Application of Accounting Standards in the Valuation of Biological Assets: An Analysis of the Poultry Sector in Tungurahua, Ecuador

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your paper is a significant contribution to understanding the application of IAS 41 in the Ecuadorian poultry sector. Your paper is well structured and provides a solid basis for understanding current accounting practices. You have discovered that there is a gap between regulations and practice, which limits the comparability of financial information. It is suggested that the theoretical framework be expanded with a more detailed critical discussion of the challenges of fair value estimation in poultry, as your results show that cost-based methods are still preferred. Furthermore, your return on equity (ROE) volatility analysis, shown in Figure 4, can be improved. It would be helpful to investigate the specific causes of this instability, rather than generally assuming that it is related to accounting practices. It is recommended that you strengthen the connection between your findings and recommendations. For example, instead of a general call for increased training, specify precisely what training is needed to bridge the gap between technical knowledge and practical application. Elaborating on these points will make your work even more helpful to the business sector and regulators.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Receive a cordial greeting.

I am deeply grateful for the time, commitment and rigor with which you have reviewed our manuscript. His valuable contribution has been fundamental in improving the scientific quality of the article. Each of their observations was carefully considered and addressed with the aim of strengthening the clarity, methodological coherence and relevance of the contents of the study.

In the corrected manuscript, which we attach to this communication, you can see that all the modifications have been highlighted in yellow, in order to facilitate their review and follow-up. In addition, a change control table includes where the suggestions received and the actions taken to address them are detailed. Once again, I reiterate our gratitude for your valuable role as a reviewer, which has contributed significantly to improving the present work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well-positioned to make a significant contribution to the agricultural accounting literature in emerging economies. It has a strong practical orientation and contributes to the discussion on the challenges of applying international standards in emerging economies. Below are the detailed review points:

Identified Shortcomings and Suggestions:

Sample Size and method:  The study relies on a small, non-probabilistic sample of 26 firms, which undermines the generalizability of the findings. Justify the sampling method more rigorously, or supplement with secondary or comparative data from other provinces to improve external validity.

Analysis - The use of only descriptive statistics (percentages/frequencies) limits analytical insight. Use cross-tabulations or inferential statistics (e.g., the chi-square test) to explore relationships between variables, such as knowledge level and standard compliance.

Regulatory issue - The study doesn’t assess the role of local or national regulatory bodies in enforcing IAS 41.  Add a discussion on policy gaps or the absence of institutional support, and suggest potential oversight improvements.

Comparative Benchmarking - The analysis is confined to Tungurahua with no comparison to similar provinces or international cases. Briefly include literature or data comparing IAS 41 application in other agricultural economies or provinces.

Discussion of IAS 41 Fair Value Complexity - The challenges of measuring fair value in biological assets are acknowledged but not deeply explored.  Provide more depth on valuation difficulties, especially in markets lacking active reference pricing.

Overall Comment: With a clearer methodological foundation, richer examples, and refined recommendations, it can offer stronger value to both practitioners and policy-makers.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Receive a cordial greeting.

I am deeply grateful for the time, commitment and rigor with which you have reviewed our manuscript. His valuable contribution has been fundamental in improving the scientific quality of the article. Each of their observations was carefully considered and addressed with the aim of strengthening the clarity, methodological coherence and relevance of the contents of the study.

In the corrected manuscript, which we attach to this communication, you can see that all the modifications have been highlighted in yellow, in order to facilitate their review and follow-up. In addition, a change control table includes where the suggestions received and the actions taken to address them are detailed. Once again, I reiterate our gratitude for your valuable role as a reviewer, which has contributed significantly to improving the present work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf