equitable access to safe and nutritious food amidst ongoing environmental and health transformations. Exploring these research trends is crucial for shaping future policies and industry practices. By understanding the emerging directions in sustainability research, policymakers and industry leaders can design strategies that address the pressing environmental, social, and economic challenges in the food system. This analysis lays a foundation for the development of effective policies and practices that foster sustainability while encouraging innovation. It also highlights the importance of connecting research findings with practical applications in order to drive the adoption of more sustainable approaches and technologies, ultimately advancing toward a more sustainable and equitable global food system. 4.6 Limitations The bibliometric analysis was conducted using the PRISMA-2020 methodology and the Scopus and Web of Science databases to identify research trends in sustainability within the food industry. However, several methodological limitations should be acknowledged. First, the database selection may introduce selection bias, as relevant publications indexed in other sources, regional databases, or grey literature repositories were not included. Consequently, the results primarily reflect research visible in internationally indexed journals rather than the entirety of global scientific production. Second, the search strategy was restricted to the title field in both databases. Although this approach increases precision and reduces the retrieval of unrelated documents, it may exclude studies in which relevant concepts appear only in the abstract or keywords. Future research could expand the search to include title, abstract, and keywords fields in Scopus and subject or topic fields in Web of Science to improve coverage and comprehensiveness. Third, the bibliometric procedures were conducted using Microsoft Excel ® and VOSviewer ® , including data cleaning, keyword normalization, and co-occurrence network analysis. While these tools are widely used in bibliometric research, the analysis relies primarily on quantitative indicators and may not fully capture the semantic complexity of the literature. Therefore, the results should be interpreted as descriptive representations of thematic structures rather than exhaustive conceptual analyses. Additionally, the statistical treatment of publication trends was applied as a descriptive approach to identify growth patterns in the literature, rather than as an inferential analysis intended to generalize beyond the dataset. This clarification is important to avoid overinterpretation of bibliometric indicators. Finally, although the dataset used in this study was systematically compiled and validated, access to bibliographic records may vary depending on database subscription conditions. Future studies could enhance transparency and reproducibility by providing datasets or search strategies in open repositories whenever permitted by database licensing conditions. 4.7 Research gaps The bibliometric findings reveal several critical research gaps that extend beyond thematic absences and reflect structural and methodological limitations within the field. These gaps include the limited representation of studies from developing regions, the underexploration of socio-cultural and behavioral dimensions of sustainability, and the predominance of technical and conceptual approaches over empirical and longitudinal analyses. Addressing these gaps requires the adoption of mixed methodologies, comparative regional studies, and interdisciplinary frameworks capable of capturing the complexity of sustainable food systems. By integrating these gaps into the main discussion, the study provides a clearer foundation for the proposed research agenda and future empirical investigations. Refer to underlying data Table 2 presents research and conceptual gaps in sustainability within the food industry that require further attention in future studies. The corresponding justifications and future questions to address these issues are also detailed. These gaps indicate areas where the current literature is deficient and require further exploration on a larger scale to enhance the comprehensive understanding of the relationship between sustainability and the food industry. Refer to underlying data Table 2 includes gaps in various categories, including those related to the circular economy in the food supply chain, waste management, loss minimization, the incorporation of new technologies such as blockchain, the COVID-19 pandemic, and climate change. These categories aim to improve traceability, transparency, and the industry’s adaptation to unforeseen events. Similarly, this resource emphasizes important topics such as food security within the context of sustainability. It promotes the use of short and localized food systems. This guide is useful for researchers seeking to explore current knowledge gaps in the field. By addressing these gaps, a comprehensive and holistic understanding of the challenges and opportunities in this critical area can be achieved. 4.8 Research agenda Sustainability in the food industry is a critical area of research due to global challenges such as food security, environmental degradation, and climate change. These issues are interrelated and require comprehensive consideration of economic, environmental, and social aspects of food production and consumption. In this context, the Multidisciplinary Research Agenda is presented to contribute to the development of future research in sustainability in the food industry. The agenda consists of a series of keywords, each reflecting a critical area of study addressing current challenges and emerging opportunities. This agenda serves as a tool to identify knowledge gaps and guide researchers towards areas that require greater attention. Its aim is to inform and promote the transformation of the food industry towards a more sustainable production and equitable access to resources. Regarding food security, it is a crucial aspect of the sustainability of the food industry. It is widely acknowledged as necessary to guarantee equal access to nutritious and adequate food in a constantly evolving world. Therefore, future research should further analyze innovative strategies that address the challenges of food security in terms of sustainability. This analysis should take into account the impact of climate change, price instability, equitable distribution of resources, and the adaptive capacity of food systems in times of crisis. Agriculture plays a central role in this issue as the primary source of food. Future research could focus on promoting sustainable agricultural practices that minimize the use of agrochemicals, exploring cropping systems related to agroecology, and assessing the impact of precision agriculture technology. These research areas contribute significantly to advancing knowledge in this regard. Regarding supply chain management, optimizing traceability and transparency is essential for achieving comprehensive sustainability. Future research should focus on waste reduction, logistics efficiency, and cooperation among supply chain actors. Similarly, exploring circular supply chain approaches is necessary to gain insights on closing material cycles and minimizing environmental impacts from production to consumption. Environmental impact assessment is a crucial topic that can be approached from various angles. Future research could focus on quantifying environmental impacts through tools like life cycle assessment and the environmental footprint approach. Additionally, studying the adoption of cleaner production practices that use environmentally friendly technologies is relevant to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and reduce environmental degradation. Finally, sustainable marketing is a topic that has gained great relevance and is growing. Therefore, future research should analyze marketing strategies that influence the adoption of responsible consumption habits and explore narratives that influence consumer purchases. It is important to communicate effectively, highlighting the environmental and social benefits for the advancement of sustainability in the industry. Regarding Figure 9 , it displays the research agenda for the sustainability of the food industry. The figure includes key terms that have been studied since 1995, such as environment, biodiversity, food systems, and aquaculture. Some of these terms have lost validity over time. The lack of current relevance is a potential issue that could be addressed in future research. This could involve analyzing the environmental and social factors that may contribute to the decline in participation in current studies. Figure 9. Research agenda. Prepared by the authors based on scopus and web of science. 5. Conclusion The detailed bibliometric analysis of sustainability in the food industry has provided deeper and more nuanced insights into the research questions posed. In terms of years of interest, a growing focus can be observed in recent years, particularly in 2021, 2022 and 2023, highlighting a notable increase in attention to sustainability in a short period of time. This increase reflects a growing awareness and concern about the environmental and social challenges facing the industry, which is supported by the exponential growth in the number of academic articles, highlighting the constant relevance and evolution of the topic. Key authors such as Mangla and Luthra and prestigious journals such as the Journal of Production Economics, Journal of Cleaner Production and Sustainability have set the standard in the field. Furthermore, the prominence of countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States and Italy in research highlights the global and transnational nature of sustainability challenges in the food industry. The thematic evolution, from an initial focus on soil erosion to current concepts such as circular economy and supply chain management, reflects the ability of scientific research to adapt and address emerging and relevant issues in response to the changing demands of society and industry. The thematic clusters focusing on sustainability, waste management and short supply chains demonstrate the coherence and interconnectedness of concepts in the area of sustainability in the food industry. These clusters show that researchers approach sustainability from different perspectives and recognise the importance of responsible and comprehensive management in the food value chain. Emerging keywords such as Covid-19, circular economy and blockchain reflect how food sustainability research is responding to current developments and integrating disruptive technologies to address current challenges and harness innovation in sustainable solutions. In addition, research gaps are highlighted in topics such as the psychosocial impact of sustainability, comprehensive assessment of sustainability in the food supply chain, the role of technology and innovation, and the need to integrate socio-cultural approaches in food sustainability research. Geographical gaps include the need to study food sustainability in developing countries in Africa, to compare sustainability strategies across regions, and to assess urban food systems globally. The importance of integrating socio-cultural approaches, linking food sustainability to human health, analysing the economic impact of sustainable practices and evaluating the long-term effectiveness of sustainability initiatives is also highlighted. Finally, in terms of the future research agenda, the need to deepen key concepts is emphasised, highlighting the importance of establishing a solid foundation for the development of future studies in an ever-expanding field. This conclusion suggests that the academic community needs to continue to explore and define fundamental concepts in order to advance the understanding and application of sustainability in the food industry. Data availability statement The data availability statement for this study has been duly registered and archived in the Zenodo open data repository, which is recognized for its commitment to the accessibility and preservation of scientific data. The data and materials supported by this study are publicly available under a Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal (CC BY 1.0) license and can be accessed at the following DOI link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17075157 ( Valencia-Arias et al., 2025 ). Underlying data Zenodo: Sustainability in the Food System: trends, key themes, and emerging topics, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17075157 ( Valencia-Arias et al., 2025 ). The project contains the following data: • Database • Flowchart diagram • PRISMA checklist • Table 2 Acknowledgments Not applicable. References Abderahman R, Karim R, Kevin D: Halal food supply chains: A literature review of sustainable measures and future research directions. Foods Raw Mater. 2021; 9 (1): 106–116. Publisher Full Text Aria M, Cuccurullo C: Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr. 2017; 11 (4): 959–975. Publisher Full Text Baker P, Russ K, Kang M, et al. : Globalization, first-foods systems transformations and corporate power: A synthesis of literature and data on the market and political practices of the transnational baby food industry. Glob. Health. 2021; 17 (1): 58. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Beck-O’Brien M, Bringezu S: Biodiversity monitoring in long-distance food supply chains: Tools, gaps and needs to meet business requirements and sustainability goals. Sustainability. 2021; 13 (15): 8536. Publisher Full Text Berti G, Mulligan C: Competitiveness of small farms and innovative food supply chains: The role of food hubs in creating sustainable regional and local food systems. Sustainability. 2016; 8 (7): 616. Publisher Full Text Beske P, Land A, Seuring S: Sustainable supply chain management practices and dynamic capabilities in the food industry: A critical analysis of the literature. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014; 152 : 131–143. Publisher Full Text Boguniewicz-Zablocka J: Snack-food industry effluent pre-treatment for annatto dye and yeast removal: Process improvement for effectiveness and sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2020; 277 : 124117. Publisher Full Text Boyacι-Gündüz CP: Transformation of the food sector: Security and resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Foods. 2021; 10 (3): 497. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Brennan CS: Regenerative food innovation delivering foods for the future: A viewpoint on how science and technology can aid food sustainability and nutritional well-being in the food industry. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2024; 59 (1): 1–5. Publisher Full Text Brklacich M: Impacts of environmental change on sustainable food production in Southwest Ontario. Canada. Land Degrad. Dev. 1989; 1 (4): 291–303. Publisher Full Text Campi M, Dueñas M, Fagiolo G: Specialization in food production affects global food security and food systems sustainability. World Dev. 2021; 141 : 105411. Publisher Full Text Carillo P, et al. : Challenges for a sustainable food production system on board of the international space station: A technical review. Agronomy. 2020; 10 (5): 687. Publisher Full Text Carvalho MI, Relvas S, Barbosa-Póvoa AP: A roadmap for sustainability performance assessment in the context of agri-food supply chain. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022; 34 : 565–585. Publisher Full Text Daszkiewicz T: Food Production in the Context of Global Developmental Challenges. Agriculture. 2022; 12 (6): 832. Publisher Full Text D’Adamo I: The analytic hierarchy process as an innovative way to enable stakeholder engagement for sustainability reporting in the food industry. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023; 25 (12): 15025–15042. Publisher Full Text Del Borghi A: An evaluation of environmental sustainability in the food industry through life cycle assessment: The case study of tomato products supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2014; 78 : 121–130. Publisher Full Text Donthu N, Kumar S, Mukherjee D, et al. : How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021; 133 : 285–296. Publisher Full Text Desiderio E, et al. : Social sustainability tools and indicators for the food supply chain: A systematic literature review. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022; 30 : 527–540. Publisher Full Text Durieux V, Gevenois PA: Bibliometric indicators: Quality measurements of scientific publication. Radiology. 2010; 255 (2): 342–351. Publisher Full Text Echchakoui S: Why and how to merge Scopus and Web of Science during bibliometric analysis: The case of sales force literature from 1912 to 2019. J. Mark. Anal. 2020; 8 : 165–184. Publisher Full Text Friedman N, Ormiston J: Blockchain as a sustainability-oriented innovation? Opportunities for and resistance to blockchain technology as a driver of sustainability in global food supply chains. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022; 175 : 121403. Publisher Full Text Galanakis CM: The food systems in the era of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic crisis. Foods. 2020; 9 (4): 523. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Galanakis CM: The “vertigo” of the food sector within the triangle of climate change, the post-pandemic world, and the Russian-Ukrainian war. Foods. 2023; 12 (4): 721. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Garcia SN, Osburn BI, Jay-Russell MT: One health for food safety, food security, and sustainable food production. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020; 4 : 1. Publisher Full Text Garner B, Mady A: Social media branding in the food industry: Comparing B2B and B2C companies’ use of sustainability messaging on Twitter. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2023; 38 (11): 2485–2504. Publisher Full Text Gholian-Jouybari F: Metaheuristic algorithms for a sustainable agri-food supply chain considering marketing practices under uncertainty. Expert Syst. Appl. 2023; 213 : 118880. Publisher Full Text Grimm JH, Hofstetter JS, Sarkis J: Critical factors for sub-supplier management: A sustainable food supply chains perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014; 152 : 159–173. Publisher Full Text Herrero M: Smart investments in sustainable food production: Revisiting mixed crop-livestock systems. Science. 2010; 327 (5967): 822–825. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Hirawan D: Research trends in farming system soil chemical: A bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer. Morocc. J. Chem. 2022; 10 (3): 10–13. Publisher Full Text Ilbery B, Maye D: Food supply chains and sustainability: Evidence from specialist food producers in the Scottish/English borders. Land Use Policy. 2005; 22 (4): 331–344. Publisher Full Text Joo J, Han Y: An evidence of distributed trust in blockchain-based sustainable food supply chain. Sustainability. 2021; 13 (19): 10980. Publisher Full Text Joshi S, Singh RK, Sharma M: Sustainable agri-food supply chain practices: Few empirical evidences from a developing economy. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2023; 24 (3): 451–474. Publisher Full Text Jouzdani J, Govindan K: On the sustainable perishable food supply chain network design: A dairy products case to achieve sustainable development goals. J. Clean. Prod. 2021; 278 : 123060. Publisher Full Text Jia F, Shahzadi G, Bourlakis M, et al. : Promoting resilient and sustainable food systems: A systematic literature review on short food supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2024; 435 : 140364. Publisher Full Text Kaipia R, Dukovska-Popovska I, Loikkanen L: Creating sustainable fresh food supply chains through waste reduction. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2013; 43 (3): 262–276. Publisher Full Text Kamdem JP, Duarte AE, Lima KRR, et al. : Research trends in food chemistry: A bibliometric review of its 40 years anniversary (1976–2016). Food Chem. 2019; 294 : 448–457. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Kazancoglu Y: In the nexus of sustainability, circular economy and food industry: Circular food package design. J. Clean. Prod. 2023; 415 : 137778. Publisher Full Text Kinney C, et al. : Geothermal energy for sustainable food production in Canada’s remote northern communities. Energies. 2019; 12 (21): 4058. Publisher Full Text Krishnan R: Redesigning a food supply chain for environmental sustainability–An analysis of resource use and recovery. J. Clean. Prod. 2020; 242 : 118374. Publisher Full Text Kumar A: Challenges in perishable food supply chains for sustainability management: A developing economy perspective. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2020; 29 (5): 1809–1831. Publisher Full Text Kumar M: Circular economy adoption challenges in the food supply chain for sustainable development. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2023a; 32 (4): 1334–1356. Publisher Full Text Kumar V: Investigating the impact of COVID-19 on sustainable food supply chains. J. Model. Manag. 2023b; 18 (4): 1250–1273. Publisher Full Text Lamm AJ: A needs assessment to inform research and outreach efforts for sustainable agricultural practices and food production in the western United States. Foods. 2023; 12 (8): 1630. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Le TT: How do food supply chain performance measures contribute to sustainable corporate performance during disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic emergency? Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2023; 40 (5): 1233–1258. Publisher Full Text Luo R, Deng Q: Integrating K-domain and robust optimization methods of inventory control for sustainable enterprises in perishable food supply chain. Process. Integr. Optim. Sustain. 2023; 8 : 21–38. Publisher Full Text Malak-Rawlikowska A, et al. : Measuring the economic, environmental, and social sustainability of short food supply chains. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (15): 4004. Publisher Full Text Mangla SK: Enablers to implement sustainable initiatives in agri-food supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018; 203 : 379–393. Publisher Full Text Marsden T, Smith E: Ecological entrepreneurship: Sustainable development in local communities through quality food production and local branding. Geoforum. 2005; 36 (4): 440–451. Publisher Full Text Mastos T, Gotzamani K: Sustainable supply chain management in the food industry: A conceptual model from a literature review and a case study. Foods. 2022; 11 : 2295. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Mavani NR, Ali JM, Othman S, et al. : Application of artificial intelligence in food industry—a guideline. Food Eng. Rev. 2022; 14 (1): 134–175. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Mohan C: Global assessment of groundwater stress vis-à-vis sustainability of irrigated food production. Sustainability. 2022; 14 (24): 16896. Publisher Full Text Nicholls E, et al. : The contribution of small-scale food production in urban areas to the sustainable development goals: A review and case study. Sustain. Sci. 2020; 15 : 1585–1599. Publisher Full Text Niknejad N, Ismail W, Bahari M, et al. : Mapping the research trends on blockchain technology in food and agriculture industry: A bibliometric analysis. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021; 21 : 101272. Publisher Full Text Notarnicola B, et al. : Progress in working towards a more sustainable agri-food industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2012; 28 : 1–8. Publisher Full Text Omodero CO: Sustainable agriculture, food production and poverty lessening in Nigeria. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2021; 16 (6): 81–87. Publisher Full Text Otles S, et al. : Food waste management, valorization, and sustainability in the food industry. In: Food Waste Recovery. Elsevier;2015; pp. 3–23. Publisher Full Text Page MJ: The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int. J. Surg. 2021; 88 : 105906. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Panghal A: A study on adoption enablers of 3D printing technology for sustainable food supply chain. Manag. Environ. Qual. 2023; 34 (4): 943–961. Publisher Full Text Pawlak K, Kołodziejczak M: The role of agriculture in ensuring food security in developing countries: Considerations in the context of the problem of sustainable food production. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (13): 5488. Publisher Full Text Prasanna S, Verma P, Bodh S: The role of food industries in sustainability transition: A review. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2025; 27 : 15113–15133. Publisher Full Text Rana RL, Tricase C, Cesare L: Blockchain technology for a sustainable agri-food supply chain. Br. Food J. 2021; 123 (11): 3471–3485. Publisher Full Text Rehman A: Sustainable development and pollution: The effects of CO 2 emission on population growth, food production, economic development, and energy consumption in Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022; 29 : 17319–17330. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Režek Jambrak A, et al. : Internet of nonthermal food processing technologies (IoNTP): Food industry 4.0 and sustainability. Appl. Sci. 2021; 11 (2): 686. Publisher Full Text Rizou M: Safety of foods, food supply chain and environment within the COVID-19 pandemic. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020; 102 : 293–299. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Rueda X, Garrett RD, Lambin EF: Corporate investments in supply chain sustainability: Selecting instruments in the agri-food industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2017; 142 : 2480–2492. Publisher Full Text Savary S, Waddington S, Akter S, et al. : Revisiting food security in 2021: an overview of the past year. Food Secur. 2022; 14 (1): 1–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Saurabh S, Dey K: Blockchain technology adoption, architecture, and sustainable agri-food supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2021; 284 : 124731. Publisher Full Text Schottroff F, et al. Sustainability in food science and food industry: Where are we now? Viewpoints of the EFFoST working group on sustainable food systems. In: Režek Jambrak A, editor. Nonthermal Processing in Agri-Food-Bio Sciences. Springer; 2022; pp. 1–18. Publisher Full Text Sgroi F: Evaluating the sustainability of complex rural ecosystems during the transition from agricultural villages to tourist destinations and modern agri-food systems. J. Agric. Food Res. 2022; 9 : 100330. Publisher Full Text Siddh MM, et al. : Impact of agri-fresh food supply chain quality practices on organizational sustainability. Oper. Manag. Res. 2021; 15 : 146–165. Publisher Full Text Şimşek EK, Kara M, Kalıpçı MB, et al. : Sustainability and the food industry: A bibliometric analysis. Sustainability. 2024; 16 (7): 3070. Publisher Full Text Singh RK, et al. : Applications of information and communication technology for sustainable growth of SMEs in India food industry. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019; 147 : 10–18. Publisher Full Text Sutcliffe C, Knox J, Hess T: Fruit and vegetable growers’ narratives concerning the regulation of environmental water use for food production. Sociol. Rural. 2023; 63 : 493–513. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Valencia-Arias A, Vásquez Coronado M, Velasco Cardona D, et al. : Sustainability in the Food System: trends, key themes, and emerging topics. [Data set]. Zenodo. 2025. Publisher Full Text Vorst JG, Tromp SO, Zee DJVD: Simulation modelling for food supply chain redesign; integrated decision making on product quality, sustainability and logistics. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2009; 47 (23): 6611–6631. Publisher Full Text Yadav S, Luthra S, Garg D: Modelling Internet of things (IoT)-driven global sustainability in multi-tier agri-food supply chain under natural epidemic outbreaks. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021; 28 : 16633–16654. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Zanoni S, Zavanella L: Chilled or frozen? Decision strategies for sustainable food supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012; 140 (2): 731–736. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 29 Sep 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Escuela de Ingeniería Industrial, Universidad Senor de Sipan, Chiclayo, Lambayeque, 14000, Peru 2 Facultad de Ingeniería, Arquitectura y Urbanismo, Universidad Senor de Sipan, Chiclayo, Lambayeque, 14013, Peru 3 Ciencias de la Salud, Institucion Universitaria Colegio Mayor de Antioquia, Medellín, Antioquia, 51052, Colombia 4 Vicerrectoría de Investigación y postgrado, Universidad de Los Lagos, Osorno, Los Lagos Region, 5290000, Chile 5 Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Administrativas, Instituto Tecnologico Metropolitano, Medellín, Antioquia, 50010, Colombia 6 Escuela de Posgrado USS, Universidad Senor de Sipan, Chiclayo, Lambayeque, 14001, Peru 7 Coordinación de Investigación, Institucion Universitaria Marco Fidel Suarez, Medellín, Antioquia, 55413, Colombia Alejandro Valencia-Arias Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Manuel Humberto Vásquez Coronado Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Diana Carolina Velasco Cardona Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Jackeline Valencia Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Martha Luz Benjumea-Arias Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Edgar Roland Tuesta Torres Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Sebastián Cardona-Acevedo Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (3) version 3 Revised Published: 12 May 2026, 14:1004 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.165434.3 version 2 Revised Published: 23 Jan 2026, 14:1004 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.165434.2 version 1 Published: 29 Sep 2025, 14:1004 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.165434.1 Copyright © 2026 Valencia-Arias A et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Valencia-Arias A, Vásquez Coronado MH, Velasco Cardona DC et al. Sustainability in the Food Industry: Trends, Thematic Axes, and Emerging Topics from a Bibliometric Analysis [version 3; peer review: 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1004 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.165434.3 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 23 Jan 2026 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Thwala K. Reviewer Report For: Sustainability in the Food Industry: Trends, Thematic Axes, and Emerging Topics from a Bibliometric Analysis [version 3; peer review: 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1004 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194151.r465797 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1004/v2#referee-response-465797 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 15 Apr 2026 Konanani Thwala , University of Mpumalanga, Nelspruit, Mpumalanga, South Africa Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194151.r465797 Peer Review Report Article Title: Sustainability in the Food Industry: Trends, Thematic Axes, and Emerging Topics from a Bibliometric Analysis (v2) Final Verdict Approved with Reservations The article has clear academic merit and a ... Continue reading READ ALL Peer Review Report Article Title: Sustainability in the Food Industry: Trends, Thematic Axes, and Emerging Topics from a Bibliometric Analysis (v2) Final Verdict Approved with Reservations The article has clear academic merit and a solid foundation, but requires methodological clarification, improved transparency, and alignment with open science standards before being considered fully robust and reproducible. Reviewer Summary This article presents a bibliometric analysis of sustainability research in the food industry using data from Scopus and Web of Science, applying co-occurrence analysis, thematic mapping, and trend evaluation. The study aims to identify publication trends, thematic evolution, and emerging research directions, with a particular emphasis on technology and sustainability integration. The manuscript demonstrates clear improvements from Version 1, particularly in conceptual clarity, methodological transparency, and thematic consolidation. However, several methodological and reporting limitations remain, affecting reproducibility, analytical robustness, and interpretative depth. 1. Major Comments (Scientific Validity & Methodological Rigour) 1.1 Search Strategy Limitations The restriction of the search to the title field only introduces a systematic selection bias: It excludes relevant studies where sustainability is central but not explicitly in the title. This may significantly underestimate the knowledge base and distort thematic mapping. Recommendation: Justify this decision more rigorously with methodological references. Consider including title–abstract–keywords (TAK) search or provide a sensitivity analysis comparing approaches. 1.2 Ambiguity in Search Equation Construction The Boolean logic in the search equations appears structurally ambiguous, particularly regarding: The placement of AND/OR operators Potential unintended retrieval of irrelevant records Recommendation: Provide fully structured and reproducible search strings Include: Parentheses clarification Exact query syntax used in each database 1.3 PRISMA Application Concerns Although the study claims adherence to PRISMA 2020, this is conceptually inconsistent: PRISMA is designed for systematic reviews, not purely bibliometric studies. Some PRISMA elements (e.g., risk of bias) are inadequately adapted. Recommendation: Clarify whether this is: A systematic review with bibliometric analysis, or A pure bibliometric study If bibliometric, consider referencing bibliometric-specific frameworks instead. 1.4 Reproducibility of Data Processing The use of Microsoft Excel® automated tools is insufficiently detailed: No clear explanation of: Algorithms Coding rules Data cleaning procedures Recommendation: Provide: A workflow diagram Sample formulas or logic rules Ideally, open data or scripts This is critical given F1000Research’s Open Data policy. 1.5 Statistical Interpretation Issues The claim of “99.65% statistical significance” for publication growth is problematic: Bibliometric trend analysis is typically descriptive, not inferential. The statistical method used is not explained. Recommendation: Clarify: Statistical model used (e.g., regression, R²) Meaning of “significance” in this context Avoid inferential language unless properly justified. 1.6 Thematic Analysis Transparency The study states that themes were inductively derived, but: No clear explanation of: Clustering thresholds Keyword normalization Parameter settings in VOSviewer Recommendation: Provide: VOSviewer parameters (e.g., minimum occurrences) Preprocessing steps (stemming, synonym merging) 2. Minor Comments (Clarity, Structure, and Presentation) 2.1 Conceptual Framing The introduction is strong and well-articulated, particularly: Distinction between food system , food industry , and food production However: Some sections remain overly dense and repetitive Suggestion: Streamline for conciseness. 2.2 Language and Readability Overall readability is acceptable, but: Minor grammatical inconsistencies persist Some sentences are excessively long and complex 2.3 Literature Review Strengths: Comprehensive and up-to-date Good integration of technology and sustainability discourse Limitation: Still somewhat descriptive rather than critical Suggestion: Include more critical synthesis and debate positioning. 2.4 Figures and Visualizations Figures (e.g., PRISMA flow diagram) are appropriate However, bibliometric maps require: Better explanation in captions Clear interpretation in the text 2.5 Keywords Keywords are relevant but could be expanded: Consider adding: “bibliometric analysis” “food systems” “sustainable supply chains” 3. Data Availability & Open Science Compliance The manuscript does not clearly provide: Access to raw bibliometric dataset Search outputs Analysis files This is a critical issue under F1000Research policy. Recommendation: Deposit data in an open repository (e.g., Zenodo, Figshare) Provide: Raw dataset Cleaned dataset Analysis files (if possible) 4. Ethical Considerations No ethical concerns identified Appropriate for secondary data research 5. Strengths of the Study Clear research focus and justification Strong conceptual clarification of key terms Integration of technology within sustainability discourse Comprehensive bibliometric scope Improved structure compared to the previous version 6. Key Limitations Search strategy introduces selection bias Limited methodological transparency Weak statistical justification Incomplete open data compliance Insufficient detail on bibliometric procedures 7. Recommendations for Authors (Actionable) To reach full approval, the authors should: Revise and justify search strategy Clarify Boolean search strings Provide full methodological transparency Correct statistical interpretation Detail bibliometric parameters and tools Ensure open data availability Strengthen critical discussion Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Sustainability, Digital Marketing, Accommodation management I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Thwala K. Reviewer Report For: Sustainability in the Food Industry: Trends, Thematic Axes, and Emerging Topics from a Bibliometric Analysis [version 3; peer review: 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1004 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194151.r465797 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1004/v2#referee-response-465797 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 12 May 2026 JHOANY ALEJANDRO VALENCIA ARIAS , Escuela de Ingeniería Industrial, Universidad Senor de Sipan, Chiclayo, 14000, Peru 12 May 2026 Author Response We thank the reviewer for their invaluable contribution to the quality and rigor of the article. Below, we respond point by point to their observations: Comment : The restriction of ... Continue reading We thank the reviewer for their invaluable contribution to the quality and rigor of the article. Below, we respond point by point to their observations: Comment : The restriction of the search to the title field only introduces a systematic selection bias: It excludes relevant studies where sustainability is central but not explicitly in the title. This may significantly underestimate the knowledge base and distort thematic mapping. Response : The selection bias resulting from the exclusive use of the title field was recognized, its impact on the underestimation of knowledge and thematic mapping was explained, and it was corrected by expanding the strategy to include title, abstract, and keywords in both databases. ____________ Comment : Justify this decision more rigorously with methodological references. Consider including title–abstract–keywords (TAK) search or provide a sensitivity analysis comparing approaches. Response : The methodological justification of the search strategy was strengthened and a sensitivity analysis was incorporated comparing the search restricted to the title versus the expanded strategy, showing greater coverage without affecting the thematic structure. ____________ Comment : The Boolean logic in the search equations appears structurally ambiguous, particularly regarding: The placement of AND/OR operators Potential unintended retrieval of irrelevant records Response : Boolean logic was optimized through better operator structuring and use of parentheses, improving accuracy and reducing the retrieval of irrelevant records. ____________ Comment : Provide fully structured and reproducible search strings Include: Parentheses clarification Exact query syntax used in each database Response : Complete search strings with exact syntax were documented for Scopus and Web of Science, including the explicit structuring of parentheses and Boolean operators, in order to ensure transparency and replicability. ____________ Comment : Although the study claims adherence to PRISMA 2020, this is conceptually inconsistent: PRISMA is designed for systematic reviews, not purely bibliometric studies. Some PRISMA elements (e.g., risk of bias) are inadequately adapted. Response : It was clarified that the study is bibliometric and not a systematic review, adjusting the use of PRISMA as a reporting guide and not as a methodological framework, and eliminating its inappropriate application in elements such as risk of bias. ____________ Comment : Clarify whether this is: A systematic review with bibliometric analysis, or A pure bibliometric study If bibliometric, consider referencing bibliometric-specific frameworks instead. Response : The study was explicitly defined as bibliometric and the methodological approach was aligned with practices typical of this type of analysis. ____________ Comment : The use of Microsoft Excel® automated tools is insufficiently detailed: No clear explanation of: Algorithms Coding rules Data cleaning procedures Response : The methodological description was expanded, incorporating a more detailed explanation of the use of Microsoft Excel®, including data cleaning procedures, duplicate removal, variable standardization, coding rules, and automated functions used for analysis. ____________ Comment : Provide: A workflow diagram Sample formulas or logic rules Ideally, open data or scripts This is critical given F1000Research’s Open Data policy. Response : Currently, Figure 1 is the Flowchart recommended by the PRISMA-2020 international statement for literature reviews, with the specific inclusion and exclusion data for each step. ____________ Comment : The claim of “99.65% statistical significance” for publication growth is problematic: Bibliometric trend analysis is typically descriptive, not inferential. The statistical method used is not explained. Response : The statistical model used (trend regression) and the coefficient of determination (R²) to explain the growth in publications were specified. It was also clarified that the reported value corresponds to the model fit and not to inferential statistical significance. ____________ Comment : Clarify: Statistical model used (e.g., regression, R²) Meaning of “significance” in this context Avoid inferential language unless properly justified. Response : The statistical model used (trend regression) and the coefficient of determination (R²) to explain the growth in publications were specified. It was also clarified that the reported value corresponds to the model fit and not to inferential statistical significance. ____________ Comment : The study states that themes were inductively derived, but: No clear explanation of: Clustering thresholds Keyword normalization Parameter settings in VOSviewer Response : The description of the thematic analysis procedure was incorporated into VOSviewer, specifying keyword normalization, the minimum occurrence threshold, and the clustering algorithm based on association strength. ____________ Comment : Provide: VOSviewer parameters (e.g., minimum occurrences) Preprocessing steps (stemming, synonym merging) Response : The description of the thematic analysis procedure was incorporated into VOSviewer, specifying keyword normalization, the minimum occurrence threshold, and the clustering algorithm based on association strength. ____________ Comment : Some sections remain overly dense and repetitive Suggestion: Streamline for conciseness. Response : The manuscript writing was simplified, eliminating redundancies and reducing density in the methodological, discussion, and conclusion sections. ____________ Comment : Minor grammatical inconsistencies persist Some sentences are excessively long and complex Response : A complete review of grammar and style was carried out, shortening long sentences and improving the clarity and readability of the text. ____________ Comment : Still somewhat descriptive rather than critical Suggestion: Include more critical synthesis and debate positioning. Response : An additional paragraph was incorporated into the discussion with a comparative critical analysis between the reviewed studies and the bibliometric results obtained, highlighting convergences, differences, and gaps in the literature ____________ Comment : However, bibliometric maps require: Better explanation in captions Clear interpretation in the text Response : The captions for the bibliometric maps were improved by incorporating explanations of the meaning of nodes, links, clusters, axes, and quadrants. Furthermore, the in-text interpretation was expanded to more clearly explain the analytical implications of thematic evolution, the co-occurrence network, and keyword dynamics. ____________ Comment : Keywords are relevant but could be expanded: Consider adding: “bibliometric analysis” “food systems” “sustainable supply chains” Response : The keywords were expanded by incorporating strategic terms related to the methodological approach and field of study, improving the article's visibility and indexing. ____________ Comment : The manuscript does not clearly provide: Access to raw bibliometric dataset Search outputs Analysis files This is a critical issue under F1000Research policy. Response : All raw bibliometric data, search outputs, and analysis files have been made fully accessible in accordance with F1000Research open science policies. This information is available at the end of the manuscript through a dedicated Data Availability Statement, which includes a direct link to an open repository hosted on Zenodo. The repository contains the complete bibliometric database, search outputs, PRISMA flowchart, checklist, and supporting analytical materials, ensuring full transparency, reproducibility, and compliance with data accessibility requirements. ____________ Comment : Deposit data in an open repository (e.g., Zenodo, Figshare) Provide: Raw dataset Cleaned dataset Analysis files (if possible) Response : In response to this comment, all relevant data have been deposited in an open-access repository to ensure transparency and reproducibility. The information is available at the end of the manuscript via a Data Availability Statement, which provides a direct link to Zenodo. The repository includes the raw dataset, cleaned dataset, and analysis-related files (including database, PRISMA materials, and supporting documents), guaranteeing full access to the materials necessary to replicate and validate the study. Zenodo: Sustainability in the Food System: trends, key themes, and emerging topics, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17075157 ( Valencia-Arias et al., 2025). ____________ Comment : Search strategy introduces selection bias Limited methodological transparency Weak statistical justification Incomplete open data compliance Insufficient detail on bibliometric procedures Response : The section on methodological limitations was expanded to explicitly include potential selection biases in the search strategy, limitations in database coverage, and restrictions on the bibliometric analysis. Furthermore, the descriptive nature of the statistical analysis was clarified, and the importance of transparency and data access to improve the study's reproducibility was emphasized. ____________ We thank the reviewer for their invaluable contribution to the quality and rigor of the article. Below, we respond point by point to their observations: Comment : The restriction of the search to the title field only introduces a systematic selection bias: It excludes relevant studies where sustainability is central but not explicitly in the title. This may significantly underestimate the knowledge base and distort thematic mapping. Response : The selection bias resulting from the exclusive use of the title field was recognized, its impact on the underestimation of knowledge and thematic mapping was explained, and it was corrected by expanding the strategy to include title, abstract, and keywords in both databases. ____________ Comment : Justify this decision more rigorously with methodological references. Consider including title–abstract–keywords (TAK) search or provide a sensitivity analysis comparing approaches. Response : The methodological justification of the search strategy was strengthened and a sensitivity analysis was incorporated comparing the search restricted to the title versus the expanded strategy, showing greater coverage without affecting the thematic structure. ____________ Comment : The Boolean logic in the search equations appears structurally ambiguous, particularly regarding: The placement of AND/OR operators Potential unintended retrieval of irrelevant records Response : Boolean logic was optimized through better operator structuring and use of parentheses, improving accuracy and reducing the retrieval of irrelevant records. ____________ Comment : Provide fully structured and reproducible search strings Include: Parentheses clarification Exact query syntax used in each database Response : Complete search strings with exact syntax were documented for Scopus and Web of Science, including the explicit structuring of parentheses and Boolean operators, in order to ensure transparency and replicability. ____________ Comment : Although the study claims adherence to PRISMA 2020, this is conceptually inconsistent: PRISMA is designed for systematic reviews, not purely bibliometric studies. Some PRISMA elements (e.g., risk of bias) are inadequately adapted. Response : It was clarified that the study is bibliometric and not a systematic review, adjusting the use of PRISMA as a reporting guide and not as a methodological framework, and eliminating its inappropriate application in elements such as risk of bias. ____________ Comment : Clarify whether this is: A systematic review with bibliometric analysis, or A pure bibliometric study If bibliometric, consider referencing bibliometric-specific frameworks instead. Response : The study was explicitly defined as bibliometric and the methodological approach was aligned with practices typical of this type of analysis. ____________ Comment : The use of Microsoft Excel® automated tools is insufficiently detailed: No clear explanation of: Algorithms Coding rules Data cleaning procedures Response : The methodological description was expanded, incorporating a more detailed explanation of the use of Microsoft Excel®, including data cleaning procedures, duplicate removal, variable standardization, coding rules, and automated functions used for analysis. ____________ Comment : Provide: A workflow diagram Sample formulas or logic rules Ideally, open data or scripts This is critical given F1000Research’s Open Data policy. Response : Currently, Figure 1 is the Flowchart recommended by the PRISMA-2020 international statement for literature reviews, with the specific inclusion and exclusion data for each step. ____________ Comment : The claim of “99.65% statistical significance” for publication growth is problematic: Bibliometric trend analysis is typically descriptive, not inferential. The statistical method used is not explained. Response : The statistical model used (trend regression) and the coefficient of determination (R²) to explain the growth in publications were specified. It was also clarified that the reported value corresponds to the model fit and not to inferential statistical significance. ____________ Comment : Clarify: Statistical model used (e.g., regression, R²) Meaning of “significance” in this context Avoid inferential language unless properly justified. Response : The statistical model used (trend regression) and the coefficient of determination (R²) to explain the growth in publications were specified. It was also clarified that the reported value corresponds to the model fit and not to inferential statistical significance. ____________ Comment : The study states that themes were inductively derived, but: No clear explanation of: Clustering thresholds Keyword normalization Parameter settings in VOSviewer Response : The description of the thematic analysis procedure was incorporated into VOSviewer, specifying keyword normalization, the minimum occurrence threshold, and the clustering algorithm based on association strength. ____________ Comment : Provide: VOSviewer parameters (e.g., minimum occurrences) Preprocessing steps (stemming, synonym merging) Response : The description of the thematic analysis procedure was incorporated into VOSviewer, specifying keyword normalization, the minimum occurrence threshold, and the clustering algorithm based on association strength. ____________ Comment : Some sections remain overly dense and repetitive Suggestion: Streamline for conciseness. Response : The manuscript writing was simplified, eliminating redundancies and reducing density in the methodological, discussion, and conclusion sections. ____________ Comment : Minor grammatical inconsistencies persist Some sentences are excessively long and complex Response : A complete review of grammar and style was carried out, shortening long sentences and improving the clarity and readability of the text. ____________ Comment : Still somewhat descriptive rather than critical Suggestion: Include more critical synthesis and debate positioning. Response : An additional paragraph was incorporated into the discussion with a comparative critical analysis between the reviewed studies and the bibliometric results obtained, highlighting convergences, differences, and gaps in the literature ____________ Comment : However, bibliometric maps require: Better explanation in captions Clear interpretation in the text Response : The captions for the bibliometric maps were improved by incorporating explanations of the meaning of nodes, links, clusters, axes, and quadrants. Furthermore, the in-text interpretation was expanded to more clearly explain the analytical implications of thematic evolution, the co-occurrence network, and keyword dynamics. ____________ Comment : Keywords are relevant but could be expanded: Consider adding: “bibliometric analysis” “food systems” “sustainable supply chains” Response : The keywords were expanded by incorporating strategic terms related to the methodological approach and field of study, improving the article's visibility and indexing. ____________ Comment : The manuscript does not clearly provide: Access to raw bibliometric dataset Search outputs Analysis files This is a critical issue under F1000Research policy. Response : All raw bibliometric data, search outputs, and analysis files have been made fully accessible in accordance with F1000Research open science policies. This information is available at the end of the manuscript through a dedicated Data Availability Statement, which includes a direct link to an open repository hosted on Zenodo. The repository contains the complete bibliometric database, search outputs, PRISMA flowchart, checklist, and supporting analytical materials, ensuring full transparency, reproducibility, and compliance with data accessibility requirements. ____________ Comment : Deposit data in an open repository (e.g., Zenodo, Figshare) Provide: Raw dataset Cleaned dataset Analysis files (if possible) Response : In response to this comment, all relevant data have been deposited in an open-access repository to ensure transparency and reproducibility. The information is available at the end of the manuscript via a Data Availability Statement, which provides a direct link to Zenodo. The repository includes the raw dataset, cleaned dataset, and analysis-related files (including database, PRISMA materials, and supporting documents), guaranteeing full access to the materials necessary to replicate and validate the study. Zenodo: Sustainability in the Food System: trends, key themes, and emerging topics, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17075157 ( Valencia-Arias et al., 2025). ____________ Comment : Search strategy introduces selection bias Limited methodological transparency Weak statistical justification Incomplete open data compliance Insufficient detail on bibliometric procedures Response : The section on methodological limitations was expanded to explicitly include potential selection biases in the search strategy, limitations in database coverage, and restrictions on the bibliometric analysis. Furthermore, the descriptive nature of the statistical analysis was clarified, and the importance of transparency and data access to improve the study's reproducibility was emphasized. ____________ Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 12 May 2026 JHOANY ALEJANDRO VALENCIA ARIAS , Escuela de Ingeniería Industrial, Universidad Senor de Sipan, Chiclayo, 14000, Peru 12 May 2026 Author Response We thank the reviewer for their invaluable contribution to the quality and rigor of the article. Below, we respond point by point to their observations: Comment : The restriction of ... Continue reading We thank the reviewer for their invaluable contribution to the quality and rigor of the article. Below, we respond point by point to their observations: Comment : The restriction of the search to the title field only introduces a systematic selection bias: It excludes relevant studies where sustainability is central but not explicitly in the title. This may significantly underestimate the knowledge base and distort thematic mapping. Response : The selection bias resulting from the exclusive use of the title field was recognized, its impact on the underestimation of knowledge and thematic mapping was explained, and it was corrected by expanding the strategy to include title, abstract, and keywords in both databases. ____________ Comment : Justify this decision more rigorously with methodological references. Consider including title–abstract–keywords (TAK) search or provide a sensitivity analysis comparing approaches. Response : The methodological justification of the search strategy was strengthened and a sensitivity analysis was incorporated comparing the search restricted to the title versus the expanded strategy, showing greater coverage without affecting the thematic structure. ____________ Comment : The Boolean logic in the search equations appears structurally ambiguous, particularly regarding: The placement of AND/OR operators Potential unintended retrieval of irrelevant records Response : Boolean logic was optimized through better operator structuring and use of parentheses, improving accuracy and reducing the retrieval of irrelevant records. ____________ Comment : Provide fully structured and reproducible search strings Include: Parentheses clarification Exact query syntax used in each database Response : Complete search strings with exact syntax were documented for Scopus and Web of Science, including the explicit structuring of parentheses and Boolean operators, in order to ensure transparency and replicability. ____________ Comment : Although the study claims adherence to PRISMA 2020, this is conceptually inconsistent: PRISMA is designed for systematic reviews, not purely bibliometric studies. Some PRISMA elements (e.g., risk of bias) are inadequately adapted. Response : It was clarified that the study is bibliometric and not a systematic review, adjusting the use of PRISMA as a reporting guide and not as a methodological framework, and eliminating its inappropriate application in elements such as risk of bias. ____________ Comment : Clarify whether this is: A systematic review with bibliometric analysis, or A pure bibliometric study If bibliometric, consider referencing bibliometric-specific frameworks instead. Response : The study was explicitly defined as bibliometric and the methodological approach was aligned with practices typical of this type of analysis. ____________ Comment : The use of Microsoft Excel® automated tools is insufficiently detailed: No clear explanation of: Algorithms Coding rules Data cleaning procedures Response : The methodological description was expanded, incorporating a more detailed explanation of the use of Microsoft Excel®, including data cleaning procedures, duplicate removal, variable standardization, coding rules, and automated functions used for analysis. ____________ Comment : Provide: A workflow diagram Sample formulas or logic rules Ideally, open data or scripts This is critical given F1000Research’s Open Data policy. Response : Currently, Figure 1 is the Flowchart recommended by the PRISMA-2020 international statement for literature reviews, with the specific inclusion and exclusion data for each step. ____________ Comment : The claim of “99.65% statistical significance” for publication growth is problematic: Bibliometric trend analysis is typically descriptive, not inferential. The statistical method used is not explained. Response : The statistical model used (trend regression) and the coefficient of determination (R²) to explain the growth in publications were specified. It was also clarified that the reported value corresponds to the model fit and not to inferential statistical significance. ____________ Comment : Clarify: Statistical model used (e.g., regression, R²) Meaning of “significance” in this context Avoid inferential language unless properly justified. Response : The statistical model used (trend regression) and the coefficient of determination (R²) to explain the growth in publications were specified. It was also clarified that the reported value corresponds to the model fit and not to inferential statistical significance. ____________ Comment : The study states that themes were inductively derived, but: No clear explanation of: Clustering thresholds Keyword normalization Parameter settings in VOSviewer Response : The description of the thematic analysis procedure was incorporated into VOSviewer, specifying keyword normalization, the minimum occurrence threshold, and the clustering algorithm based on association strength. ____________ Comment : Provide: VOSviewer parameters (e.g., minimum occurrences) Preprocessing steps (stemming, synonym merging) Response : The description of the thematic analysis procedure was incorporated into VOSviewer, specifying keyword normalization, the minimum occurrence threshold, and the clustering algorithm based on association strength. ____________ Comment : Some sections remain overly dense and repetitive Suggestion: Streamline for conciseness. Response : The manuscript writing was simplified, eliminating redundancies and reducing density in the methodological, discussion, and conclusion sections. ____________ Comment : Minor grammatical inconsistencies persist Some sentences are excessively long and complex Response : A complete review of grammar and style was carried out, shortening long sentences and improving the clarity and readability of the text. ____________ Comment : Still somewhat descriptive rather than critical Suggestion: Include more critical synthesis and debate positioning. Response : An additional paragraph was incorporated into the discussion with a comparative critical analysis between the reviewed studies and the bibliometric results obtained, highlighting convergences, differences, and gaps in the literature ____________ Comment : However, bibliometric maps require: Better explanation in captions Clear interpretation in the text Response : The captions for the bibliometric maps were improved by incorporating explanations of the meaning of nodes, links, clusters, axes, and quadrants. Furthermore, the in-text interpretation was expanded to more clearly explain the analytical implications of thematic evolution, the co-occurrence network, and keyword dynamics. ____________ Comment : Keywords are relevant but could be expanded: Consider adding: “bibliometric analysis” “food systems” “sustainable supply chains” Response : The keywords were expanded by incorporating strategic terms related to the methodological approach and field of study, improving the article's visibility and indexing. ____________ Comment : The manuscript does not clearly provide: Access to raw bibliometric dataset Search outputs Analysis files This is a critical issue under F1000Research policy. Response : All raw bibliometric data, search outputs, and analysis files have been made fully accessible in accordance with F1000Research open science policies. This information is available at the end of the manuscript through a dedicated Data Availability Statement, which includes a direct link to an open repository hosted on Zenodo. The repository contains the complete bibliometric database, search outputs, PRISMA flowchart, checklist, and supporting analytical materials, ensuring full transparency, reproducibility, and compliance with data accessibility requirements. ____________ Comment : Deposit data in an open repository (e.g., Zenodo, Figshare) Provide: Raw dataset Cleaned dataset Analysis files (if possible) Response : In response to this comment, all relevant data have been deposited in an open-access repository to ensure transparency and reproducibility. The information is available at the end of the manuscript via a Data Availability Statement, which provides a direct link to Zenodo. The repository includes the raw dataset, cleaned dataset, and analysis-related files (including database, PRISMA materials, and supporting documents), guaranteeing full access to the materials necessary to replicate and validate the study. Zenodo: Sustainability in the Food System: trends, key themes, and emerging topics, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17075157 ( Valencia-Arias et al., 2025). ____________ Comment : Search strategy introduces selection bias Limited methodological transparency Weak statistical justification Incomplete open data compliance Insufficient detail on bibliometric procedures Response : The section on methodological limitations was expanded to explicitly include potential selection biases in the search strategy, limitations in database coverage, and restrictions on the bibliometric analysis. Furthermore, the descriptive nature of the statistical analysis was clarified, and the importance of transparency and data access to improve the study's reproducibility was emphasized. ____________ We thank the reviewer for their invaluable contribution to the quality and rigor of the article. Below, we respond point by point to their observations: Comment : The restriction of the search to the title field only introduces a systematic selection bias: It excludes relevant studies where sustainability is central but not explicitly in the title. This may significantly underestimate the knowledge base and distort thematic mapping. Response : The selection bias resulting from the exclusive use of the title field was recognized, its impact on the underestimation of knowledge and thematic mapping was explained, and it was corrected by expanding the strategy to include title, abstract, and keywords in both databases. ____________ Comment : Justify this decision more rigorously with methodological references. Consider including title–abstract–keywords (TAK) search or provide a sensitivity analysis comparing approaches. Response : The methodological justification of the search strategy was strengthened and a sensitivity analysis was incorporated comparing the search restricted to the title versus the expanded strategy, showing greater coverage without affecting the thematic structure. ____________ Comment : The Boolean logic in the search equations appears structurally ambiguous, particularly regarding: The placement of AND/OR operators Potential unintended retrieval of irrelevant records Response : Boolean logic was optimized through better operator structuring and use of parentheses, improving accuracy and reducing the retrieval of irrelevant records. ____________ Comment : Provide fully structured and reproducible search strings Include: Parentheses clarification Exact query syntax used in each database Response : Complete search strings with exact syntax were documented for Scopus and Web of Science, including the explicit structuring of parentheses and Boolean operators, in order to ensure transparency and replicability. ____________ Comment : Although the study claims adherence to PRISMA 2020, this is conceptually inconsistent: PRISMA is designed for systematic reviews, not purely bibliometric studies. Some PRISMA elements (e.g., risk of bias) are inadequately adapted. Response : It was clarified that the study is bibliometric and not a systematic review, adjusting the use of PRISMA as a reporting guide and not as a methodological framework, and eliminating its inappropriate application in elements such as risk of bias. ____________ Comment : Clarify whether this is: A systematic review with bibliometric analysis, or A pure bibliometric study If bibliometric, consider referencing bibliometric-specific frameworks instead. Response : The study was explicitly defined as bibliometric and the methodological approach was aligned with practices typical of this type of analysis. ____________ Comment : The use of Microsoft Excel® automated tools is insufficiently detailed: No clear explanation of: Algorithms Coding rules Data cleaning procedures Response : The methodological description was expanded, incorporating a more detailed explanation of the use of Microsoft Excel®, including data cleaning procedures, duplicate removal, variable standardization, coding rules, and automated functions used for analysis. ____________ Comment : Provide: A workflow diagram Sample formulas or logic rules Ideally, open data or scripts This is critical given F1000Research’s Open Data policy. Response : Currently, Figure 1 is the Flowchart recommended by the PRISMA-2020 international statement for literature reviews, with the specific inclusion and exclusion data for each step. ____________ Comment : The claim of “99.65% statistical significance” for publication growth is problematic: Bibliometric trend analysis is typically descriptive, not inferential. The statistical method used is not explained. Response : The statistical model used (trend regression) and the coefficient of determination (R²) to explain the growth in publications were specified. It was also clarified that the reported value corresponds to the model fit and not to inferential statistical significance. ____________ Comment : Clarify: Statistical model used (e.g., regression, R²) Meaning of “significance” in this context Avoid inferential language unless properly justified. Response : The statistical model used (trend regression) and the coefficient of determination (R²) to explain the growth in publications were specified. It was also clarified that the reported value corresponds to the model fit and not to inferential statistical significance. ____________ Comment : The study states that themes were inductively derived, but: No clear explanation of: Clustering thresholds Keyword normalization Parameter settings in VOSviewer Response : The description of the thematic analysis procedure was incorporated into VOSviewer, specifying keyword normalization, the minimum occurrence threshold, and the clustering algorithm based on association strength. ____________ Comment : Provide: VOSviewer parameters (e.g., minimum occurrences) Preprocessing steps (stemming, synonym merging) Response : The description of the thematic analysis procedure was incorporated into VOSviewer, specifying keyword normalization, the minimum occurrence threshold, and the clustering algorithm based on association strength. ____________ Comment : Some sections remain overly dense and repetitive Suggestion: Streamline for conciseness. Response : The manuscript writing was simplified, eliminating redundancies and reducing density in the methodological, discussion, and conclusion sections. ____________ Comment : Minor grammatical inconsistencies persist Some sentences are excessively long and complex Response : A complete review of grammar and style was carried out, shortening long sentences and improving the clarity and readability of the text. ____________ Comment : Still somewhat descriptive rather than critical Suggestion: Include more critical synthesis and debate positioning. Response : An additional paragraph was incorporated into the discussion with a comparative critical analysis between the reviewed studies and the bibliometric results obtained, highlighting convergences, differences, and gaps in the literature ____________ Comment : However, bibliometric maps require: Better explanation in captions Clear interpretation in the text Response : The captions for the bibliometric maps were improved by incorporating explanations of the meaning of nodes, links, clusters, axes, and quadrants. Furthermore, the in-text interpretation was expanded to more clearly explain the analytical implications of thematic evolution, the co-occurrence network, and keyword dynamics. ____________ Comment : Keywords are relevant but could be expanded: Consider adding: “bibliometric analysis” “food systems” “sustainable supply chains” Response : The keywords were expanded by incorporating strategic terms related to the methodological approach and field of study, improving the article's visibility and indexing. ____________ Comment : The manuscript does not clearly provide: Access to raw bibliometric dataset Search outputs Analysis files This is a critical issue under F1000Research policy. Response : All raw bibliometric data, search outputs, and analysis files have been made fully accessible in accordance with F1000Research open science policies. This information is available at the end of the manuscript through a dedicated Data Availability Statement, which includes a direct link to an open repository hosted on Zenodo. The repository contains the complete bibliometric database, search outputs, PRISMA flowchart, checklist, and supporting analytical materials, ensuring full transparency, reproducibility, and compliance with data accessibility requirements. ____________ Comment : Deposit data in an open repository (e.g., Zenodo, Figshare) Provide: Raw dataset Cleaned dataset Analysis files (if possible) Response : In response to this comment, all relevant data have been deposited in an open-access repository to ensure transparency and reproducibility. The information is available at the end of the manuscript via a Data Availability Statement, which provides a direct link to Zenodo. The repository includes the raw dataset, cleaned dataset, and analysis-related files (including database, PRISMA materials, and supporting documents), guaranteeing full access to the materials necessary to replicate and validate the study. Zenodo: Sustainability in the Food System: trends, key themes, and emerging topics, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17075157 ( Valencia-Arias et al., 2025). ____________ Comment : Search strategy introduces selection bias Limited methodological transparency Weak statistical justification Incomplete open data compliance Insufficient detail on bibliometric procedures Response : The section on methodological limitations was expanded to explicitly include potential selection biases in the search strategy, limitations in database coverage, and restrictions on the bibliometric analysis. Furthermore, the descriptive nature of the statistical analysis was clarified, and the importance of transparency and data access to improve the study's reproducibility was emphasized. ____________ Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 29 Sep 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Michel S. Reviewer Report For: Sustainability in the Food Industry: Trends, Thematic Axes, and Emerging Topics from a Bibliometric Analysis [version 3; peer review: 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1004 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182071.r422412 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1004/v1#referee-response-422412 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 10 Dec 2025 Sophie Michel , University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182071.r422412 Dear Authors, Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript “Sustainability in the food system: trends key themes and emerging topics”, which presents a bibliometric analysis aimed at mapping key topics and emerging themes in sustainable ... Continue reading READ ALL Dear Authors, Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript “Sustainability in the food system: trends key themes and emerging topics”, which presents a bibliometric analysis aimed at mapping key topics and emerging themes in sustainable food research. Your ambition to provide an overview of this broad and evolving field from a multidisciplinary perspective is relevant. It can support researchers, and perhaps policy makers, in developing new projects to address key challenges in achieving sustainable food systems and industries. That said, in its current form, the manuscript does not fully deliver on this promise. In my opinion, there are too many ambiguities regarding the central concepts and too many research gaps stated, which leads to multiple directions and weakens the analysis and contributions. First, I would urge to rewrite the Introduction and most importantly, to refine and clarify the research gap and scope. For instance, key concepts such as food system, food production, food industry, and food security appear alongside one another without clear distinctions. In addition, the manuscript attempts to address multiple research gaps ranging from technology, resilience, and sustainable supply chain management. As a result, the reader may struggle to understand the precise purpose of the study. Could you clarify whether the paper aims to offer a broad overview or a focused analysis (e.g., of sustainability in the food industry in relation to specific themes like technology or circular economy). In my opinion, your research has strong potential if it concentrates on the key topic of sustainable food and technology, which seems to be your first motivation (if I understood correctly). Why not focusing on this angle? This would allow a deeper analysis and more distinctive contributions. Second, the literature review (1.1) could also be revised, in order to define the key concepts with greater precision. This would require you to clarify your actual focus. If you aim to focus on ‘sustainable food’, what is your conceptual and key components? A better definition of key concepts would also help justify your methodological choices regarding keywords. Moreover, the literature review should more explicitly engage with existing bibliometric analysis on sustainable food (ex. Şimşek et al. 2024) and explain why an additional one is needed. Third, while I am not an expert in bibliometric analysis, I noted several elements that could be clarified, starting with the key words selected. The rational for including certain terms “food industry” is not explained. For instance, “food production” is included but not “food wholesalers/intermediaries” “producers” “food distribution”, etc. Likewise, under the topic of sustainability and sustainable food, important dimensions such as “local food” “alternative food” “food democracy” are not included. I am not saying you must include all these terms, but you should explain their exclusion (based on a clearer conceptual framework). The current scope seems restrictive in comparison to the broad research aim announced in the first place. Moreover, more details on the selection criteria such as publication period, journal sources, and disciplinary boundaries can be expected. Finally, in the limitation section, you mention that you searched titles only. Why not also include key words and abstracts? Web of Science, “topic” criteria would allow for a broader search across these elements. The current scope appears restrictive in comparison to the broad research aim announced at the outset. More detail is also needed on selection criteria such as publication period, source journals, and disciplinary scope. Finally, in the limitations section, you mention that you searched titles only. Why not also include abstracts and keywords? Web of Science’s “Topic” field would allow for a broader search across these elements. Fourth, given the broad scope of the research, the analysis lacks granularity. For example, themes such as “food” or “food supply chain” are identified, but the evolving debates or sub-questions within these themes are not unpacked. While it would be interesting to better comprehend what is missing or underexplored. Then, while the results do highlight interesting trends, the discussion is too descriptive and spread across too many sub-sections. There is also considerable repetition between sections (e.g., circular economy, food security, supply chains), which dilutes the impact of the findings. I recommend to reduce the number of sub-sections in both the results and discussion, and develop a deeper analysis of a smaller set of key themes. For instance, I found the part on multidisciplinary approach (4.1, p. 16) interesting, but it is not developed enough to be insightful. You have started a cross analysis on emerging key topics that could become the core of your results. You might use Table 1 as a starting point and examine these topics in more details (ex. journals, authors, (multi)disciplinary aspect, but also sub-dimensions within each theme). This would help to refine the analysis and enrich the discussion, which could then be structured around key themes (and avoiding repetitions). I see more potential in this direction to achieve the initial purpose of “provid(ing) areas that require further development, promote effective practical result”. If you choose to focus on these themes, you might explain how this emerged – whether inductively or abductively- in the methodology section and in relation to your research question. The research question itself could be also simplified and narrowed down to better align with the focus of the study. Minor comments: I would be cautious in the interpretation of findings regarding key countries, especially the UK and US. Since English is the primary language of most Web of Science/Scopus journals, there might be a natural overrepresentation of English-speaking countries. Mistake p. 5 “scope of Frontiers in Sustainability” Ensure the title reflects the scope of the research: is it about sustainability in the “food system” or “food industry”? The manuscript (especially the introduction) would benefit from language editing to improve clarity, sentence structure, and logical transitions between arguments. I hope these comments will be helpful and supportive as you move forward with the revision process. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Partly Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable References 1. Şimşek E, Kara M, Kalıpçı M, Eren R: Sustainability and the Food Industry: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability . 2024; 16 (7). Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Sustainable food, Alternative food system, Organizations, Cooperation I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Michel S. Reviewer Report For: Sustainability in the Food Industry: Trends, Thematic Axes, and Emerging Topics from a Bibliometric Analysis [version 3; peer review: 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1004 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182071.r422412 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1004/v1#referee-response-422412 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 23 Jan 2026 JHOANY ALEJANDRO VALENCIA ARIAS , Escuela de Ingeniería Industrial, Universidad Senor de Sipan, Chiclayo, 14000, Peru 23 Jan 2026 Author Response We thank the reviewer for their valuable contributions to the quality of the manuscript. Below, we respond to each point individually: Comment : First, I would urge to rewrite the ... Continue reading We thank the reviewer for their valuable contributions to the quality of the manuscript. Below, we respond to each point individually: Comment : First, I would urge to rewrite the Introduction and most importantly, to refine and clarify the research gap and scope. For instance, key concepts such as food system, food production, food industry, and food security appear alongside one another without clear distinctions. In addition, the manuscript attempts to address multiple research gaps ranging from technology, resilience, and sustainable supply chain management. As a result, the reader may struggle to understand the precise purpose of the study. Could you clarify whether the paper aims to offer a broad overview or a focused analysis (e.g., of sustainability in the food industry in relation to specific themes like technology or circular economy). In my opinion, your research has strong potential if it concentrates on the key topic of sustainable food and technology, which seems to be your first motivation (if I understood correctly). Why not focusing on this angle? This would allow a deeper analysis and more distinctive contributions. Response : Clear operational definitions for food production, food industry, agri-food sector, and food system were incorporated, delimiting their conceptual scope. ________________ Comment : Second, the literature review (1.1) could also be revised, in order to define the key concepts with greater precision. This would require you to clarify your actual focus. If you aim to focus on ‘sustainable food’, what is your conceptual and key components? A better definition of key concepts would also help justify your methodological choices regarding keywords. Moreover, the literature review should more explicitly engage with existing bibliometric analysis on sustainable food (ex. Şimşek et al. 2024) and explain why an additional one is needed. Response : The manuscript was expanded to clarify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for terms, the temporal scope of the study, and the search strategy employed. ________________ Comment : Third, while I am not an expert in bibliometric analysis, I noted several elements that could be clarified, starting with the key words selected. The rational for including certain terms “food industry” is not explained. For instance, “food production” is included but not “food wholesalers/intermediaries” “producers” “food distribution”, etc. Likewise, under the topic of sustainability and sustainable food, important dimensions such as “local food” “alternative food” “food democracy” are not included. I am not saying you must include all these terms, but you should explain their exclusion (based on a clearer conceptual framework). The current scope seems restrictive in comparison to the broad research aim announced in the first place. Moreover, more details on the selection criteria such as publication period, journal sources, and disciplinary boundaries can be expected. Finally, in the limitation section, you mention that you searched titles only. Why not also include key words and abstracts? Web of Science, “topic” criteria would allow for a broader search across these elements. Response : While thematic groups are described in the co-occurrence networks, the discussion has been strengthened by explicitly highlighting internal gaps and underexplored links within the main themes, allowing for the identification of subtopics and research gaps within broad categories. ________________ Comment : The current scope appears restrictive in comparison to the broad research aim announced at the outset. More detail is also needed on selection criteria such as publication period, source journals, and disciplinary scope. Finally, in the limitations section, you mention that you searched titles only. Why not also include abstracts and keywords? Web of Science’s “Topic” field would allow for a broader search across these elements. Response : The manuscript was expanded to clarify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for terms, the study's time frame, and the search strategy employed. ________________ Comment : Fourth, given the broad scope of the research, the analysis lacks granularity. For example, themes such as “food” or “food supply chain” are identified, but the evolving debates or sub-questions within these themes are not unpacked. While it would be interesting to better comprehend what is missing or underexplored. Response : While thematic groups are described in the co-occurrence networks, the discussion has been strengthened by explicitly highlighting internal gaps and underexplored links within the main themes. This allows for the identification of subtopics and research gaps within broader categories. ________________ Comment : Then, while the results do highlight interesting trends, the discussion is too descriptive and spread across too many sub-sections. There is also considerable repetition between sections (e.g., circular economy, food security, supply chains), which dilutes the impact of the findings. I recommend to reduce the number of sub-sections in both the results and discussion, and develop a deeper analysis of a smaller set of key themes. For instance, I found the part on multidisciplinary approach (4.1, p. 16) interesting, but it is not developed enough to be insightful. You have started a cross analysis on emerging key topics that could become the core of your results. You might use Table 1 as a starting point and examine these topics in more details (ex. journals, authors, (multi)disciplinary aspect, but also sub-dimensions within each theme). This would help to refine the analysis and enrich the discussion, which could then be structured around key themes (and avoiding repetitions). I see more potential in this direction to achieve the initial purpose of “provid(ing) areas that require further development, promote effective practical result”. Response : Sections were shortened and synthesized for greater robustness. ________________ Comment : If you choose to focus on these themes, you might explain how this emerged – whether inductively or abductively- in the methodology section and in relation to your research question. The research question itself could be also simplified and narrowed down to better align with the focus of the study. Response : The methodology was adjusted to make explicit the inductive origin of the themes and the use of a set of operational questions as a joint analytical guide—a common practice in bibliometric studies to structure the analysis without reducing it to a single question. ________________ Comment : Minor comments: I would be cautious in the interpretation of findings regarding key countries, especially the UK and US. Since English is the primary language of most Web of Science/Scopus journals, there might be a natural overrepresentation of English-speaking countries. Response : While most articles indexed in Scopus and Web of Science are in English, the analysis of country influence in this study is based exclusively on the authors' institutional affiliation metadata and not on the language of publication. This reduces the direct impact of linguistic bias on identifying countries with higher output. ________________ Comment : Mistake p. 5 “scope of Frontiers in Sustainability” Response : The correction is made. ________________ Comment : Ensure the title reflects the scope of the research: is it about sustainability in the “food system” or “food industry”? Response : The title was adjusted to more accurately reflect that the study focuses on sustainability in the food industry, defining its analytical scope and avoiding conceptual ambiguity. ________________ Comment : The manuscript (especially the introduction) would benefit from language editing to improve clarity, sentence structure, and logical transitions between arguments. Response : The wording was reviewed. ________________ We thank the reviewer for their valuable contributions to the quality of the manuscript. Below, we respond to each point individually: Comment : First, I would urge to rewrite the Introduction and most importantly, to refine and clarify the research gap and scope. For instance, key concepts such as food system, food production, food industry, and food security appear alongside one another without clear distinctions. In addition, the manuscript attempts to address multiple research gaps ranging from technology, resilience, and sustainable supply chain management. As a result, the reader may struggle to understand the precise purpose of the study. Could you clarify whether the paper aims to offer a broad overview or a focused analysis (e.g., of sustainability in the food industry in relation to specific themes like technology or circular economy). In my opinion, your research has strong potential if it concentrates on the key topic of sustainable food and technology, which seems to be your first motivation (if I understood correctly). Why not focusing on this angle? This would allow a deeper analysis and more distinctive contributions. Response : Clear operational definitions for food production, food industry, agri-food sector, and food system were incorporated, delimiting their conceptual scope. ________________ Comment : Second, the literature review (1.1) could also be revised, in order to define the key concepts with greater precision. This would require you to clarify your actual focus. If you aim to focus on ‘sustainable food’, what is your conceptual and key components? A better definition of key concepts would also help justify your methodological choices regarding keywords. Moreover, the literature review should more explicitly engage with existing bibliometric analysis on sustainable food (ex. Şimşek et al. 2024) and explain why an additional one is needed. Response : The manuscript was expanded to clarify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for terms, the temporal scope of the study, and the search strategy employed. ________________ Comment : Third, while I am not an expert in bibliometric analysis, I noted several elements that could be clarified, starting with the key words selected. The rational for including certain terms “food industry” is not explained. For instance, “food production” is included but not “food wholesalers/intermediaries” “producers” “food distribution”, etc. Likewise, under the topic of sustainability and sustainable food, important dimensions such as “local food” “alternative food” “food democracy” are not included. I am not saying you must include all these terms, but you should explain their exclusion (based on a clearer conceptual framework). The current scope seems restrictive in comparison to the broad research aim announced in the first place. Moreover, more details on the selection criteria such as publication period, journal sources, and disciplinary boundaries can be expected. Finally, in the limitation section, you mention that you searched titles only. Why not also include key words and abstracts? Web of Science, “topic” criteria would allow for a broader search across these elements. Response : While thematic groups are described in the co-occurrence networks, the discussion has been strengthened by explicitly highlighting internal gaps and underexplored links within the main themes, allowing for the identification of subtopics and research gaps within broad categories. ________________ Comment : The current scope appears restrictive in comparison to the broad research aim announced at the outset. More detail is also needed on selection criteria such as publication period, source journals, and disciplinary scope. Finally, in the limitations section, you mention that you searched titles only. Why not also include abstracts and keywords? Web of Science’s “Topic” field would allow for a broader search across these elements. Response : The manuscript was expanded to clarify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for terms, the study's time frame, and the search strategy employed. ________________ Comment : Fourth, given the broad scope of the research, the analysis lacks granularity. For example, themes such as “food” or “food supply chain” are identified, but the evolving debates or sub-questions within these themes are not unpacked. While it would be interesting to better comprehend what is missing or underexplored. Response : While thematic groups are described in the co-occurrence networks, the discussion has been strengthened by explicitly highlighting internal gaps and underexplored links within the main themes. This allows for the identification of subtopics and research gaps within broader categories. ________________ Comment : Then, while the results do highlight interesting trends, the discussion is too descriptive and spread across too many sub-sections. There is also considerable repetition between sections (e.g., circular economy, food security, supply chains), which dilutes the impact of the findings. I recommend to reduce the number of sub-sections in both the results and discussion, and develop a deeper analysis of a smaller set of key themes. For instance, I found the part on multidisciplinary approach (4.1, p. 16) interesting, but it is not developed enough to be insightful. You have started a cross analysis on emerging key topics that could become the core of your results. You might use Table 1 as a starting point and examine these topics in more details (ex. journals, authors, (multi)disciplinary aspect, but also sub-dimensions within each theme). This would help to refine the analysis and enrich the discussion, which could then be structured around key themes (and avoiding repetitions). I see more potential in this direction to achieve the initial purpose of “provid(ing) areas that require further development, promote effective practical result”. Response : Sections were shortened and synthesized for greater robustness. ________________ Comment : If you choose to focus on these themes, you might explain how this emerged – whether inductively or abductively- in the methodology section and in relation to your research question. The research question itself could be also simplified and narrowed down to better align with the focus of the study. Response : The methodology was adjusted to make explicit the inductive origin of the themes and the use of a set of operational questions as a joint analytical guide—a common practice in bibliometric studies to structure the analysis without reducing it to a single question. ________________ Comment : Minor comments: I would be cautious in the interpretation of findings regarding key countries, especially the UK and US. Since English is the primary language of most Web of Science/Scopus journals, there might be a natural overrepresentation of English-speaking countries. Response : While most articles indexed in Scopus and Web of Science are in English, the analysis of country influence in this study is based exclusively on the authors' institutional affiliation metadata and not on the language of publication. This reduces the direct impact of linguistic bias on identifying countries with higher output. ________________ Comment : Mistake p. 5 “scope of Frontiers in Sustainability” Response : The correction is made. ________________ Comment : Ensure the title reflects the scope of the research: is it about sustainability in the “food system” or “food industry”? Response : The title was adjusted to more accurately reflect that the study focuses on sustainability in the food industry, defining its analytical scope and avoiding conceptual ambiguity. ________________ Comment : The manuscript (especially the introduction) would benefit from language editing to improve clarity, sentence structure, and logical transitions between arguments. Response : The wording was reviewed. ________________ Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 23 Jan 2026 JHOANY ALEJANDRO VALENCIA ARIAS , Escuela de Ingeniería Industrial, Universidad Senor de Sipan, Chiclayo, 14000, Peru 23 Jan 2026 Author Response We thank the reviewer for their valuable contributions to the quality of the manuscript. Below, we respond to each point individually: Comment : First, I would urge to rewrite the ... Continue reading We thank the reviewer for their valuable contributions to the quality of the manuscript. Below, we respond to each point individually: Comment : First, I would urge to rewrite the Introduction and most importantly, to refine and clarify the research gap and scope. For instance, key concepts such as food system, food production, food industry, and food security appear alongside one another without clear distinctions. In addition, the manuscript attempts to address multiple research gaps ranging from technology, resilience, and sustainable supply chain management. As a result, the reader may struggle to understand the precise purpose of the study. Could you clarify whether the paper aims to offer a broad overview or a focused analysis (e.g., of sustainability in the food industry in relation to specific themes like technology or circular economy). In my opinion, your research has strong potential if it concentrates on the key topic of sustainable food and technology, which seems to be your first motivation (if I understood correctly). Why not focusing on this angle? This would allow a deeper analysis and more distinctive contributions. Response : Clear operational definitions for food production, food industry, agri-food sector, and food system were incorporated, delimiting their conceptual scope. ________________ Comment : Second, the literature review (1.1) could also be revised, in order to define the key concepts with greater precision. This would require you to clarify your actual focus. If you aim to focus on ‘sustainable food’, what is your conceptual and key components? A better definition of key concepts would also help justify your methodological choices regarding keywords. Moreover, the literature review should more explicitly engage with existing bibliometric analysis on sustainable food (ex. Şimşek et al. 2024) and explain why an additional one is needed. Response : The manuscript was expanded to clarify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for terms, the temporal scope of the study, and the search strategy employed. ________________ Comment : Third, while I am not an expert in bibliometric analysis, I noted several elements that could be clarified, starting with the key words selected. The rational for including certain terms “food industry” is not explained. For instance, “food production” is included but not “food wholesalers/intermediaries” “producers” “food distribution”, etc. Likewise, under the topic of sustainability and sustainable food, important dimensions such as “local food” “alternative food” “food democracy” are not included. I am not saying you must include all these terms, but you should explain their exclusion (based on a clearer conceptual framework). The current scope seems restrictive in comparison to the broad research aim announced in the first place. Moreover, more details on the selection criteria such as publication period, journal sources, and disciplinary boundaries can be expected. Finally, in the limitation section, you mention that you searched titles only. Why not also include key words and abstracts? Web of Science, “topic” criteria would allow for a broader search across these elements. Response : While thematic groups are described in the co-occurrence networks, the discussion has been strengthened by explicitly highlighting internal gaps and underexplored links within the main themes, allowing for the identification of subtopics and research gaps within broad categories. ________________ Comment : The current scope appears restrictive in comparison to the broad research aim announced at the outset. More detail is also needed on selection criteria such as publication period, source journals, and disciplinary scope. Finally, in the limitations section, you mention that you searched titles only. Why not also include abstracts and keywords? Web of Science’s “Topic” field would allow for a broader search across these elements. Response : The manuscript was expanded to clarify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for terms, the study's time frame, and the search strategy employed. ________________ Comment : Fourth, given the broad scope of the research, the analysis lacks granularity. For example, themes such as “food” or “food supply chain” are identified, but the evolving debates or sub-questions within these themes are not unpacked. While it would be interesting to better comprehend what is missing or underexplored. Response : While thematic groups are described in the co-occurrence networks, the discussion has been strengthened by explicitly highlighting internal gaps and underexplored links within the main themes. This allows for the identification of subtopics and research gaps within broader categories. ________________ Comment : Then, while the results do highlight interesting trends, the discussion is too descriptive and spread across too many sub-sections. There is also considerable repetition between sections (e.g., circular economy, food security, supply chains), which dilutes the impact of the findings. I recommend to reduce the number of sub-sections in both the results and discussion, and develop a deeper analysis of a smaller set of key themes. For instance, I found the part on multidisciplinary approach (4.1, p. 16) interesting, but it is not developed enough to be insightful. You have started a cross analysis on emerging key topics that could become the core of your results. You might use Table 1 as a starting point and examine these topics in more details (ex. journals, authors, (multi)disciplinary aspect, but also sub-dimensions within each theme). This would help to refine the analysis and enrich the discussion, which could then be structured around key themes (and avoiding repetitions). I see more potential in this direction to achieve the initial purpose of “provid(ing) areas that require further development, promote effective practical result”. Response : Sections were shortened and synthesized for greater robustness. ________________ Comment : If you choose to focus on these themes, you might explain how this emerged – whether inductively or abductively- in the methodology section and in relation to your research question. The research question itself could be also simplified and narrowed down to better align with the focus of the study. Response : The methodology was adjusted to make explicit the inductive origin of the themes and the use of a set of operational questions as a joint analytical guide—a common practice in bibliometric studies to structure the analysis without reducing it to a single question. ________________ Comment : Minor comments: I would be cautious in the interpretation of findings regarding key countries, especially the UK and US. Since English is the primary language of most Web of Science/Scopus journals, there might be a natural overrepresentation of English-speaking countries. Response : While most articles indexed in Scopus and Web of Science are in English, the analysis of country influence in this study is based exclusively on the authors' institutional affiliation metadata and not on the language of publication. This reduces the direct impact of linguistic bias on identifying countries with higher output. ________________ Comment : Mistake p. 5 “scope of Frontiers in Sustainability” Response : The correction is made. ________________ Comment : Ensure the title reflects the scope of the research: is it about sustainability in the “food system” or “food industry”? Response : The title was adjusted to more accurately reflect that the study focuses on sustainability in the food industry, defining its analytical scope and avoiding conceptual ambiguity. ________________ Comment : The manuscript (especially the introduction) would benefit from language editing to improve clarity, sentence structure, and logical transitions between arguments. Response : The wording was reviewed. ________________ We thank the reviewer for their valuable contributions to the quality of the manuscript. Below, we respond to each point individually: Comment : First, I would urge to rewrite the Introduction and most importantly, to refine and clarify the research gap and scope. For instance, key concepts such as food system, food production, food industry, and food security appear alongside one another without clear distinctions. In addition, the manuscript attempts to address multiple research gaps ranging from technology, resilience, and sustainable supply chain management. As a result, the reader may struggle to understand the precise purpose of the study. Could you clarify whether the paper aims to offer a broad overview or a focused analysis (e.g., of sustainability in the food industry in relation to specific themes like technology or circular economy). In my opinion, your research has strong potential if it concentrates on the key topic of sustainable food and technology, which seems to be your first motivation (if I understood correctly). Why not focusing on this angle? This would allow a deeper analysis and more distinctive contributions. Response : Clear operational definitions for food production, food industry, agri-food sector, and food system were incorporated, delimiting their conceptual scope. ________________ Comment : Second, the literature review (1.1) could also be revised, in order to define the key concepts with greater precision. This would require you to clarify your actual focus. If you aim to focus on ‘sustainable food’, what is your conceptual and key components? A better definition of key concepts would also help justify your methodological choices regarding keywords. Moreover, the literature review should more explicitly engage with existing bibliometric analysis on sustainable food (ex. Şimşek et al. 2024) and explain why an additional one is needed. Response : The manuscript was expanded to clarify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for terms, the temporal scope of the study, and the search strategy employed. ________________ Comment : Third, while I am not an expert in bibliometric analysis, I noted several elements that could be clarified, starting with the key words selected. The rational for including certain terms “food industry” is not explained. For instance, “food production” is included but not “food wholesalers/intermediaries” “producers” “food distribution”, etc. Likewise, under the topic of sustainability and sustainable food, important dimensions such as “local food” “alternative food” “food democracy” are not included. I am not saying you must include all these terms, but you should explain their exclusion (based on a clearer conceptual framework). The current scope seems restrictive in comparison to the broad research aim announced in the first place. Moreover, more details on the selection criteria such as publication period, journal sources, and disciplinary boundaries can be expected. Finally, in the limitation section, you mention that you searched titles only. Why not also include key words and abstracts? Web of Science, “topic” criteria would allow for a broader search across these elements. Response : While thematic groups are described in the co-occurrence networks, the discussion has been strengthened by explicitly highlighting internal gaps and underexplored links within the main themes, allowing for the identification of subtopics and research gaps within broad categories. ________________ Comment : The current scope appears restrictive in comparison to the broad research aim announced at the outset. More detail is also needed on selection criteria such as publication period, source journals, and disciplinary scope. Finally, in the limitations section, you mention that you searched titles only. Why not also include abstracts and keywords? Web of Science’s “Topic” field would allow for a broader search across these elements. Response : The manuscript was expanded to clarify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for terms, the study's time frame, and the search strategy employed. ________________ Comment : Fourth, given the broad scope of the research, the analysis lacks granularity. For example, themes such as “food” or “food supply chain” are identified, but the evolving debates or sub-questions within these themes are not unpacked. While it would be interesting to better comprehend what is missing or underexplored. Response : While thematic groups are described in the co-occurrence networks, the discussion has been strengthened by explicitly highlighting internal gaps and underexplored links within the main themes. This allows for the identification of subtopics and research gaps within broader categories. ________________ Comment : Then, while the results do highlight interesting trends, the discussion is too descriptive and spread across too many sub-sections. There is also considerable repetition between sections (e.g., circular economy, food security, supply chains), which dilutes the impact of the findings. I recommend to reduce the number of sub-sections in both the results and discussion, and develop a deeper analysis of a smaller set of key themes. For instance, I found the part on multidisciplinary approach (4.1, p. 16) interesting, but it is not developed enough to be insightful. You have started a cross analysis on emerging key topics that could become the core of your results. You might use Table 1 as a starting point and examine these topics in more details (ex. journals, authors, (multi)disciplinary aspect, but also sub-dimensions within each theme). This would help to refine the analysis and enrich the discussion, which could then be structured around key themes (and avoiding repetitions). I see more potential in this direction to achieve the initial purpose of “provid(ing) areas that require further development, promote effective practical result”. Response : Sections were shortened and synthesized for greater robustness. ________________ Comment : If you choose to focus on these themes, you might explain how this emerged – whether inductively or abductively- in the methodology section and in relation to your research question. The research question itself could be also simplified and narrowed down to better align with the focus of the study. Response : The methodology was adjusted to make explicit the inductive origin of the themes and the use of a set of operational questions as a joint analytical guide—a common practice in bibliometric studies to structure the analysis without reducing it to a single question. ________________ Comment : Minor comments: I would be cautious in the interpretation of findings regarding key countries, especially the UK and US. Since English is the primary language of most Web of Science/Scopus journals, there might be a natural overrepresentation of English-speaking countries. Response : While most articles indexed in Scopus and Web of Science are in English, the analysis of country influence in this study is based exclusively on the authors' institutional affiliation metadata and not on the language of publication. This reduces the direct impact of linguistic bias on identifying countries with higher output. ________________ Comment : Mistake p. 5 “scope of Frontiers in Sustainability” Response : The correction is made. ________________ Comment : Ensure the title reflects the scope of the research: is it about sustainability in the “food system” or “food industry”? Response : The title was adjusted to more accurately reflect that the study focuses on sustainability in the food industry, defining its analytical scope and avoiding conceptual ambiguity. ________________ Comment : The manuscript (especially the introduction) would benefit from language editing to improve clarity, sentence structure, and logical transitions between arguments. Response : The wording was reviewed. ________________ Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Rabbi MF. Reviewer Report For: Sustainability in the Food Industry: Trends, Thematic Axes, and Emerging Topics from a Bibliometric Analysis [version 3; peer review: 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1004 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182071.r426515 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1004/v1#referee-response-426515 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 10 Nov 2025 Mohammad Fazle Rabbi , University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182071.r426515 This systematic review examines sustainability trends in the food system through a bibliometric analysis of publications indexed in Scopus and Web of Science databases from 1989 to 2023. The study aims to identify research trends, key themes, emerging topics, and ... Continue reading READ ALL This systematic review examines sustainability trends in the food system through a bibliometric analysis of publications indexed in Scopus and Web of Science databases from 1989 to 2023. The study aims to identify research trends, key themes, emerging topics, and thematic evolution in sustainability research within the food industry. The authors employ bibliometric methods including keyword co-occurrence analysis, country and author productivity evaluation, and thematic evolution analysis using tools such as VOSviewer and Microsoft Excel. The manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic, given the increasing global attention to environmental and social impacts of food production and distribution systems. The research identifies an exponential growth in scientific output with 99.65% statistical significance, particularly during 2019, 2021, 2022, and 2023. The study reveals a thematic shift from early research on "soil erosion" to contemporary concepts such as "circular economy," "supply chain management," "food safety," and "wastewater treatment". Seven thematic clusters were identified, with sustainability, waste management, and short supply chain being the most prominent. While the manuscript presents a comprehensive bibliometric overview and adheres to PRISMA-2020 guidelines, several major methodological and interpretive issues limit its scientific rigor and contribution. The overly restrictive search strategy, limited database field coverage, superficial statistical analysis, and insufficient critical engagement with the literature represent significant weaknesses that must be addressed to meet indexing standards for high-impact journals. Major Issues:- 1. Overly Restrictive Search Strategy and Potential Selection Bias The search equation is limited to the title field only, requiring both "sustainab*" AND specific food-related terms ("Food production" OR "Food industry" OR "Food supply chain" OR "Gastronomic industry") to appear in the title. This approach creates substantial risk of excluding highly relevant publications where these terms appear in abstracts, keywords, or subject fields but not explicitly in titles. The authors acknowledge this limitation but do not adequately address its impact on the comprehensiveness and representativeness of their findings. This restrictive approach may have systematically excluded important contributions, particularly interdisciplinary research that uses varied terminology or frames sustainability concepts differently. The authors should either expand the search to include abstracts and keywords or provide empirical validation demonstrating that the title-only approach captures a representative sample of the relevant literature. 2. Insufficient Justification for Database Selection and Coverage Gaps While Scopus and Web of Science are recognized comprehensive databases, the manuscript lacks discussion of potential coverage gaps, particularly for non-English publications, regional journals, and grey literature that may be relevant to food sustainability research in developing countries. Given that the study identifies geographical gaps in developing regions, particularly Africa, the database selection may perpetuate these biases rather than reveal them objectively. The authors should discuss how their database choices may have influenced geographical and thematic findings and consider supplementing with regional databases or targeted searches for underrepresented regions. 3. Lack of Rigorous Statistical Analysis for Trend Assessment The manuscript reports an "exponential growth pattern with a statistical significance of 99.65%" but provides no details on the statistical methods, model specifications, tests performed, or interpretation of this significance value. This level of precision (99.65%) without methodological transparency raises concerns about the validity and reproducibility of this central finding. The authors must provide complete statistical methodology including the regression model used, goodness-of-fit measures, confidence intervals, and discussion of alternative growth models tested. Without this information, readers cannot assess whether the observed growth pattern is genuinely exponential or might be better described by alternative functional forms. 4. Superficial Treatment of Thematic Evolution The thematic evolution analysis (Figure 6) shows progression from "soil erosion" in 1989 to contemporary themes like "circular economy" and "supply chain management", but the analytical approach appears primarily descriptive rather than explanatory. The manuscript does not adequately explore the drivers of these shifts, the contextual factors influencing changing research priorities, or the theoretical implications of these transitions. The authors should provide more substantive analysis of why these shifts occurred, linking them to broader scientific, policy, and societal developments. Additionally, the methodology for determining thematic dominance across time periods needs clarification—are these based on simple frequency counts, weighted measures, or more sophisticated temporal analysis techniques? 5. Inconsistent and Unclear Classification Framework The Cartesian system approach for classifying keywords by frequency and validity (Figure 8) introduces a novel analytical framework without adequate justification or validation. The validity metric (defined as "average year of use") conflates recency with conceptual validity in a manner that may be misleading. A term's recent emergence does not necessarily indicate greater validity; it may simply reflect temporal trends, funding priorities, or methodological fashions. The authors should either provide theoretical justification for this operationalization of "validity" or rename this dimension more appropriately (e.g., "recency" or "temporal trend"). Additionally, the thresholds separating the four quadrants appear arbitrary and lack statistical or theoretical justification. 6. Limited Critical Analysis of Research Gaps Table 2 (in underlying data) reportedly presents research gaps with justifications and future questions, but this critical component is relegated to underlying data rather than integrated into the main text. For a systematic review intended to guide future research, the identification and substantive discussion of research gaps should constitute a central analytical contribution. The authors should integrate the most significant gaps into the main manuscript with deeper analysis of why these gaps exist, their implications for theory and practice, and specific methodological approaches needed to address them. The current treatment appears more as a checklist than a critical analysis. 7. Weak Integration of Findings with Existing Literature The discussion section compares findings with selected previous studies but lacks systematic integration with the broader theoretical frameworks in sustainability science, food systems research, and bibliometric methodology. The authors do not adequately position their findings within existing debates about sustainability transitions, food system transformations, or the sociology of scientific knowledge production. A more sophisticated theoretical framework would strengthen the manuscript's contribution beyond descriptive bibliometrics. Minor Issues:- 1. Terminology and Conceptual Clarity The manuscript inconsistently uses "food industry," "food system," "food production," and "agri-food sector" without clearly defining these terms or explaining their relationships. These are not synonymous concepts, and the lack of definitional precision creates ambiguity about the scope and boundaries of the review. 2. Figure Quality and Presentation Figure 7 (keyword co-occurrence network) presents seven color-coded thematic clusters, but the network visualization is difficult to interpret due to overlapping labels and unclear visual hierarchy. Higher resolution figures with improved layout and selective labeling of key nodes would enhance readability. Additionally, the color-coding scheme should be explained more clearly in the figure legend. 3. Inconsistent Citation Format The references section shows some inconsistencies in formatting, particularly regarding journal name abbreviations, volume/issue presentation, and DOI formatting. The manuscript should conform strictly to the journal's citation style guidelines. 4. Grammatical and Stylistic Issues While the manuscript is generally well-written, several sections contain awkward phrasing and unnecessarily complex sentence structures that impede readability. For example, "The diversity of approaches adopted by scientists responds to the increasing pressure on resources and the global environment, aiming to comprehensively address the complex and multifaceted challenges related to sustainability throughout the food value chain" could be simplified without loss of meaning. A careful language edit would improve clarity throughout. 5. Redundancy in Literature Review The Introduction and Literature Review sections contain considerable overlap in coverage of key topics and cited studies. These sections should be streamlined to eliminate redundancy and create a clearer logical progression from general context to specific research gaps. 6. Missing Details on Data Management and Quality Control While the manuscript mentions using Microsoft Excel for data extraction and manipulation, it provides limited information about quality control procedures, inter-rater reliability assessment, or handling of discrepancies in data extraction. Given that all authors served as reviewers and worked toward "absolute convergence", more detail is needed on the consensus process and how disagreements were resolved. 7. Incomplete Treatment of Automation Tools The manuscript mentions "automation tools developed in Microsoft Excel®" for record selection but provides no details on these tools, their validation, or potential sources of automated classification errors. This lack of transparency limits reproducibility and assessment of methodological rigor. Methodological Evaluation The methodological approach combines elements of systematic review methodology (PRISMA-2020) with bibliometric analysis techniques. While this integration is appropriate for the research questions, several methodological concerns warrant attention: Search Strategy Limitations: As noted above, the title-only search strategy represents a significant methodological limitation that likely affects the comprehensiveness and representativeness of the corpus analyzed. Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria: The manuscript describes a three-stage exclusion process but provides limited detail on how "incomplete indexing" was defined and assessed, how relevance determinations were made, and what constitutes "non-relevant texts." Greater specificity and examples would enhance methodological transparency. Bibliometric Indicator Selection: The choice of bibliometric indicators (publication counts, citations, keyword co-occurrence) is standard but not thoroughly justified in relation to the research questions. The manuscript would benefit from explicit discussion of why these particular indicators were selected and how they address the seven research questions posed. Software Tool Appropriateness: The use of VOSviewer for network analysis and Microsoft Excel for data management is appropriate, but the manuscript provides insufficient detail on parameter settings (e.g., minimum cluster size, resolution parameter for modularity optimization) that significantly influence results. These methodological details are essential for reproducibility. Temporal Analysis: The thematic evolution analysis tracks keyword usage over time but does not employ sophisticated temporal bibliometric methods such as historiography or dynamic topic modeling that might reveal more nuanced patterns of conceptual development and paradigm shifts. Interpretation and Discussion Quality The Discussion section addresses the main findings systematically but exhibits several weaknesses: Descriptive Emphasis: Much of the discussion remains at a descriptive level, summarizing what was found rather than deeply interrogating why these patterns exist and what they reveal about the structure and dynamics of sustainability research in the food domain. Limited Critical Perspective: The manuscript does not critically examine potential problematic trends revealed by the analysis. For example, the declining relevance of "agriculture" as a keyword might indicate a concerning disconnection between food sustainability discourse and agricultural production systems. Such patterns deserve critical commentary. Practical Implications: The practical implications section makes broad statements about policy and industry applications but lacks specificity about how the findings should concretely inform decision-making. More detailed, actionable recommendations would strengthen this section. Research Agenda Development: The proposed research agenda (Figure 9) identifies numerous topics but provides limited prioritization or strategic direction. A more selective, theoretically informed agenda highlighting the most critical gaps and high-impact research opportunities would be more valuable to the research community. Contextualization: The findings are not adequately situated within broader discussions of sustainability science maturation, interdisciplinarity trends, or the relationship between academic research priorities and real-world sustainability challenges. This contextualization would enhance the manuscript's scholarly contribution. Organization and Presentation The manuscript follows a conventional systematic review structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion) which is appropriate. However, several organizational issues affect clarity and coherence: Introduction Length and Focus: The Introduction is quite lengthy and includes extensive review of specific studies that might be better positioned in a separate Literature Review section or condensed to focus more sharply on research gaps and objectives. Research Questions Presentation: The seven research questions are clearly stated but could be better organized into thematic groups (e.g., temporal trends, intellectual structure, thematic content) to provide clearer conceptual organization. Results Organization: The Results section effectively addresses each research question sequentially, but the transitions between subsections could be smoother. Additionally, some results (particularly the country-level findings) include interpretive discussion that might be better reserved for the Discussion section. Figure-Text Integration: Several figures are referenced but not adequately integrated into the narrative. For example, Figure 1 (PRISMA flowchart) is presented but the specific numbers of excluded records at each stage are not discussed in detail in the text. Table 2 Placement: The decision to place Table 2 (research gaps) in the underlying data rather than the main manuscript is questionable given its centrality to the study's contribution. Key elements of this table should be integrated into the main text. Supplementary Materials: The underlying data availability is commendable, but the manuscript would benefit from additional supplementary materials including the complete list of articles analyzed, detailed search strings for both databases, and parameter settings for VOSviewer analyses. Recommendation Major Revision This manuscript addresses an important topic and employs appropriate bibliometric methods, but significant methodological and analytical weaknesses limit its current contribution. The overly restrictive search strategy, lack of statistical rigor in trend analysis, superficial treatment of thematic evolution, and limited critical engagement with findings represent major concerns that must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for indexing in a high-impact journal. The authors should undertake substantial revisions including: (1) expanding the search strategy to include abstracts and keywords or providing robust validation of the title-only approach; (2) providing complete statistical methodology for the growth trend analysis; (3) deepening the analytical treatment of thematic evolution with attention to contextual drivers; (4) reconceptualizing the "validity" dimension in the keyword classification framework; (5) integrating the research gaps analysis into the main manuscript with more critical discussion; (6) strengthening theoretical framing and integration with existing literature; and (7) enhancing methodological transparency throughout. With these revisions, the manuscript has the potential to make a valuable contribution to understanding the intellectual structure and evolution of sustainability research in food systems. The comprehensive scope, adherence to systematic review protocols, and identification of emerging themes provide a solid foundation that, if strengthened through more rigorous analysis and critical interpretation, could inform future research directions and policy priorities in this critical domain. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Partly Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Sustainability science, food systems research, environmental economics, agricultural sustainability, bibliometric analysis, and systematic review methodology. I am qualified to assess the methodological rigor of the systematic review approach, bibliometric analytical techniques, sustainability frameworks in food systems, and the interpretation of trends in agricultural and environmental research. I can evaluate all aspects of this article including search strategy design, data extraction procedures, statistical analysis of publication trends, thematic clustering methods, and the contextualization of findings within sustainability science and food systems literature. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Rabbi MF. Reviewer Report For: Sustainability in the Food Industry: Trends, Thematic Axes, and Emerging Topics from a Bibliometric Analysis [version 3; peer review: 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1004 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182071.r426515 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1004/v1#referee-response-426515 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 23 Jan 2026 JHOANY ALEJANDRO VALENCIA ARIAS , Escuela de Ingeniería Industrial, Universidad Senor de Sipan, Chiclayo, 14000, Peru 23 Jan 2026 Author Response We thank the reviewer for their valuable contributions to the quality of the manuscript. Below, we respond to each point individually: Comment : The search equation is limited to the ... Continue reading We thank the reviewer for their valuable contributions to the quality of the manuscript. Below, we respond to each point individually: Comment : The search equation is limited to the title field only, requiring both "sustainab*" AND specific food-related terms ("Food production" OR "Food industry" OR "Food supply chain" OR "Gastronomic industry") to appear in the title. This approach creates substantial risk of excluding highly relevant publications where these terms appear in abstracts, keywords, or subject fields but not explicitly in titles. The authors acknowledge this limitation but do not adequately address its impact on the comprehensiveness and representativeness of their findings. This restrictive approach may have systematically excluded important contributions, particularly interdisciplinary research that uses varied terminology or frames sustainability concepts differently. The authors should either expand the search to include abstracts and keywords or provide empirical validation demonstrating that the title-only approach captures a representative sample of the relevant literature. Response : The exclusive use of the title field was methodologically justified as a strategy aimed at maximizing thematic precision and internal validity of the bibliometric analysis. ________________ Comment : While Scopus and Web of Science are recognized comprehensive databases, the manuscript lacks discussion of potential coverage gaps, particularly for non-English publications, regional journals, and grey literature that may be relevant to food sustainability research in developing countries. Given that the study identifies geographical gaps in developing regions, particularly Africa, the database selection may perpetuate these biases rather than reveal them objectively. The authors should discuss how their database choices may have influenced geographical and thematic findings and consider supplementing with regional databases or targeted searches for underrepresented regions. Response : The justification for selecting Scopus and Web of Science was reinforced by highlighting their scientific impact and the standardization of metadata, which are fundamental for bibliometric organization and interpretation. Furthermore, it was clarified that regional gaps, such as in Africa, reflect lower visibility in high-impact journals and not the absence of relevant research. ________________ Comment : The manuscript reports an "exponential growth pattern with a statistical significance of 99.65%" but provides no details on the statistical methods, model specifications, tests performed, or interpretation of this significance value. This level of precision (99.65%) without methodological transparency raises concerns about the validity and reproducibility of this central finding. The authors must provide complete statistical methodology including the regression model used, goodness-of-fit measures, confidence intervals, and discussion of alternative growth models tested. Without this information, readers cannot assess whether the observed growth pattern is genuinely exponential or might be better described by alternative functional forms. Response : The results clarified that exponential growth was estimated using a descriptive regression analysis, and that the reported value corresponds to the model's coefficient of determination. ________________ Comment : The thematic evolution analysis (Figure 6) shows progression from "soil erosion" in 1989 to contemporary themes like "circular economy" and "supply chain management", but the analytical approach appears primarily descriptive rather than explanatory. The manuscript does not adequately explore the drivers of these shifts, the contextual factors influencing changing research priorities, or the theoretical implications of these transitions. The authors should provide more substantive analysis of why these shifts occurred, linking them to broader scientific, policy, and societal developments. Additionally, the methodology for determining thematic dominance across time periods needs clarification—are these based on simple frequency counts, weighted measures, or more sophisticated temporal analysis techniques? Response : The interpretation of thematic evolution was expanded by linking the observed changes to scientific transformations and global sustainability contexts. ________________ Comment : The Cartesian system approach for classifying keywords by frequency and validity (Figure 8) introduces a novel analytical framework without adequate justification or validation. The validity metric (defined as "average year of use") conflates recency with conceptual validity in a manner that may be misleading. A term's recent emergence does not necessarily indicate greater validity; it may simply reflect temporal trends, funding priorities, or methodological fashions. The authors should either provide theoretical justification for this operationalization of "validity" or rename this dimension more appropriately (e.g., "recency" or "temporal trend"). Additionally, the thresholds separating the four quadrants appear arbitrary and lack statistical or theoretical justification. Response : The descriptive nature of the metric was clarified, and “validity” was renamed as an indicator of temporal validity or recency of use, thus avoiding conceptual interpretations. ________________ Comment : Table 2 (in underlying data) reportedly presents research gaps with justifications and future questions, but this critical component is relegated to underlying data rather than integrated into the main text. For a systematic review intended to guide future research, the identification and substantive discussion of research gaps should constitute a central analytical contribution. The authors should integrate the most significant gaps into the main manuscript with deeper analysis of why these gaps exist, their implications for theory and practice, and specific methodological approaches needed to address them. The current treatment appears more as a checklist than a critical analysis. Response : The main gaps identified in Table 2 were integrated into the main text, linking them to the results and discussion. ________________ Comment : The discussion section compares findings with selected previous studies but lacks systematic integration with the broader theoretical frameworks in sustainability science, food systems research, and bibliometric methodology. The authors do not adequately position their findings within existing debates about sustainability transitions, food system transformations, or the sociology of scientific knowledge production. A more sophisticated theoretical framework would strengthen the manuscript's contribution beyond descriptive bibliometrics. Response : The results of the bibliometric analysis were integrated into theoretical frameworks of transitions toward sustainability and transformation of food systems, supported by recent literature. ________________ Comment : The manuscript inconsistently uses "food industry," "food system," "food production," and "agri-food sector" without clearly defining these terms or explaining their relationships. These are not synonymous concepts, and the lack of definitional precision creates ambiguity about the scope and boundaries of the review. Response : Clear operational definitions were incorporated for food production, food industry, agri-food sector, and food system, delimiting their conceptual scope. ________________ Comment : The references section shows some inconsistencies in formatting, particularly regarding journal name abbreviations, volume/issue presentation, and DOI formatting. The manuscript should conform strictly to the journal's citation style guidelines. Response : The reference format was standardized. ________________ Comment : While the manuscript is generally well-written, several sections contain awkward phrasing and unnecessarily complex sentence structures that impede readability. For example, “The diversity of approaches adopted by scientists responds to the increasing pressure on resources and the global environment, aiming to comprehensively address the complex and multifaceted challenges related to sustainability throughout the food value chain” could be simplified. A careful language edit would improve clarity throughout. Response : The writing was reviewed. ________________ Comment : The Introduction and Literature Review sections contain considerable overlap in coverage of key topics and cited studies. These sections should be streamlined to eliminate redundancy and create a clearer logical progression from general context to specific research gaps. Response : The introduction and literature review were rewritten to eliminate redundancies. ________________ Comment : While the manuscript mentions using Microsoft Excel for data extraction and manipulation, it provides limited information about quality control procedures, inter-rater reliability assessment, or handling of discrepancies in data extraction. More detalle is needed. Response : A section on Quality Control Procedures and Reviewer Consistency was added. ________________ Comment : The manuscript mentions "automation tools developed in Microsoft Excel®" for record selection but provides no details on these tools, their validation, or potential errors. This limits reproducibility. Response : A paragraph was added to the Methods section that provides more in-depth information on using the tool. ________________ We thank the reviewer for their valuable contributions to the quality of the manuscript. Below, we respond to each point individually: Comment : The search equation is limited to the title field only, requiring both "sustainab*" AND specific food-related terms ("Food production" OR "Food industry" OR "Food supply chain" OR "Gastronomic industry") to appear in the title. This approach creates substantial risk of excluding highly relevant publications where these terms appear in abstracts, keywords, or subject fields but not explicitly in titles. The authors acknowledge this limitation but do not adequately address its impact on the comprehensiveness and representativeness of their findings. This restrictive approach may have systematically excluded important contributions, particularly interdisciplinary research that uses varied terminology or frames sustainability concepts differently. The authors should either expand the search to include abstracts and keywords or provide empirical validation demonstrating that the title-only approach captures a representative sample of the relevant literature. Response : The exclusive use of the title field was methodologically justified as a strategy aimed at maximizing thematic precision and internal validity of the bibliometric analysis. ________________ Comment : While Scopus and Web of Science are recognized comprehensive databases, the manuscript lacks discussion of potential coverage gaps, particularly for non-English publications, regional journals, and grey literature that may be relevant to food sustainability research in developing countries. Given that the study identifies geographical gaps in developing regions, particularly Africa, the database selection may perpetuate these biases rather than reveal them objectively. The authors should discuss how their database choices may have influenced geographical and thematic findings and consider supplementing with regional databases or targeted searches for underrepresented regions. Response : The justification for selecting Scopus and Web of Science was reinforced by highlighting their scientific impact and the standardization of metadata, which are fundamental for bibliometric organization and interpretation. Furthermore, it was clarified that regional gaps, such as in Africa, reflect lower visibility in high-impact journals and not the absence of relevant research. ________________ Comment : The manuscript reports an "exponential growth pattern with a statistical significance of 99.65%" but provides no details on the statistical methods, model specifications, tests performed, or interpretation of this significance value. This level of precision (99.65%) without methodological transparency raises concerns about the validity and reproducibility of this central finding. The authors must provide complete statistical methodology including the regression model used, goodness-of-fit measures, confidence intervals, and discussion of alternative growth models tested. Without this information, readers cannot assess whether the observed growth pattern is genuinely exponential or might be better described by alternative functional forms. Response : The results clarified that exponential growth was estimated using a descriptive regression analysis, and that the reported value corresponds to the model's coefficient of determination. ________________ Comment : The thematic evolution analysis (Figure 6) shows progression from "soil erosion" in 1989 to contemporary themes like "circular economy" and "supply chain management", but the analytical approach appears primarily descriptive rather than explanatory. The manuscript does not adequately explore the drivers of these shifts, the contextual factors influencing changing research priorities, or the theoretical implications of these transitions. The authors should provide more substantive analysis of why these shifts occurred, linking them to broader scientific, policy, and societal developments. Additionally, the methodology for determining thematic dominance across time periods needs clarification—are these based on simple frequency counts, weighted measures, or more sophisticated temporal analysis techniques? Response : The interpretation of thematic evolution was expanded by linking the observed changes to scientific transformations and global sustainability contexts. ________________ Comment : The Cartesian system approach for classifying keywords by frequency and validity (Figure 8) introduces a novel analytical framework without adequate justification or validation. The validity metric (defined as "average year of use") conflates recency with conceptual validity in a manner that may be misleading. A term's recent emergence does not necessarily indicate greater validity; it may simply reflect temporal trends, funding priorities, or methodological fashions. The authors should either provide theoretical justification for this operationalization of "validity" or rename this dimension more appropriately (e.g., "recency" or "temporal trend"). Additionally, the thresholds separating the four quadrants appear arbitrary and lack statistical or theoretical justification. Response : The descriptive nature of the metric was clarified, and “validity” was renamed as an indicator of temporal validity or recency of use, thus avoiding conceptual interpretations. ________________ Comment : Table 2 (in underlying data) reportedly presents research gaps with justifications and future questions, but this critical component is relegated to underlying data rather than integrated into the main text. For a systematic review intended to guide future research, the identification and substantive discussion of research gaps should constitute a central analytical contribution. The authors should integrate the most significant gaps into the main manuscript with deeper analysis of why these gaps exist, their implications for theory and practice, and specific methodological approaches needed to address them. The current treatment appears more as a checklist than a critical analysis. Response : The main gaps identified in Table 2 were integrated into the main text, linking them to the results and discussion. ________________ Comment : The discussion section compares findings with selected previous studies but lacks systematic integration with the broader theoretical frameworks in sustainability science, food systems research, and bibliometric methodology. The authors do not adequately position their findings within existing debates about sustainability transitions, food system transformations, or the sociology of scientific knowledge production. A more sophisticated theoretical framework would strengthen the manuscript's contribution beyond descriptive bibliometrics. Response : The results of the bibliometric analysis were integrated into theoretical frameworks of transitions toward sustainability and transformation of food systems, supported by recent literature. ________________ Comment : The manuscript inconsistently uses "food industry," "food system," "food production," and "agri-food sector" without clearly defining these terms or explaining their relationships. These are not synonymous concepts, and the lack of definitional precision creates ambiguity about the scope and boundaries of the review. Response : Clear operational definitions were incorporated for food production, food industry, agri-food sector, and food system, delimiting their conceptual scope. ________________ Comment : The references section shows some inconsistencies in formatting, particularly regarding journal name abbreviations, volume/issue presentation, and DOI formatting. The manuscript should conform strictly to the journal's citation style guidelines. Response : The reference format was standardized. ________________ Comment : While the manuscript is generally well-written, several sections contain awkward phrasing and unnecessarily complex sentence structures that impede readability. For example, “The diversity of approaches adopted by scientists responds to the increasing pressure on resources and the global environment, aiming to comprehensively address the complex and multifaceted challenges related to sustainability throughout the food value chain” could be simplified. A careful language edit would improve clarity throughout. Response : The writing was reviewed. ________________ Comment : The Introduction and Literature Review sections contain considerable overlap in coverage of key topics and cited studies. These sections should be streamlined to eliminate redundancy and create a clearer logical progression from general context to specific research gaps. Response : The introduction and literature review were rewritten to eliminate redundancies. ________________ Comment : While the manuscript mentions using Microsoft Excel for data extraction and manipulation, it provides limited information about quality control procedures, inter-rater reliability assessment, or handling of discrepancies in data extraction. More detalle is needed. Response : A section on Quality Control Procedures and Reviewer Consistency was added. ________________ Comment : The manuscript mentions "automation tools developed in Microsoft Excel®" for record selection but provides no details on these tools, their validation, or potential errors. This limits reproducibility. Response : A paragraph was added to the Methods section that provides more in-depth information on using the tool. ________________ Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 23 Jan 2026 JHOANY ALEJANDRO VALENCIA ARIAS , Escuela de Ingeniería Industrial, Universidad Senor de Sipan, Chiclayo, 14000, Peru 23 Jan 2026 Author Response We thank the reviewer for their valuable contributions to the quality of the manuscript. Below, we respond to each point individually: Comment : The search equation is limited to the ... Continue reading We thank the reviewer for their valuable contributions to the quality of the manuscript. Below, we respond to each point individually: Comment : The search equation is limited to the title field only, requiring both "sustainab*" AND specific food-related terms ("Food production" OR "Food industry" OR "Food supply chain" OR "Gastronomic industry") to appear in the title. This approach creates substantial risk of excluding highly relevant publications where these terms appear in abstracts, keywords, or subject fields but not explicitly in titles. The authors acknowledge this limitation but do not adequately address its impact on the comprehensiveness and representativeness of their findings. This restrictive approach may have systematically excluded important contributions, particularly interdisciplinary research that uses varied terminology or frames sustainability concepts differently. The authors should either expand the search to include abstracts and keywords or provide empirical validation demonstrating that the title-only approach captures a representative sample of the relevant literature. Response : The exclusive use of the title field was methodologically justified as a strategy aimed at maximizing thematic precision and internal validity of the bibliometric analysis. ________________ Comment : While Scopus and Web of Science are recognized comprehensive databases, the manuscript lacks discussion of potential coverage gaps, particularly for non-English publications, regional journals, and grey literature that may be relevant to food sustainability research in developing countries. Given that the study identifies geographical gaps in developing regions, particularly Africa, the database selection may perpetuate these biases rather than reveal them objectively. The authors should discuss how their database choices may have influenced geographical and thematic findings and consider supplementing with regional databases or targeted searches for underrepresented regions. Response : The justification for selecting Scopus and Web of Science was reinforced by highlighting their scientific impact and the standardization of metadata, which are fundamental for bibliometric organization and interpretation. Furthermore, it was clarified that regional gaps, such as in Africa, reflect lower visibility in high-impact journals and not the absence of relevant research. ________________ Comment : The manuscript reports an "exponential growth pattern with a statistical significance of 99.65%" but provides no details on the statistical methods, model specifications, tests performed, or interpretation of this significance value. This level of precision (99.65%) without methodological transparency raises concerns about the validity and reproducibility of this central finding. The authors must provide complete statistical methodology including the regression model used, goodness-of-fit measures, confidence intervals, and discussion of alternative growth models tested. Without this information, readers cannot assess whether the observed growth pattern is genuinely exponential or might be better described by alternative functional forms. Response : The results clarified that exponential growth was estimated using a descriptive regression analysis, and that the reported value corresponds to the model's coefficient of determination. ________________ Comment : The thematic evolution analysis (Figure 6) shows progression from "soil erosion" in 1989 to contemporary themes like "circular economy" and "supply chain management", but the analytical approach appears primarily descriptive rather than explanatory. The manuscript does not adequately explore the drivers of these shifts, the contextual factors influencing changing research priorities, or the theoretical implications of these transitions. The authors should provide more substantive analysis of why these shifts occurred, linking them to broader scientific, policy, and societal developments. Additionally, the methodology for determining thematic dominance across time periods needs clarification—are these based on simple frequency counts, weighted measures, or more sophisticated temporal analysis techniques? Response : The interpretation of thematic evolution was expanded by linking the observed changes to scientific transformations and global sustainability contexts. ________________ Comment : The Cartesian system approach for classifying keywords by frequency and validity (Figure 8) introduces a novel analytical framework without adequate justification or validation. The validity metric (defined as "average year of use") conflates recency with conceptual validity in a manner that may be misleading. A term's recent emergence does not necessarily indicate greater validity; it may simply reflect temporal trends, funding priorities, or methodological fashions. The authors should either provide theoretical justification for this operationalization of "validity" or rename this dimension more appropriately (e.g., "recency" or "temporal trend"). Additionally, the thresholds separating the four quadrants appear arbitrary and lack statistical or theoretical justification. Response : The descriptive nature of the metric was clarified, and “validity” was renamed as an indicator of temporal validity or recency of use, thus avoiding conceptual interpretations. ________________ Comment : Table 2 (in underlying data) reportedly presents research gaps with justifications and future questions, but this critical component is relegated to underlying data rather than integrated into the main text. For a systematic review intended to guide future research, the identification and substantive discussion of research gaps should constitute a central analytical contribution. The authors should integrate the most significant gaps into the main manuscript with deeper analysis of why these gaps exist, their implications for theory and practice, and specific methodological approaches needed to address them. The current treatment appears more as a checklist than a critical analysis. Response : The main gaps identified in Table 2 were integrated into the main text, linking them to the results and discussion. ________________ Comment : The discussion section compares findings with selected previous studies but lacks systematic integration with the broader theoretical frameworks in sustainability science, food systems research, and bibliometric methodology. The authors do not adequately position their findings within existing debates about sustainability transitions, food system transformations, or the sociology of scientific knowledge production. A more sophisticated theoretical framework would strengthen the manuscript's contribution beyond descriptive bibliometrics. Response : The results of the bibliometric analysis were integrated into theoretical frameworks of transitions toward sustainability and transformation of food systems, supported by recent literature. ________________ Comment : The manuscript inconsistently uses "food industry," "food system," "food production," and "agri-food sector" without clearly defining these terms or explaining their relationships. These are not synonymous concepts, and the lack of definitional precision creates ambiguity about the scope and boundaries of the review. Response : Clear operational definitions were incorporated for food production, food industry, agri-food sector, and food system, delimiting their conceptual scope. ________________ Comment : The references section shows some inconsistencies in formatting, particularly regarding journal name abbreviations, volume/issue presentation, and DOI formatting. The manuscript should conform strictly to the journal's citation style guidelines. Response : The reference format was standardized. ________________ Comment : While the manuscript is generally well-written, several sections contain awkward phrasing and unnecessarily complex sentence structures that impede readability. For example, “The diversity of approaches adopted by scientists responds to the increasing pressure on resources and the global environment, aiming to comprehensively address the complex and multifaceted challenges related to sustainability throughout the food value chain” could be simplified. A careful language edit would improve clarity throughout. Response : The writing was reviewed. ________________ Comment : The Introduction and Literature Review sections contain considerable overlap in coverage of key topics and cited studies. These sections should be streamlined to eliminate redundancy and create a clearer logical progression from general context to specific research gaps. Response : The introduction and literature review were rewritten to eliminate redundancies. ________________ Comment : While the manuscript mentions using Microsoft Excel for data extraction and manipulation, it provides limited information about quality control procedures, inter-rater reliability assessment, or handling of discrepancies in data extraction. More detalle is needed. Response : A section on Quality Control Procedures and Reviewer Consistency was added. ________________ Comment : The manuscript mentions "automation tools developed in Microsoft Excel®" for record selection but provides no details on these tools, their validation, or potential errors. This limits reproducibility. Response : A paragraph was added to the Methods section that provides more in-depth information on using the tool. ________________ We thank the reviewer for their valuable contributions to the quality of the manuscript. Below, we respond to each point individually: Comment : The search equation is limited to the title field only, requiring both "sustainab*" AND specific food-related terms ("Food production" OR "Food industry" OR "Food supply chain" OR "Gastronomic industry") to appear in the title. This approach creates substantial risk of excluding highly relevant publications where these terms appear in abstracts, keywords, or subject fields but not explicitly in titles. The authors acknowledge this limitation but do not adequately address its impact on the comprehensiveness and representativeness of their findings. This restrictive approach may have systematically excluded important contributions, particularly interdisciplinary research that uses varied terminology or frames sustainability concepts differently. The authors should either expand the search to include abstracts and keywords or provide empirical validation demonstrating that the title-only approach captures a representative sample of the relevant literature. Response : The exclusive use of the title field was methodologically justified as a strategy aimed at maximizing thematic precision and internal validity of the bibliometric analysis. ________________ Comment : While Scopus and Web of Science are recognized comprehensive databases, the manuscript lacks discussion of potential coverage gaps, particularly for non-English publications, regional journals, and grey literature that may be relevant to food sustainability research in developing countries. Given that the study identifies geographical gaps in developing regions, particularly Africa, the database selection may perpetuate these biases rather than reveal them objectively. The authors should discuss how their database choices may have influenced geographical and thematic findings and consider supplementing with regional databases or targeted searches for underrepresented regions. Response : The justification for selecting Scopus and Web of Science was reinforced by highlighting their scientific impact and the standardization of metadata, which are fundamental for bibliometric organization and interpretation. Furthermore, it was clarified that regional gaps, such as in Africa, reflect lower visibility in high-impact journals and not the absence of relevant research. ________________ Comment : The manuscript reports an "exponential growth pattern with a statistical significance of 99.65%" but provides no details on the statistical methods, model specifications, tests performed, or interpretation of this significance value. This level of precision (99.65%) without methodological transparency raises concerns about the validity and reproducibility of this central finding. The authors must provide complete statistical methodology including the regression model used, goodness-of-fit measures, confidence intervals, and discussion of alternative growth models tested. Without this information, readers cannot assess whether the observed growth pattern is genuinely exponential or might be better described by alternative functional forms. Response : The results clarified that exponential growth was estimated using a descriptive regression analysis, and that the reported value corresponds to the model's coefficient of determination. ________________ Comment : The thematic evolution analysis (Figure 6) shows progression from "soil erosion" in 1989 to contemporary themes like "circular economy" and "supply chain management", but the analytical approach appears primarily descriptive rather than explanatory. The manuscript does not adequately explore the drivers of these shifts, the contextual factors influencing changing research priorities, or the theoretical implications of these transitions. The authors should provide more substantive analysis of why these shifts occurred, linking them to broader scientific, policy, and societal developments. Additionally, the methodology for determining thematic dominance across time periods needs clarification—are these based on simple frequency counts, weighted measures, or more sophisticated temporal analysis techniques? Response : The interpretation of thematic evolution was expanded by linking the observed changes to scientific transformations and global sustainability contexts. ________________ Comment : The Cartesian system approach for classifying keywords by frequency and validity (Figure 8) introduces a novel analytical framework without adequate justification or validation. The validity metric (defined as "average year of use") conflates recency with conceptual validity in a manner that may be misleading. A term's recent emergence does not necessarily indicate greater validity; it may simply reflect temporal trends, funding priorities, or methodological fashions. The authors should either provide theoretical justification for this operationalization of "validity" or rename this dimension more appropriately (e.g., "recency" or "temporal trend"). Additionally, the thresholds separating the four quadrants appear arbitrary and lack statistical or theoretical justification. Response : The descriptive nature of the metric was clarified, and “validity” was renamed as an indicator of temporal validity or recency of use, thus avoiding conceptual interpretations. ________________ Comment : Table 2 (in underlying data) reportedly presents research gaps with justifications and future questions, but this critical component is relegated to underlying data rather than integrated into the main text. For a systematic review intended to guide future research, the identification and substantive discussion of research gaps should constitute a central analytical contribution. The authors should integrate the most significant gaps into the main manuscript with deeper analysis of why these gaps exist, their implications for theory and practice, and specific methodological approaches needed to address them. The current treatment appears more as a checklist than a critical analysis. Response : The main gaps identified in Table 2 were integrated into the main text, linking them to the results and discussion. ________________ Comment : The discussion section compares findings with selected previous studies but lacks systematic integration with the broader theoretical frameworks in sustainability science, food systems research, and bibliometric methodology. The authors do not adequately position their findings within existing debates about sustainability transitions, food system transformations, or the sociology of scientific knowledge production. A more sophisticated theoretical framework would strengthen the manuscript's contribution beyond descriptive bibliometrics. Response : The results of the bibliometric analysis were integrated into theoretical frameworks of transitions toward sustainability and transformation of food systems, supported by recent literature. ________________ Comment : The manuscript inconsistently uses "food industry," "food system," "food production," and "agri-food sector" without clearly defining these terms or explaining their relationships. These are not synonymous concepts, and the lack of definitional precision creates ambiguity about the scope and boundaries of the review. Response : Clear operational definitions were incorporated for food production, food industry, agri-food sector, and food system, delimiting their conceptual scope. ________________ Comment : The references section shows some inconsistencies in formatting, particularly regarding journal name abbreviations, volume/issue presentation, and DOI formatting. The manuscript should conform strictly to the journal's citation style guidelines. Response : The reference format was standardized. ________________ Comment : While the manuscript is generally well-written, several sections contain awkward phrasing and unnecessarily complex sentence structures that impede readability. For example, “The diversity of approaches adopted by scientists responds to the increasing pressure on resources and the global environment, aiming to comprehensively address the complex and multifaceted challenges related to sustainability throughout the food value chain” could be simplified. A careful language edit would improve clarity throughout. Response : The writing was reviewed. ________________ Comment : The Introduction and Literature Review sections contain considerable overlap in coverage of key topics and cited studies. These sections should be streamlined to eliminate redundancy and create a clearer logical progression from general context to specific research gaps. Response : The introduction and literature review were rewritten to eliminate redundancies. ________________ Comment : While the manuscript mentions using Microsoft Excel for data extraction and manipulation, it provides limited information about quality control procedures, inter-rater reliability assessment, or handling of discrepancies in data extraction. More detalle is needed. Response : A section on Quality Control Procedures and Reviewer Consistency was added. ________________ Comment : The manuscript mentions "automation tools developed in Microsoft Excel®" for record selection but provides no details on these tools, their validation, or potential errors. This limits reproducibility. Response : A paragraph was added to the Methods section that provides more in-depth information on using the tool. ________________ Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 29 Sep 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 3 (revision) 12 May 26 Version 2 (revision) 23 Jan 26 read Version 1 29 Sep 25 read read Mohammad Fazle Rabbi , University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary Sophie Michel , University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France Konanani Thwala , University of Mpumalanga, Nelspruit, South Africa Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Thwala K. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 15 Apr 2026 | for Version 2 Konanani Thwala , University of Mpumalanga, Nelspruit, Mpumalanga, South Africa 0 Views copyright © 2026 Thwala K. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Peer Review Report Article Title: Sustainability in the Food Industry: Trends, Thematic Axes, and Emerging Topics from a Bibliometric Analysis (v2) Final Verdict Approved with Reservations The article has clear academic merit and a solid foundation, but requires methodological clarification, improved transparency, and alignment with open science standards before being considered fully robust and reproducible. Reviewer Summary This article presents a bibliometric analysis of sustainability research in the food industry using data from Scopus and Web of Science, applying co-occurrence analysis, thematic mapping, and trend evaluation. The study aims to identify publication trends, thematic evolution, and emerging research directions, with a particular emphasis on technology and sustainability integration. The manuscript demonstrates clear improvements from Version 1, particularly in conceptual clarity, methodological transparency, and thematic consolidation. However, several methodological and reporting limitations remain, affecting reproducibility, analytical robustness, and interpretative depth. 1. Major Comments (Scientific Validity & Methodological Rigour) 1.1 Search Strategy Limitations The restriction of the search to the title field only introduces a systematic selection bias: It excludes relevant studies where sustainability is central but not explicitly in the title. This may significantly underestimate the knowledge base and distort thematic mapping. Recommendation: Justify this decision more rigorously with methodological references. Consider including title–abstract–keywords (TAK) search or provide a sensitivity analysis comparing approaches. 1.2 Ambiguity in Search Equation Construction The Boolean logic in the search equations appears structurally ambiguous, particularly regarding: The placement of AND/OR operators Potential unintended retrieval of irrelevant records Recommendation: Provide fully structured and reproducible search strings Include: Parentheses clarification Exact query syntax used in each database 1.3 PRISMA Application Concerns Although the study claims adherence to PRISMA 2020, this is conceptually inconsistent: PRISMA is designed for systematic reviews, not purely bibliometric studies. Some PRISMA elements (e.g., risk of bias) are inadequately adapted. Recommendation: Clarify whether this is: A systematic review with bibliometric analysis, or A pure bibliometric study If bibliometric, consider referencing bibliometric-specific frameworks instead. 1.4 Reproducibility of Data Processing The use of Microsoft Excel® automated tools is insufficiently detailed: No clear explanation of: Algorithms Coding rules Data cleaning procedures Recommendation: Provide: A workflow diagram Sample formulas or logic rules Ideally, open data or scripts This is critical given F1000Research’s Open Data policy. 1.5 Statistical Interpretation Issues The claim of “99.65% statistical significance” for publication growth is problematic: Bibliometric trend analysis is typically descriptive, not inferential. The statistical method used is not explained. Recommendation: Clarify: Statistical model used (e.g., regression, R²) Meaning of “significance” in this context Avoid inferential language unless properly justified. 1.6 Thematic Analysis Transparency The study states that themes were inductively derived, but: No clear explanation of: Clustering thresholds Keyword normalization Parameter settings in VOSviewer Recommendation: Provide: VOSviewer parameters (e.g., minimum occurrences) Preprocessing steps (stemming, synonym merging) 2. Minor Comments (Clarity, Structure, and Presentation) 2.1 Conceptual Framing The introduction is strong and well-articulated, particularly: Distinction between food system , food industry , and food production However: Some sections remain overly dense and repetitive Suggestion: Streamline for conciseness. 2.2 Language and Readability Overall readability is acceptable, but: Minor grammatical inconsistencies persist Some sentences are excessively long and complex 2.3 Literature Review Strengths: Comprehensive and up-to-date Good integration of technology and sustainability discourse Limitation: Still somewhat descriptive rather than critical Suggestion: Include more critical synthesis and debate positioning. 2.4 Figures and Visualizations Figures (e.g., PRISMA flow diagram) are appropriate However, bibliometric maps require: Better explanation in captions Clear interpretation in the text 2.5 Keywords Keywords are relevant but could be expanded: Consider adding: “bibliometric analysis” “food systems” “sustainable supply chains” 3. Data Availability & Open Science Compliance The manuscript does not clearly provide: Access to raw bibliometric dataset Search outputs Analysis files This is a critical issue under F1000Research policy. Recommendation: Deposit data in an open repository (e.g., Zenodo, Figshare) Provide: Raw dataset Cleaned dataset Analysis files (if possible) 4. Ethical Considerations No ethical concerns identified Appropriate for secondary data research 5. Strengths of the Study Clear research focus and justification Strong conceptual clarification of key terms Integration of technology within sustainability discourse Comprehensive bibliometric scope Improved structure compared to the previous version 6. Key Limitations Search strategy introduces selection bias Limited methodological transparency Weak statistical justification Incomplete open data compliance Insufficient detail on bibliometric procedures 7. Recommendations for Authors (Actionable) To reach full approval, the authors should: Revise and justify search strategy Clarify Boolean search strings Provide full methodological transparency Correct statistical interpretation Detail bibliometric parameters and tools Ensure open data availability Strengthen critical discussion Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Yes If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Sustainability, Digital Marketing, Accommodation management I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 12 May 2026 JHOANY ALEJANDRO VALENCIA ARIAS, Escuela de Ingeniería Industrial, Universidad Senor de Sipan, Chiclayo, 14000, Peru We thank the reviewer for their invaluable contribution to the quality and rigor of the article. Below, we respond point by point to their observations: Comment : The restriction of the search to the title field only introduces a systematic selection bias: It excludes relevant studies where sustainability is central but not explicitly in the title. This may significantly underestimate the knowledge base and distort thematic mapping. Response : The selection bias resulting from the exclusive use of the title field was recognized, its impact on the underestimation of knowledge and thematic mapping was explained, and it was corrected by expanding the strategy to include title, abstract, and keywords in both databases. ____________ Comment : Justify this decision more rigorously with methodological references. Consider including title–abstract–keywords (TAK) search or provide a sensitivity analysis comparing approaches. Response : The methodological justification of the search strategy was strengthened and a sensitivity analysis was incorporated comparing the search restricted to the title versus the expanded strategy, showing greater coverage without affecting the thematic structure. ____________ Comment : The Boolean logic in the search equations appears structurally ambiguous, particularly regarding: The placement of AND/OR operators Potential unintended retrieval of irrelevant records Response : Boolean logic was optimized through better operator structuring and use of parentheses, improving accuracy and reducing the retrieval of irrelevant records. ____________ Comment : Provide fully structured and reproducible search strings Include: Parentheses clarification Exact query syntax used in each database Response : Complete search strings with exact syntax were documented for Scopus and Web of Science, including the explicit structuring of parentheses and Boolean operators, in order to ensure transparency and replicability. ____________ Comment : Although the study claims adherence to PRISMA 2020, this is conceptually inconsistent: PRISMA is designed for systematic reviews, not purely bibliometric studies. Some PRISMA elements (e.g., risk of bias) are inadequately adapted. Response : It was clarified that the study is bibliometric and not a systematic review, adjusting the use of PRISMA as a reporting guide and not as a methodological framework, and eliminating its inappropriate application in elements such as risk of bias. ____________ Comment : Clarify whether this is: A systematic review with bibliometric analysis, or A pure bibliometric study If bibliometric, consider referencing bibliometric-specific frameworks instead. Response : The study was explicitly defined as bibliometric and the methodological approach was aligned with practices typical of this type of analysis. ____________ Comment : The use of Microsoft Excel® automated tools is insufficiently detailed: No clear explanation of: Algorithms Coding rules Data cleaning procedures Response : The methodological description was expanded, incorporating a more detailed explanation of the use of Microsoft Excel®, including data cleaning procedures, duplicate removal, variable standardization, coding rules, and automated functions used for analysis. ____________ Comment : Provide: A workflow diagram Sample formulas or logic rules Ideally, open data or scripts This is critical given F1000Research’s Open Data policy. Response : Currently, Figure 1 is the Flowchart recommended by the PRISMA-2020 international statement for literature reviews, with the specific inclusion and exclusion data for each step. ____________ Comment : The claim of “99.65% statistical significance” for publication growth is problematic: Bibliometric trend analysis is typically descriptive, not inferential. The statistical method used is not explained. Response : The statistical model used (trend regression) and the coefficient of determination (R²) to explain the growth in publications were specified. It was also clarified that the reported value corresponds to the model fit and not to inferential statistical significance. ____________ Comment : Clarify: Statistical model used (e.g., regression, R²) Meaning of “significance” in this context Avoid inferential language unless properly justified. Response : The statistical model used (trend regression) and the coefficient of determination (R²) to explain the growth in publications were specified. It was also clarified that the reported value corresponds to the model fit and not to inferential statistical significance. ____________ Comment : The study states that themes were inductively derived, but: No clear explanation of: Clustering thresholds Keyword normalization Parameter settings in VOSviewer Response : The description of the thematic analysis procedure was incorporated into VOSviewer, specifying keyword normalization, the minimum occurrence threshold, and the clustering algorithm based on association strength. ____________ Comment : Provide: VOSviewer parameters (e.g., minimum occurrences) Preprocessing steps (stemming, synonym merging) Response : The description of the thematic analysis procedure was incorporated into VOSviewer, specifying keyword normalization, the minimum occurrence threshold, and the clustering algorithm based on association strength. ____________ Comment : Some sections remain overly dense and repetitive Suggestion: Streamline for conciseness. Response : The manuscript writing was simplified, eliminating redundancies and reducing density in the methodological, discussion, and conclusion sections. ____________ Comment : Minor grammatical inconsistencies persist Some sentences are excessively long and complex Response : A complete review of grammar and style was carried out, shortening long sentences and improving the clarity and readability of the text. ____________ Comment : Still somewhat descriptive rather than critical Suggestion: Include more critical synthesis and debate positioning. Response : An additional paragraph was incorporated into the discussion with a comparative critical analysis between the reviewed studies and the bibliometric results obtained, highlighting convergences, differences, and gaps in the literature ____________ Comment : However, bibliometric maps require: Better explanation in captions Clear interpretation in the text Response : The captions for the bibliometric maps were improved by incorporating explanations of the meaning of nodes, links, clusters, axes, and quadrants. Furthermore, the in-text interpretation was expanded to more clearly explain the analytical implications of thematic evolution, the co-occurrence network, and keyword dynamics. ____________ Comment : Keywords are relevant but could be expanded: Consider adding: “bibliometric analysis” “food systems” “sustainable supply chains” Response : The keywords were expanded by incorporating strategic terms related to the methodological approach and field of study, improving the article's visibility and indexing. ____________ Comment : The manuscript does not clearly provide: Access to raw bibliometric dataset Search outputs Analysis files This is a critical issue under F1000Research policy. Response : All raw bibliometric data, search outputs, and analysis files have been made fully accessible in accordance with F1000Research open science policies. This information is available at the end of the manuscript through a dedicated Data Availability Statement, which includes a direct link to an open repository hosted on Zenodo. The repository contains the complete bibliometric database, search outputs, PRISMA flowchart, checklist, and supporting analytical materials, ensuring full transparency, reproducibility, and compliance with data accessibility requirements. ____________ Comment : Deposit data in an open repository (e.g., Zenodo, Figshare) Provide: Raw dataset Cleaned dataset Analysis files (if possible) Response : In response to this comment, all relevant data have been deposited in an open-access repository to ensure transparency and reproducibility. The information is available at the end of the manuscript via a Data Availability Statement, which provides a direct link to Zenodo. The repository includes the raw dataset, cleaned dataset, and analysis-related files (including database, PRISMA materials, and supporting documents), guaranteeing full access to the materials necessary to replicate and validate the study. Zenodo: Sustainability in the Food System: trends, key themes, and emerging topics, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17075157 ( Valencia-Arias et al., 2025). ____________ Comment : Search strategy introduces selection bias Limited methodological transparency Weak statistical justification Incomplete open data compliance Insufficient detail on bibliometric procedures Response : The section on methodological limitations was expanded to explicitly include potential selection biases in the search strategy, limitations in database coverage, and restrictions on the bibliometric analysis. Furthermore, the descriptive nature of the statistical analysis was clarified, and the importance of transparency and data access to improve the study's reproducibility was emphasized. ____________ View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Thwala K. Peer Review Report For: Sustainability in the Food Industry: Trends, Thematic Axes, and Emerging Topics from a Bibliometric Analysis [version 3; peer review: 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1004 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.194151.r465797) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1004/v2#referee-response-465797 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Michel S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 10 Dec 2025 | for Version 1 Sophie Michel , University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France 0 Views copyright © 2025 Michel S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Dear Authors, Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript “Sustainability in the food system: trends key themes and emerging topics”, which presents a bibliometric analysis aimed at mapping key topics and emerging themes in sustainable food research. Your ambition to provide an overview of this broad and evolving field from a multidisciplinary perspective is relevant. It can support researchers, and perhaps policy makers, in developing new projects to address key challenges in achieving sustainable food systems and industries. That said, in its current form, the manuscript does not fully deliver on this promise. In my opinion, there are too many ambiguities regarding the central concepts and too many research gaps stated, which leads to multiple directions and weakens the analysis and contributions. First, I would urge to rewrite the Introduction and most importantly, to refine and clarify the research gap and scope. For instance, key concepts such as food system, food production, food industry, and food security appear alongside one another without clear distinctions. In addition, the manuscript attempts to address multiple research gaps ranging from technology, resilience, and sustainable supply chain management. As a result, the reader may struggle to understand the precise purpose of the study. Could you clarify whether the paper aims to offer a broad overview or a focused analysis (e.g., of sustainability in the food industry in relation to specific themes like technology or circular economy). In my opinion, your research has strong potential if it concentrates on the key topic of sustainable food and technology, which seems to be your first motivation (if I understood correctly). Why not focusing on this angle? This would allow a deeper analysis and more distinctive contributions. Second, the literature review (1.1) could also be revised, in order to define the key concepts with greater precision. This would require you to clarify your actual focus. If you aim to focus on ‘sustainable food’, what is your conceptual and key components? A better definition of key concepts would also help justify your methodological choices regarding keywords. Moreover, the literature review should more explicitly engage with existing bibliometric analysis on sustainable food (ex. Şimşek et al. 2024) and explain why an additional one is needed. Third, while I am not an expert in bibliometric analysis, I noted several elements that could be clarified, starting with the key words selected. The rational for including certain terms “food industry” is not explained. For instance, “food production” is included but not “food wholesalers/intermediaries” “producers” “food distribution”, etc. Likewise, under the topic of sustainability and sustainable food, important dimensions such as “local food” “alternative food” “food democracy” are not included. I am not saying you must include all these terms, but you should explain their exclusion (based on a clearer conceptual framework). The current scope seems restrictive in comparison to the broad research aim announced in the first place. Moreover, more details on the selection criteria such as publication period, journal sources, and disciplinary boundaries can be expected. Finally, in the limitation section, you mention that you searched titles only. Why not also include key words and abstracts? Web of Science, “topic” criteria would allow for a broader search across these elements. The current scope appears restrictive in comparison to the broad research aim announced at the outset. More detail is also needed on selection criteria such as publication period, source journals, and disciplinary scope. Finally, in the limitations section, you mention that you searched titles only. Why not also include abstracts and keywords? Web of Science’s “Topic” field would allow for a broader search across these elements. Fourth, given the broad scope of the research, the analysis lacks granularity. For example, themes such as “food” or “food supply chain” are identified, but the evolving debates or sub-questions within these themes are not unpacked. While it would be interesting to better comprehend what is missing or underexplored. Then, while the results do highlight interesting trends, the discussion is too descriptive and spread across too many sub-sections. There is also considerable repetition between sections (e.g., circular economy, food security, supply chains), which dilutes the impact of the findings. I recommend to reduce the number of sub-sections in both the results and discussion, and develop a deeper analysis of a smaller set of key themes. For instance, I found the part on multidisciplinary approach (4.1, p. 16) interesting, but it is not developed enough to be insightful. You have started a cross analysis on emerging key topics that could become the core of your results. You might use Table 1 as a starting point and examine these topics in more details (ex. journals, authors, (multi)disciplinary aspect, but also sub-dimensions within each theme). This would help to refine the analysis and enrich the discussion, which could then be structured around key themes (and avoiding repetitions). I see more potential in this direction to achieve the initial purpose of “provid(ing) areas that require further development, promote effective practical result”. If you choose to focus on these themes, you might explain how this emerged – whether inductively or abductively- in the methodology section and in relation to your research question. The research question itself could be also simplified and narrowed down to better align with the focus of the study. Minor comments: I would be cautious in the interpretation of findings regarding key countries, especially the UK and US. Since English is the primary language of most Web of Science/Scopus journals, there might be a natural overrepresentation of English-speaking countries. Mistake p. 5 “scope of Frontiers in Sustainability” Ensure the title reflects the scope of the research: is it about sustainability in the “food system” or “food industry”? The manuscript (especially the introduction) would benefit from language editing to improve clarity, sentence structure, and logical transitions between arguments. I hope these comments will be helpful and supportive as you move forward with the revision process. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Partly Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable References 1. Şimşek E, Kara M, Kalıpçı M, Eren R: Sustainability and the Food Industry: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability . 2024; 16 (7). Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Sustainable food, Alternative food system, Organizations, Cooperation I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 23 Jan 2026 JHOANY ALEJANDRO VALENCIA ARIAS, Escuela de Ingeniería Industrial, Universidad Senor de Sipan, Chiclayo, 14000, Peru We thank the reviewer for their valuable contributions to the quality of the manuscript. Below, we respond to each point individually: Comment : First, I would urge to rewrite the Introduction and most importantly, to refine and clarify the research gap and scope. For instance, key concepts such as food system, food production, food industry, and food security appear alongside one another without clear distinctions. In addition, the manuscript attempts to address multiple research gaps ranging from technology, resilience, and sustainable supply chain management. As a result, the reader may struggle to understand the precise purpose of the study. Could you clarify whether the paper aims to offer a broad overview or a focused analysis (e.g., of sustainability in the food industry in relation to specific themes like technology or circular economy). In my opinion, your research has strong potential if it concentrates on the key topic of sustainable food and technology, which seems to be your first motivation (if I understood correctly). Why not focusing on this angle? This would allow a deeper analysis and more distinctive contributions. Response : Clear operational definitions for food production, food industry, agri-food sector, and food system were incorporated, delimiting their conceptual scope. ________________ Comment : Second, the literature review (1.1) could also be revised, in order to define the key concepts with greater precision. This would require you to clarify your actual focus. If you aim to focus on ‘sustainable food’, what is your conceptual and key components? A better definition of key concepts would also help justify your methodological choices regarding keywords. Moreover, the literature review should more explicitly engage with existing bibliometric analysis on sustainable food (ex. Şimşek et al. 2024) and explain why an additional one is needed. Response : The manuscript was expanded to clarify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for terms, the temporal scope of the study, and the search strategy employed. ________________ Comment : Third, while I am not an expert in bibliometric analysis, I noted several elements that could be clarified, starting with the key words selected. The rational for including certain terms “food industry” is not explained. For instance, “food production” is included but not “food wholesalers/intermediaries” “producers” “food distribution”, etc. Likewise, under the topic of sustainability and sustainable food, important dimensions such as “local food” “alternative food” “food democracy” are not included. I am not saying you must include all these terms, but you should explain their exclusion (based on a clearer conceptual framework). The current scope seems restrictive in comparison to the broad research aim announced in the first place. Moreover, more details on the selection criteria such as publication period, journal sources, and disciplinary boundaries can be expected. Finally, in the limitation section, you mention that you searched titles only. Why not also include key words and abstracts? Web of Science, “topic” criteria would allow for a broader search across these elements. Response : While thematic groups are described in the co-occurrence networks, the discussion has been strengthened by explicitly highlighting internal gaps and underexplored links within the main themes, allowing for the identification of subtopics and research gaps within broad categories. ________________ Comment : The current scope appears restrictive in comparison to the broad research aim announced at the outset. More detail is also needed on selection criteria such as publication period, source journals, and disciplinary scope. Finally, in the limitations section, you mention that you searched titles only. Why not also include abstracts and keywords? Web of Science’s “Topic” field would allow for a broader search across these elements. Response : The manuscript was expanded to clarify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for terms, the study's time frame, and the search strategy employed. ________________ Comment : Fourth, given the broad scope of the research, the analysis lacks granularity. For example, themes such as “food” or “food supply chain” are identified, but the evolving debates or sub-questions within these themes are not unpacked. While it would be interesting to better comprehend what is missing or underexplored. Response : While thematic groups are described in the co-occurrence networks, the discussion has been strengthened by explicitly highlighting internal gaps and underexplored links within the main themes. This allows for the identification of subtopics and research gaps within broader categories. ________________ Comment : Then, while the results do highlight interesting trends, the discussion is too descriptive and spread across too many sub-sections. There is also considerable repetition between sections (e.g., circular economy, food security, supply chains), which dilutes the impact of the findings. I recommend to reduce the number of sub-sections in both the results and discussion, and develop a deeper analysis of a smaller set of key themes. For instance, I found the part on multidisciplinary approach (4.1, p. 16) interesting, but it is not developed enough to be insightful. You have started a cross analysis on emerging key topics that could become the core of your results. You might use Table 1 as a starting point and examine these topics in more details (ex. journals, authors, (multi)disciplinary aspect, but also sub-dimensions within each theme). This would help to refine the analysis and enrich the discussion, which could then be structured around key themes (and avoiding repetitions). I see more potential in this direction to achieve the initial purpose of “provid(ing) areas that require further development, promote effective practical result”. Response : Sections were shortened and synthesized for greater robustness. ________________ Comment : If you choose to focus on these themes, you might explain how this emerged – whether inductively or abductively- in the methodology section and in relation to your research question. The research question itself could be also simplified and narrowed down to better align with the focus of the study. Response : The methodology was adjusted to make explicit the inductive origin of the themes and the use of a set of operational questions as a joint analytical guide—a common practice in bibliometric studies to structure the analysis without reducing it to a single question. ________________ Comment : Minor comments: I would be cautious in the interpretation of findings regarding key countries, especially the UK and US. Since English is the primary language of most Web of Science/Scopus journals, there might be a natural overrepresentation of English-speaking countries. Response : While most articles indexed in Scopus and Web of Science are in English, the analysis of country influence in this study is based exclusively on the authors' institutional affiliation metadata and not on the language of publication. This reduces the direct impact of linguistic bias on identifying countries with higher output. ________________ Comment : Mistake p. 5 “scope of Frontiers in Sustainability” Response : The correction is made. ________________ Comment : Ensure the title reflects the scope of the research: is it about sustainability in the “food system” or “food industry”? Response : The title was adjusted to more accurately reflect that the study focuses on sustainability in the food industry, defining its analytical scope and avoiding conceptual ambiguity. ________________ Comment : The manuscript (especially the introduction) would benefit from language editing to improve clarity, sentence structure, and logical transitions between arguments. Response : The wording was reviewed. ________________ View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Michel S. Peer Review Report For: Sustainability in the Food Industry: Trends, Thematic Axes, and Emerging Topics from a Bibliometric Analysis [version 3; peer review: 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1004 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182071.r422412) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1004/v1#referee-response-422412 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Rabbi M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 10 Nov 2025 | for Version 1 Mohammad Fazle Rabbi , University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary 0 Views copyright © 2025 Rabbi M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This systematic review examines sustainability trends in the food system through a bibliometric analysis of publications indexed in Scopus and Web of Science databases from 1989 to 2023. The study aims to identify research trends, key themes, emerging topics, and thematic evolution in sustainability research within the food industry. The authors employ bibliometric methods including keyword co-occurrence analysis, country and author productivity evaluation, and thematic evolution analysis using tools such as VOSviewer and Microsoft Excel. The manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic, given the increasing global attention to environmental and social impacts of food production and distribution systems. The research identifies an exponential growth in scientific output with 99.65% statistical significance, particularly during 2019, 2021, 2022, and 2023. The study reveals a thematic shift from early research on "soil erosion" to contemporary concepts such as "circular economy," "supply chain management," "food safety," and "wastewater treatment". Seven thematic clusters were identified, with sustainability, waste management, and short supply chain being the most prominent. While the manuscript presents a comprehensive bibliometric overview and adheres to PRISMA-2020 guidelines, several major methodological and interpretive issues limit its scientific rigor and contribution. The overly restrictive search strategy, limited database field coverage, superficial statistical analysis, and insufficient critical engagement with the literature represent significant weaknesses that must be addressed to meet indexing standards for high-impact journals. Major Issues:- 1. Overly Restrictive Search Strategy and Potential Selection Bias The search equation is limited to the title field only, requiring both "sustainab*" AND specific food-related terms ("Food production" OR "Food industry" OR "Food supply chain" OR "Gastronomic industry") to appear in the title. This approach creates substantial risk of excluding highly relevant publications where these terms appear in abstracts, keywords, or subject fields but not explicitly in titles. The authors acknowledge this limitation but do not adequately address its impact on the comprehensiveness and representativeness of their findings. This restrictive approach may have systematically excluded important contributions, particularly interdisciplinary research that uses varied terminology or frames sustainability concepts differently. The authors should either expand the search to include abstracts and keywords or provide empirical validation demonstrating that the title-only approach captures a representative sample of the relevant literature. 2. Insufficient Justification for Database Selection and Coverage Gaps While Scopus and Web of Science are recognized comprehensive databases, the manuscript lacks discussion of potential coverage gaps, particularly for non-English publications, regional journals, and grey literature that may be relevant to food sustainability research in developing countries. Given that the study identifies geographical gaps in developing regions, particularly Africa, the database selection may perpetuate these biases rather than reveal them objectively. The authors should discuss how their database choices may have influenced geographical and thematic findings and consider supplementing with regional databases or targeted searches for underrepresented regions. 3. Lack of Rigorous Statistical Analysis for Trend Assessment The manuscript reports an "exponential growth pattern with a statistical significance of 99.65%" but provides no details on the statistical methods, model specifications, tests performed, or interpretation of this significance value. This level of precision (99.65%) without methodological transparency raises concerns about the validity and reproducibility of this central finding. The authors must provide complete statistical methodology including the regression model used, goodness-of-fit measures, confidence intervals, and discussion of alternative growth models tested. Without this information, readers cannot assess whether the observed growth pattern is genuinely exponential or might be better described by alternative functional forms. 4. Superficial Treatment of Thematic Evolution The thematic evolution analysis (Figure 6) shows progression from "soil erosion" in 1989 to contemporary themes like "circular economy" and "supply chain management", but the analytical approach appears primarily descriptive rather than explanatory. The manuscript does not adequately explore the drivers of these shifts, the contextual factors influencing changing research priorities, or the theoretical implications of these transitions. The authors should provide more substantive analysis of why these shifts occurred, linking them to broader scientific, policy, and societal developments. Additionally, the methodology for determining thematic dominance across time periods needs clarification—are these based on simple frequency counts, weighted measures, or more sophisticated temporal analysis techniques? 5. Inconsistent and Unclear Classification Framework The Cartesian system approach for classifying keywords by frequency and validity (Figure 8) introduces a novel analytical framework without adequate justification or validation. The validity metric (defined as "average year of use") conflates recency with conceptual validity in a manner that may be misleading. A term's recent emergence does not necessarily indicate greater validity; it may simply reflect temporal trends, funding priorities, or methodological fashions. The authors should either provide theoretical justification for this operationalization of "validity" or rename this dimension more appropriately (e.g., "recency" or "temporal trend"). Additionally, the thresholds separating the four quadrants appear arbitrary and lack statistical or theoretical justification. 6. Limited Critical Analysis of Research Gaps Table 2 (in underlying data) reportedly presents research gaps with justifications and future questions, but this critical component is relegated to underlying data rather than integrated into the main text. For a systematic review intended to guide future research, the identification and substantive discussion of research gaps should constitute a central analytical contribution. The authors should integrate the most significant gaps into the main manuscript with deeper analysis of why these gaps exist, their implications for theory and practice, and specific methodological approaches needed to address them. The current treatment appears more as a checklist than a critical analysis. 7. Weak Integration of Findings with Existing Literature The discussion section compares findings with selected previous studies but lacks systematic integration with the broader theoretical frameworks in sustainability science, food systems research, and bibliometric methodology. The authors do not adequately position their findings within existing debates about sustainability transitions, food system transformations, or the sociology of scientific knowledge production. A more sophisticated theoretical framework would strengthen the manuscript's contribution beyond descriptive bibliometrics. Minor Issues:- 1. Terminology and Conceptual Clarity The manuscript inconsistently uses "food industry," "food system," "food production," and "agri-food sector" without clearly defining these terms or explaining their relationships. These are not synonymous concepts, and the lack of definitional precision creates ambiguity about the scope and boundaries of the review. 2. Figure Quality and Presentation Figure 7 (keyword co-occurrence network) presents seven color-coded thematic clusters, but the network visualization is difficult to interpret due to overlapping labels and unclear visual hierarchy. Higher resolution figures with improved layout and selective labeling of key nodes would enhance readability. Additionally, the color-coding scheme should be explained more clearly in the figure legend. 3. Inconsistent Citation Format The references section shows some inconsistencies in formatting, particularly regarding journal name abbreviations, volume/issue presentation, and DOI formatting. The manuscript should conform strictly to the journal's citation style guidelines. 4. Grammatical and Stylistic Issues While the manuscript is generally well-written, several sections contain awkward phrasing and unnecessarily complex sentence structures that impede readability. For example, "The diversity of approaches adopted by scientists responds to the increasing pressure on resources and the global environment, aiming to comprehensively address the complex and multifaceted challenges related to sustainability throughout the food value chain" could be simplified without loss of meaning. A careful language edit would improve clarity throughout. 5. Redundancy in Literature Review The Introduction and Literature Review sections contain considerable overlap in coverage of key topics and cited studies. These sections should be streamlined to eliminate redundancy and create a clearer logical progression from general context to specific research gaps. 6. Missing Details on Data Management and Quality Control While the manuscript mentions using Microsoft Excel for data extraction and manipulation, it provides limited information about quality control procedures, inter-rater reliability assessment, or handling of discrepancies in data extraction. Given that all authors served as reviewers and worked toward "absolute convergence", more detail is needed on the consensus process and how disagreements were resolved. 7. Incomplete Treatment of Automation Tools The manuscript mentions "automation tools developed in Microsoft Excel®" for record selection but provides no details on these tools, their validation, or potential sources of automated classification errors. This lack of transparency limits reproducibility and assessment of methodological rigor. Methodological Evaluation The methodological approach combines elements of systematic review methodology (PRISMA-2020) with bibliometric analysis techniques. While this integration is appropriate for the research questions, several methodological concerns warrant attention: Search Strategy Limitations: As noted above, the title-only search strategy represents a significant methodological limitation that likely affects the comprehensiveness and representativeness of the corpus analyzed. Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria: The manuscript describes a three-stage exclusion process but provides limited detail on how "incomplete indexing" was defined and assessed, how relevance determinations were made, and what constitutes "non-relevant texts." Greater specificity and examples would enhance methodological transparency. Bibliometric Indicator Selection: The choice of bibliometric indicators (publication counts, citations, keyword co-occurrence) is standard but not thoroughly justified in relation to the research questions. The manuscript would benefit from explicit discussion of why these particular indicators were selected and how they address the seven research questions posed. Software Tool Appropriateness: The use of VOSviewer for network analysis and Microsoft Excel for data management is appropriate, but the manuscript provides insufficient detail on parameter settings (e.g., minimum cluster size, resolution parameter for modularity optimization) that significantly influence results. These methodological details are essential for reproducibility. Temporal Analysis: The thematic evolution analysis tracks keyword usage over time but does not employ sophisticated temporal bibliometric methods such as historiography or dynamic topic modeling that might reveal more nuanced patterns of conceptual development and paradigm shifts. Interpretation and Discussion Quality The Discussion section addresses the main findings systematically but exhibits several weaknesses: Descriptive Emphasis: Much of the discussion remains at a descriptive level, summarizing what was found rather than deeply interrogating why these patterns exist and what they reveal about the structure and dynamics of sustainability research in the food domain. Limited Critical Perspective: The manuscript does not critically examine potential problematic trends revealed by the analysis. For example, the declining relevance of "agriculture" as a keyword might indicate a concerning disconnection between food sustainability discourse and agricultural production systems. Such patterns deserve critical commentary. Practical Implications: The practical implications section makes broad statements about policy and industry applications but lacks specificity about how the findings should concretely inform decision-making. More detailed, actionable recommendations would strengthen this section. Research Agenda Development: The proposed research agenda (Figure 9) identifies numerous topics but provides limited prioritization or strategic direction. A more selective, theoretically informed agenda highlighting the most critical gaps and high-impact research opportunities would be more valuable to the research community. Contextualization: The findings are not adequately situated within broader discussions of sustainability science maturation, interdisciplinarity trends, or the relationship between academic research priorities and real-world sustainability challenges. This contextualization would enhance the manuscript's scholarly contribution. Organization and Presentation The manuscript follows a conventional systematic review structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion) which is appropriate. However, several organizational issues affect clarity and coherence: Introduction Length and Focus: The Introduction is quite lengthy and includes extensive review of specific studies that might be better positioned in a separate Literature Review section or condensed to focus more sharply on research gaps and objectives. Research Questions Presentation: The seven research questions are clearly stated but could be better organized into thematic groups (e.g., temporal trends, intellectual structure, thematic content) to provide clearer conceptual organization. Results Organization: The Results section effectively addresses each research question sequentially, but the transitions between subsections could be smoother. Additionally, some results (particularly the country-level findings) include interpretive discussion that might be better reserved for the Discussion section. Figure-Text Integration: Several figures are referenced but not adequately integrated into the narrative. For example, Figure 1 (PRISMA flowchart) is presented but the specific numbers of excluded records at each stage are not discussed in detail in the text. Table 2 Placement: The decision to place Table 2 (research gaps) in the underlying data rather than the main manuscript is questionable given its centrality to the study's contribution. Key elements of this table should be integrated into the main text. Supplementary Materials: The underlying data availability is commendable, but the manuscript would benefit from additional supplementary materials including the complete list of articles analyzed, detailed search strings for both databases, and parameter settings for VOSviewer analyses. Recommendation Major Revision This manuscript addresses an important topic and employs appropriate bibliometric methods, but significant methodological and analytical weaknesses limit its current contribution. The overly restrictive search strategy, lack of statistical rigor in trend analysis, superficial treatment of thematic evolution, and limited critical engagement with findings represent major concerns that must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for indexing in a high-impact journal. The authors should undertake substantial revisions including: (1) expanding the search strategy to include abstracts and keywords or providing robust validation of the title-only approach; (2) providing complete statistical methodology for the growth trend analysis; (3) deepening the analytical treatment of thematic evolution with attention to contextual drivers; (4) reconceptualizing the "validity" dimension in the keyword classification framework; (5) integrating the research gaps analysis into the main manuscript with more critical discussion; (6) strengthening theoretical framing and integration with existing literature; and (7) enhancing methodological transparency throughout. With these revisions, the manuscript has the potential to make a valuable contribution to understanding the intellectual structure and evolution of sustainability research in food systems. The comprehensive scope, adherence to systematic review protocols, and identification of emerging themes provide a solid foundation that, if strengthened through more rigorous analysis and critical interpretation, could inform future research directions and policy priorities in this critical domain. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Partly Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Sustainability science, food systems research, environmental economics, agricultural sustainability, bibliometric analysis, and systematic review methodology. I am qualified to assess the methodological rigor of the systematic review approach, bibliometric analytical techniques, sustainability frameworks in food systems, and the interpretation of trends in agricultural and environmental research. I can evaluate all aspects of this article including search strategy design, data extraction procedures, statistical analysis of publication trends, thematic clustering methods, and the contextualization of findings within sustainability science and food systems literature. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 23 Jan 2026 JHOANY ALEJANDRO VALENCIA ARIAS, Escuela de Ingeniería Industrial, Universidad Senor de Sipan, Chiclayo, 14000, Peru We thank the reviewer for their valuable contributions to the quality of the manuscript. Below, we respond to each point individually: Comment : The search equation is limited to the title field only, requiring both "sustainab*" AND specific food-related terms ("Food production" OR "Food industry" OR "Food supply chain" OR "Gastronomic industry") to appear in the title. This approach creates substantial risk of excluding highly relevant publications where these terms appear in abstracts, keywords, or subject fields but not explicitly in titles. The authors acknowledge this limitation but do not adequately address its impact on the comprehensiveness and representativeness of their findings. This restrictive approach may have systematically excluded important contributions, particularly interdisciplinary research that uses varied terminology or frames sustainability concepts differently. The authors should either expand the search to include abstracts and keywords or provide empirical validation demonstrating that the title-only approach captures a representative sample of the relevant literature. Response : The exclusive use of the title field was methodologically justified as a strategy aimed at maximizing thematic precision and internal validity of the bibliometric analysis. ________________ Comment : While Scopus and Web of Science are recognized comprehensive databases, the manuscript lacks discussion of potential coverage gaps, particularly for non-English publications, regional journals, and grey literature that may be relevant to food sustainability research in developing countries. Given that the study identifies geographical gaps in developing regions, particularly Africa, the database selection may perpetuate these biases rather than reveal them objectively. The authors should discuss how their database choices may have influenced geographical and thematic findings and consider supplementing with regional databases or targeted searches for underrepresented regions. Response : The justification for selecting Scopus and Web of Science was reinforced by highlighting their scientific impact and the standardization of metadata, which are fundamental for bibliometric organization and interpretation. Furthermore, it was clarified that regional gaps, such as in Africa, reflect lower visibility in high-impact journals and not the absence of relevant research. ________________ Comment : The manuscript reports an "exponential growth pattern with a statistical significance of 99.65%" but provides no details on the statistical methods, model specifications, tests performed, or interpretation of this significance value. This level of precision (99.65%) without methodological transparency raises concerns about the validity and reproducibility of this central finding. The authors must provide complete statistical methodology including the regression model used, goodness-of-fit measures, confidence intervals, and discussion of alternative growth models tested. Without this information, readers cannot assess whether the observed growth pattern is genuinely exponential or might be better described by alternative functional forms. Response : The results clarified that exponential growth was estimated using a descriptive regression analysis, and that the reported value corresponds to the model's coefficient of determination. ________________ Comment : The thematic evolution analysis (Figure 6) shows progression from "soil erosion" in 1989 to contemporary themes like "circular economy" and "supply chain management", but the analytical approach appears primarily descriptive rather than explanatory. The manuscript does not adequately explore the drivers of these shifts, the contextual factors influencing changing research priorities, or the theoretical implications of these transitions. The authors should provide more substantive analysis of why these shifts occurred, linking them to broader scientific, policy, and societal developments. Additionally, the methodology for determining thematic dominance across time periods needs clarification—are these based on simple frequency counts, weighted measures, or more sophisticated temporal analysis techniques? Response : The interpretation of thematic evolution was expanded by linking the observed changes to scientific transformations and global sustainability contexts. ________________ Comment : The Cartesian system approach for classifying keywords by frequency and validity (Figure 8) introduces a novel analytical framework without adequate justification or validation. The validity metric (defined as "average year of use") conflates recency with conceptual validity in a manner that may be misleading. A term's recent emergence does not necessarily indicate greater validity; it may simply reflect temporal trends, funding priorities, or methodological fashions. The authors should either provide theoretical justification for this operationalization of "validity" or rename this dimension more appropriately (e.g., "recency" or "temporal trend"). Additionally, the thresholds separating the four quadrants appear arbitrary and lack statistical or theoretical justification. Response : The descriptive nature of the metric was clarified, and “validity” was renamed as an indicator of temporal validity or recency of use, thus avoiding conceptual interpretations. ________________ Comment : Table 2 (in underlying data) reportedly presents research gaps with justifications and future questions, but this critical component is relegated to underlying data rather than integrated into the main text. For a systematic review intended to guide future research, the identification and substantive discussion of research gaps should constitute a central analytical contribution. The authors should integrate the most significant gaps into the main manuscript with deeper analysis of why these gaps exist, their implications for theory and practice, and specific methodological approaches needed to address them. The current treatment appears more as a checklist than a critical analysis. Response : The main gaps identified in Table 2 were integrated into the main text, linking them to the results and discussion. ________________ Comment : The discussion section compares findings with selected previous studies but lacks systematic integration with the broader theoretical frameworks in sustainability science, food systems research, and bibliometric methodology. The authors do not adequately position their findings within existing debates about sustainability transitions, food system transformations, or the sociology of scientific knowledge production. A more sophisticated theoretical framework would strengthen the manuscript's contribution beyond descriptive bibliometrics. Response : The results of the bibliometric analysis were integrated into theoretical frameworks of transitions toward sustainability and transformation of food systems, supported by recent literature. ________________ Comment : The manuscript inconsistently uses "food industry," "food system," "food production," and "agri-food sector" without clearly defining these terms or explaining their relationships. These are not synonymous concepts, and the lack of definitional precision creates ambiguity about the scope and boundaries of the review. Response : Clear operational definitions were incorporated for food production, food industry, agri-food sector, and food system, delimiting their conceptual scope. ________________ Comment : The references section shows some inconsistencies in formatting, particularly regarding journal name abbreviations, volume/issue presentation, and DOI formatting. The manuscript should conform strictly to the journal's citation style guidelines. Response : The reference format was standardized. ________________ Comment : While the manuscript is generally well-written, several sections contain awkward phrasing and unnecessarily complex sentence structures that impede readability. For example, “The diversity of approaches adopted by scientists responds to the increasing pressure on resources and the global environment, aiming to comprehensively address the complex and multifaceted challenges related to sustainability throughout the food value chain” could be simplified. A careful language edit would improve clarity throughout. Response : The writing was reviewed. ________________ Comment : The Introduction and Literature Review sections contain considerable overlap in coverage of key topics and cited studies. These sections should be streamlined to eliminate redundancy and create a clearer logical progression from general context to specific research gaps. Response : The introduction and literature review were rewritten to eliminate redundancies. ________________ Comment : While the manuscript mentions using Microsoft Excel for data extraction and manipulation, it provides limited information about quality control procedures, inter-rater reliability assessment, or handling of discrepancies in data extraction. More detalle is needed. Response : A section on Quality Control Procedures and Reviewer Consistency was added. ________________ Comment : The manuscript mentions "automation tools developed in Microsoft Excel®" for record selection but provides no details on these tools, their validation, or potential errors. This limits reproducibility. Response : A paragraph was added to the Methods section that provides more in-depth information on using the tool. ________________ View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Rabbi MF. Peer Review Report For: Sustainability in the Food Industry: Trends, Thematic Axes, and Emerging Topics from a Bibliometric Analysis [version 3; peer review: 3 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1004 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.182071.r426515) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1004/v1#referee-response-426515 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Sustainability in the Food Industry: Trends,...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1004/v3" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1004/v3&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1004/v3" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Valencia-Arias A et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1004/v3/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1004", templates : { twitter : "Sustainability in the Food Industry: Trends, Thematic Axes, and.... Valencia-Arias A et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1004/v3" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/165434/199168") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "199168"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "484610": 0, "484609": 0, "484608": 0, "422414": 0, "426510": 0, "422415": 0, "426511": 0, "422412": 8, "422413": 0, "426509": 0, "422410": 0, "422411": 0, "422408": 0, "422409": 0, "426518": 0, "426516": 0, "426517": 0, "426514": 0, "426515": 15, "422416": 0, "426512": 0, "422417": 0, "426513": 0, "441382": 0, "441383": 0, "441380": 0, "441381": 0, "441378": 0, "441379": 0, "441386": 0, "441387": 0, "441384": 0, "441385": 0, "419158": 0, "419159": 0, "419166": 0, "419167": 0, "419164": 0, "419165": 0, "419162": 0, "419163": 0, "419160": 0, "419161": 0, "455014": 0, "455015": 0, "455012": 0, "455013": 0, "455011": 0, "455020": 0, "455018": 0, "455019": 0, "455016": 0, "455017": 0, "465799": 0, "465798": 0, "465797": 7, "465796": 0, "465795": 0, "465794": 0, "465793": 0, "465792": 0, "465801": 0, "465800": 0, "453806": 0, "453807": 0, "453804": 0, "453805": 0, "453802": 0, "453803": 0, "453801": 0, "453810": 0, "453808": 0, "453809": 0, "452802": 0, "452801": 0, "484070": 0, "484069": 0, "484068": 0, "424950": 0, "459767": 0, "424951": 0, "459766": 0, "424948": 0, "459765": 0, "424949": 0, "459764": 0, "459763": 0, "484607": 0, "484606": 0, "424956": 0, "484605": 0, "424957": 0, "484604": 0, "459772": 0, "424954": 0, "484603": 0, "459771": 0, "424955": 0, "484602": 0, "459770": 0, "424952": 0, "484601": 0, "459769": 0, "424953": 0, "459768": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "4da8a619-b511-4b0a-8230-0a5cf80c4edc"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });