Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Export Survival from Latin American Countries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been somewhat improved. However, a number of issues still remain unaddressed. The most important problem is the lack of clear connection between the theory and empirical research. The structure of the paper must be explained in the introduction. Please remove the figure from the introduction. Please explain the contribution to the literature more clearly at the end of the literature review section. The literature review section still looks like a collection of abstracts. Please revise it carefully. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I must congratulate the authors for the submission of the revised version .

There are slight changes which need to be considered before going for the publication. 

Please include the names of the authors for the followings : 

[38] used the number of patents issued by the U.S. Patent Office as a proxy for in-

novative capacity to explain the duration of exports from 160 countries to the U.S.A. us- ing a Cox proportional hazard model. This study reported that export duration increases

with higher innovation levels.

[54] explored the impact of infrastructure on the performance of export companies

in New Zealand using a Cox proportional hazard model. The authors generated a control variable to contrast differences in the survival of exports before and after the construction of a port. They found no significant effects on exports from the start of operation of the

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for your revision. The paper has improved a lot. I find you treated very well most of the previous comments / suggestions. I have some comments on the current version:

1. You say: "The potential losers under a pandemic are tourism, construction and real estate, the automobile industry, the aviation and maritime sectors, manufacturing, financial services, and education. These 34 economic activities suffer adverse effects because they are considered non-essential by some governments."

This needs further elaboration or be support with some references. In the country where I live construction, manufacturing and education were not affected by lockdowns since they were considered essential activities.

2. It is necessary to renumber the sections: Research methodology Is now section 3 and so on.

3. The research methodology section begins abruptly. You should name the index and to explain its purpose. Maybe this should be dome after presenting your variables (namely after table 5).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All my comments were taken into account and the paper can be published in its present form.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The introduction is too long, too messy and too hard to read. The main message is not clear. The introduction does not clearly explain what, why and how the Authors are trying to study. The main goal of the paper is not clearly described and the main research hypotheses are not mentioned in the introduction. The paper has no proper literature review section. Some of the previous studies are mentioned in the introduction but this is not enough. In addition, the paper structure is not discussed in the introduction. Instead the introduction includes references to some papers that in principle should be discussed in a separate literature review section. Moreover, the introduction includes a figure and a table that should be moved to the data description section. The proper theoretical background is missing which makes the interpretation of empirical results difficult. The research hypotheses are not derived directly from any theoretical framework and are not properly described. The specific mechanisms underlying the postulated relationships are not well explained. The postulated empirical relationships need to be carefully explained by referring to specific theories or previous empirical studies. More importantly, the main concern regards the empirical analysis which does not move behind the simple characterization of facts. The paper is in fact about data description and there is no explicit attempt to test or discriminate between alternative theories or to test hypotheses derived directly from the theory.

Reviewer 2 Report

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Exports Survival from Latin American Countries

1. The abstract should briefly state the purpose of the research, and the major conclusions.

1. The current version is too generic. The type and nature of Mobility Index should be explicitly stated to show the framework's applicability. More details are required on how Mobility Index are derived.
2. The main objectives are listed as objective of this study was to analyze the effects of mobility, as a proxy for social distancing and closure of activities, on exports. The objective can be broken down into the several to have the discussions of the work systematically.
3. Authors are advised to include motivation of the selected topic and objectives in more details. Topic to be utilized to include the research objectives. 
4. Literature review section to be included to have the discussions on the rationale, challenges, and opportunity for the selected topic and objectives.
5. The method should be renamed as research methodology and the detailed steps related to the procedure adopted for the measurement related to the Mobility Index need to be included. The authors need to demonstrat how the analysis was carried out based on the previous work.
6. Table 1 include discussions of the variables based on the only one reference. The richness in the literature for the selection of the variables is not done extensively . The overall discussion seems superficial, which could be attributed to the followings:
1. What are the methods followed for the data extraction ?
2. What are the motivations for selection of the Feb-April data ?
3. What are the years taken ?
4. What is the size of the data ?
5. How the data cleaning was done ?
6. What procedure was followed for the PCA ?
7. There is a rule to be followed for the selection of such a method .
8. What are the challenges faced in applying such a method ?
9. What are the other research work which followed the similar methodology ? 
10. In Table 2, Five components are five variables only . Each components are derived from the sets of the variables . I am not sure ,what’s the justification for this?  In the next table , components are named as variables . In table 4, what are the basis of selecting the variables . No discussions are provided from the literature .

8. For clarity, these should be answered carefully
9. Implications for research, practice and/or society: In the current manuscript, the implications for research are merely confirming and validating prior studies without adequately extending the body of knowledge in terms of followings:
10. Are the scope and context clearly defined?
11. Do the conclusion relate with the research questions/objectives proposed?
12. Are the variables valid and reliable?
13. Are the main findings included in terms of reliability, creditability, and validity?
14. Are the limitations explicitly stated?
15. Papers published in sustainability should seek to make significant contributions, to the body of knowledge.
16. Quality of communication: The quality of communication is fair. However, the paper is monotonous in some sections and difficult to follow.
17. References are limited and not cited properly in the text properly. Please use the extensive list.

Hope all these suggestions are helpful.

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic and the empirical work are interesting, and I am sure that the author is in the right direction with their research agenda. However, the paper has important flaws and I consider it can´t be published in its current form. Please find below, detailed comments:

1. Abstract

The abstract needs a revision to better reflect the content of the paper. Currently there is no mention to the pandemics, which is central in the your argument and research. Moreover, the goal of the paper it is not clear - exports vs export survival (see below).

2. Introduction

You should be clearer on the research question / objective. You intend to assess the this intent clearly. Also you need to tie better this to the pandemics.

The literature review presented in this section should be expanded. There are some theories of international trade or even some insights from economics of complexity that could be used. One suggestion: to approach it from the distance debate, and further add the dimensions you are currently considering. Then you could provide an analytical framework.

Moreover, you do not mention the gap in the literature nor your contribution.

It is necessary to explain better the data used to draw the networks in figure 1. Are you using total exports by destination? Why are you considering 2017? It is also necessary to improve legend, indicating scale of the size of the nodes and the variable that is reflected (I suppose you are using in-degree centrality).

I consider that you need to show a better understanding of the SNA you are using. In the analysis of Fig 1, the expression "high degree of support centralization" needs to be clarified. Why do you consider that in-degree reflects a "support centralization"? In this context in-degree reflects the exports arriving to a certain country, so I can't understand the expression you use. Additionally, you conclude that the diference between degree and betweenness (the data for this is not presented) leads to a low network density. To assess density you should compute it and not speculate based on centrality measures.

In lines 57-59 you should indicate your are mentioning percentages, by including the % symbol after the numbers.

In figure 2, you should add titles to the axes and change the legend (imports from the USA instead USA imports).

3. Methods

The section begins abruptly. You refer a index, without naming it and explaining its purpose. Moreover, I found quite difficult to understand the index calculation. Are you doing it for each country, relatively to other countries? Or does it only reflects "internal" mobility? 

Fig. 3 is not useful. I suggest that it be transformed into tables, placed in an appendix. 

In table 4, you should mention the data source for each variable. Currently you only provide it for some of the variables (references 15 and 16 do not cover all the variables).

Your dependent variable "Exports" needs to be better explained. You are using a binary variable to measure duration, which is, by nature, continuous. If you want to use a variable to capture "duration" you need to operationalize it differently. If you want to use the binary formulation, you need to change de name of the variable.

Also some independent variables need further explanation (e.g. innovation). For the mobility index, why are you considering those 3 months?

4. Results

The results presented in Figure 8 are "outside" the logic that was being developed and should therefore be framed in the narrative. The figure could be improved, by considering the size of the node proportional to the amount of exports for each country. Also you should justify why you are considering 2017.

Lines 298 to 302: what is the unit of the numbers shown in brackets?

5. Discussion

You need a more in-depth discussion. This needs to be re-elaborated after the expansion of the literature review. Currently, some questions also deserve some reflection: Why do you start by discussing innovation? Why is the effect of the Mobility index changing from February to march?

6. Conclusion

To be re-writen after major revision. Do not forget to include limitations to your work.

I hope these comments and suggestions will help you to improve your study. Good luck!