Afters draft 1

Hello Ian/everyone,

First, off, sorry for my slow reply to the draft. I've been snowed under with research contracts. I've now had a chance to carefully read through the paper. I've also had a quick look at other folks responses. They, like me, seem to think that you've done a very good job assembling our conversations into a paper than reads well and, crucially, retains the mixed up nature of those conversations (something I know we were all keen to try and retain). The format did, I must admit, take me a little by surprise at first. I'm not sure quite what I was expecting, but I like the idea of using extracts from the blog in the way that you have and the coding works well.

I just have a few suggestions, some which have already been mentioned by others:

1]. I think you (Ian) should be the first author on the paper. I don't want to open a can of worms about authorship, but I'd assumed you would be the first author. You are the 'head chef' of this Cook et al gastro-production and I think it makes sense for you to go as first author on the paper. I know all the arguments about whether first authorship designates main author, etc but it's that what I think. Not sure if anyone else raised it or agrees/disagrees with me?
2]. The intro makes a good job of introducing the 'collaborative' project and explaining how the process works, but it doesn't really prepare an 'outside' reader for what is to come. I know some are reluctant for us to impose too traditional/conventional a style, but I think some sort of signposting of at least the relational nature of the material in blog extract form would help. I see others have made good suggestions about re-working the intro and the balance between collaborative writing and the food aspect (the latter is the core, I agree). The new Google doc version also seems now to have a new intro.
3]. Following this point about signposting, I think some introduction of headings in the blog extract text would again be helpful, simply as a mechanism to 'flag up' emergent themes, accepting that these themes may not always flow neatly from one to the other. Again, I see folks have made some good suggestions about headings and the Google doc version now has at least one set of headings. We don't need many.
4]. Do we need some kind of conclusion or concluding paragraph? I think so, but again I know we might not all agree. It could simply be some roundup paragraph on what this 'afters' paper/process tells us about food geographies going forward. It would, again, be helpful to outside readers, in my view.
5]. Paul, I think, raises a good point about balancing a little better the discussions about the political dimensions of food (which there is quite a bit) with some of the other lively debates on the blog. This can perhaps be done by simply trimming those elements a bit. Paul makes good suggestions about those other elements.

That's it. I hope it is of some help.

It will be interesting to see how Progress reviewers react to the paper.

Thanks Ian for all your hard work and leadership. A very interesting process.

Best wishes to all,
Damian