The aim of the authors is clear (to study visual biases in decision making in the agricultural economics domain), as is what the authors found in their review of the literature relating to the topic. The title is informative and relevant. The references are relevant and accurately formatted following the journal’s publication policy.

The authors describe what is known about visual biases by included prior research on eye-tracking by academic researchers. The research question (“How can ignoring available information in decision making be compatible with the assumption of rational choice?”) is clearly stated on p. 524. The research question is clearly justified as the authors described the rational choice as a cost model.

Since this article would fall under the category “theoretical,” subjects per se were academic articles relating to attention and its measurement. The method chose by the authors aligns with a theoretical approach (validity). No variables were defined, thus there was no need to evaluate study methods as reliable. Since the article was theoretical, no replication could be made.

Since the article was theoretical, a traditional results section of the article does not exist. However, as the authors performed the review of literature, they identify specific subcomponents of attention and items that could bias decision-making (e.g., visual salience, set size, surface size, position effects). These components would be the equivalent of thematic development found in qualitative research.

The discussion section, which builds from the Result’s themes, contained three theories (Gatekeeper Effect; Mere Exposure Effect; Order Effects). Each of the three theories contained a contextual discussion, where the authors compared prior academic work. In the Conclusion section, the authors discussed how the theories could be applied in both consumer behavior in food choices and public policy. Limitations in both applications are not fatal; they are presented by the authors to acknowledge that direct effects could be influenced by external forces not studied (e.g., environment, regulations).

The study design was appropriate to answer the study’s aim. While it's questionable that the study added to the body of knowledge, the study did combine academic work in diverse domains to form a summary. No major flaws were found in this article; however, a meta-analysis of key studies would have added strength to the positions of the authors. The lack of including a meta-analysis may have been an author decision (theoretical focus) or an editorial decision (space). The article is consistent within itself.