Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review Report on “ Evolution Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Global Dairy Trade (2115137)” by Ziming Bai, Chenyang Liu, Hongye Wang and Cuixia Li

 

This paper investigates the evolution of global dairy trade networks by using the QAP model and find that econmic level gaps and regional trade agreement have become increasing important. However, I still have some questions:

 

1. Why authors adopt the QAP analysis model instead of other method in your paper? Whether QAP method is more suitable for your research question?

2. In Figure 2, I am interested in why the number of Nodes has a rapid decline (increase) in 2000(2020). Authors seem to offer on explanation.

3. In literature review, a small number of studies have been reviewed about for dairy trade networks, but there is no summary of these studies here. I suggest the authors to add more related literature and emphasis the difference between previous research and your paper.

4. In subsection 4.4, the authors conducted the significance test, but had less explanation. I suggest the authors give a detailed analysis behind the regression results.

5. I suggest the authors emphasize the innovation of this paper in the Introduction.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your careful review of the manuscript. Your questions and suggestions for the manuscript are of great help to the improvement of our article quality and future research. In response to your five suggestions, we have given deep consideration to them and explained them in detail in our responses.

We appreciate for your valuable comments sincerely and hope our modifications can resolve your concerns.

Best regards,

Ziming Bai

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper analyses evolution characteristics and factors influencing global dairy trade, thereby fitting well into the international literature on the topic. However, I have just a few minor comments,

Abstract – the main objective should be added. The structure of the abstract should be subject of the research, objective, methodology, the main results.

The introduction - The paper's originality must be specified in more detail. Also, this type of research's main objective and motivation should be highlighted.

The literature review should be more specific – it must be focused more on the paper’s main idea – influencing factors of global dairy trade. Maybe authors can make a Table with the main factors influencing global dairy trade, which they found in previous literature. Authors should focus on papers in high-ranked scientific journals which are not later than five years.

The results are well presented. Maybe authors should think about the estimation of models with panel data. R2 is very low in estimated results.

 

Discussion - Policy implications should be noted. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which helps us improve our article a lot. We have revised the manuscript and made a detailed explanation in our responses. In addition, we would like to thank you for your positive comments on the manuscript, which encouraged us deeply.

We hope our modifications can resolve your concerns. Thanks again for your careful review.

 

Best regards,

Ziming Bai

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

General opinion: the paper would need some thorough and major changes.

it lacks clarity, structure and logical coherence.

Particular changes to be made:

In abstract:

Line 1-2

uncertainties and imbalances exist due to

overall economic changes, deagrarization, dairy prices, agricultural politics,

not only because on covid

line 26-27

I'm not sure about this reference

Better to erase this reference

Dairy has medically unwanted effects,

it provokes diseases such as hart blood vessels plaque, cholesterol, rheumatic problems etc

 

The introduction should be created again

it would be more logical and understandable to write first about the general state

then about diary safety and finally about dairy and health

 

line 57

some goals or hypothesis should be stated in introduction

what is the reason this article was written for?

Line 59-60 grammar to be checked and sentence reframed

 

Literature review

The beginning untill lines 67- 99 should be written again

As it is it is confusing to the reader because it has no flow, neither logical order

References should be according to MDPI methods (for example see line 71, 79)

The references should be corrected

 

Results

Line 242 onwards

The countries should be stated to provide description of the pictures

 

Lines 250 onwards

Describe which countries were compared

Which countries has a rise…

Who creates the network ? from figure 3

 

Figure 1,2,3,4,5,6 state all abbreviations

 

Lines 333-350

 

why only these countries are identified ? (Malaysia)

the chage 2000 to 200 affected south africa, latin america and other countries as well

Results

results should be provided for all the  tables

give some explanation for the tables,

significant explain which and how they were significant

discuss with other authors and compare your findings

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which helped us to correct many deficiencies in format and content.

We appreciate for your careful review and hope our modifications can meet the requirements. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

 

regards,

Ziming Bai

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

the article is interesting and could be published. I just think that theoretical part should be more prominent. Chapter 2. „Literature Review” should indicate the theories (foreign trade, development) to which the research conducted in the article refers.

Figure 1. „Global dairy trade network” is difficult to read. The names of the countries overlap and they are hard to read.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your careful review. We have revised the manuscript and made a detailed explanation in our responses. In addition, we would like to thank you for your positive comments of the manuscript, which encouraged us deeply.

We hope our modifications can resolve your concerns. Thanks again for your valuable comments and suggestions.

 

Best regards,

Ziming Bai

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed my main concern. The language should be polished. 

Author Response

  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the enha  ne cement made

Author Response

  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx