Market Diversification and Competitiveness of Fresh Grape Exports in Peru

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled "Market Diversification and Competitiveness of Fresh Grape Exports in Peru" (sustainability-2899214) was aimed at comprehensively analyzing the dynamics of the Peruvian fresh grape exports with a particular focus on market diversification and competitiveness aspects.

To improve the quality of the manuscript, I propose the following:

(1) The concept of competitiveness is briefly touched upon in the Introduction section, despite the fact that it is at the core of this manuscript, as also stated in its title. I propose further expanding the manuscript in this direction, potentially between lines 131-136, with more explanations regarding how competitiveness was approached in this research. Since competitiveness can be found at multiple layers, it is important to properly state the dimension(s) of competitiveness that were analysed in this manuscript. For reference, please allow me to recommend this article: Constantin, M.; Sapena, J.; Apetrei, A.; Pătărlăgeanu, S.R. Deliver Smart, Not More! Building Economically Sustainable Competitiveness on the Ground of High Agri-Food Trade Specialization in the EU. Foods 2023, 12, 232. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12020232.

(2) I suggest further emphasizing the literature gap in the Introduction section (with respect to the contribution of this manuscript), as well as a more nuanced description of the novelty factor of this paper.

(3) I propose elaborating one more paragraph after the line 165. It should be dedicated to the explanation of the structure of this empirical research.

(4) The materials and methods section should be further developed with the formulas used to calculate the RCA, HHI, and the rest of the indicators. Reflexivity is encouraged when approaching these metrics, since they do have some inherited methodological / technical limitations. These could be described in this section or at the end of the manuscript, when explaining all of the current research's limitations.

(5) Section three starts too abruptly with Table 1. Please considering improving the flow of ideas to facilitate a better transition from section to section.

(6) For each of the indicators included in tables, it would add more value to the manuscript to compute and interpret metrics, such as: the mean, standard deviation, coefficient of variance, skewness, kurtosis, Jarque-Bera test.

(7) Upon checking the data presented in Table 2, I found slightly different values on the INTRACEN database: https://www.trademap.org/Country_SelProductCountry_TS.aspx?nvpm=1%7c604%7c%7c%7c%7c0806%7c%7c%7c4%7c1%7c1%7c2%7c2%7c1%7c2%7c1%7c1%7c1. Please double check the values.

(8) Table 3's caption contains some words in Spanish. Please revise.

(9) Tables 6-11 can be merged into a single table and adapted. Furthermore, please consider computing more metrics, such as the ones mentioned at point 6.

(10) At the end of the manuscript, briefly discuss the current research limitations and possible future research directions.

(11) The references list does not follow the template instructions. Therefore, I kindly ask the authors to format the in-text references, as well as the references list according to the requirements of the Sustainability journal, which can also be found here: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions#references.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and constructive observations on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have taken to provide us with a comprehensive review. Below, we respond to each point raised:
1.    We have expanded the discussion on competitiveness in the Introduction section, as you suggested. We have incorporated more detailed explanations on how competitiveness was approached in our research. We also added the recommended citation (Constantin et al., 2023). Your suggestion helped in clarifying the concept of competitiveness which is central to our manuscript.

2.    The literature gap and the novelty factor of our paper are now more prominently emphasized in the Introduction section. We have undertaken a thorough review of the literature to better highlight the theoretical contrast and the unique contribution of our research to the existing body of knowledge.

3.    As per your suggestion, we have added an additional paragraph ato elucidate the structure of our research. This paragraph aims to provide readers with a clearer understanding of the research design and methodology employed.

4.    We have elaborated on the Materials and Methods section. We have also discussed their methodological and technical limitations to encourage reflexivity when interpreting these metrics. This addition will hopefully provide readers with a deeper insight into the robustness and applicability of these indicators.

5.    We made improvements to ensure a smoother transition between sections, particularly addressing the abrupt start of Section three with Table 1. This revision has improved the flow of ideas, making the manuscript more coherent and reader friendly.

6.    Following your advice, we computed and interpreted additional metrics for the indicators included in the tables, such as mean, standard deviation, coefficient of variance, skewness, kurtosis, and the Jarque-Bera test. This has added significant value to our analysis and interpretation of the data.

7.    Regarding the discrepancy with the INTRACEN database, we clarified that our research utilized official customs data from Peru, which we believe to be more accurate and precise for our study's context. We appreciate your diligence in cross verifying these details and hope this clarification addresses your concern.

8.    The Spanish words in Table 3's caption are indeed names of companies and cannot be translated into English without altering their accuracy. We believe keeping these names in their original language maintains the authenticity of the information presented.

9.    We considered merging Tables 6-11 into a single table; however, due to the extensive information each table contains, we decided to maintain them separately but included the additional metrics you suggested. This approach ensures the information remains clear and comprehensible.

10.    We have discussed the current research limitations and potential future research directions at the end of the manuscript. This section aims to provide a candid perspective on the scope and boundaries of our research.

11.    Lastly, we have revised the references list and in-text citations to adhere strictly to the Sustainability journal's template instructions. We understand the importance of following these guidelines and have made the necessary adjustments.

We hope that the revisions and clarifications provided adequately address your concerns and contribute to the manuscript's improvement. We are grateful for the opportunity to enhance our work based on your insightful feedback and look forward to any further suggestions you may have.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 The article raises an interesting topic. This study focuses on analyzing market diversification in Peru's fresh grape exports during the 2013-2022 period, exploring its implications for international trade. A quantitative methodology was used like: analysis of publicly recorded data, Herfindahl-Hirschman concentration index (HHI) and the Balassa Index. The article is easy to read because the appropriate proportions have been maintained between the statistical and substantive parts. They are regional in nature but illustrate trade links between Peru and other countries of the world economy. The authors carried out the research process correctly.

The methodology is correct. Tables and drawings are legible. The abstract includes information important for understanding the content of the paper. The references reflect the topicality of the article. The literature review is good. Results and findings were adequately reported. The conclusions are clear. The authors presented also recommendations. The authors examined the research problem.

Main remarks:

-       formulating a hypothesis should be considered (in addition to the indicated research goal);

-       The conclusions should clearly indicate the contribution of the authors to the literature

-        The conclusions should clearly indicate the contribution to economic practice - describe the implications in more detail;

-       The authors did not indicated the limitations of the research;

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you immensely for your insightful remarks and constructive criticism regarding our manuscript. We deeply value the depth of your review and the opportunity to further refine our work based on your suggestions. Below, we address each of your main remarks:

• Formulating a Hypothesis: We appreciate your suggestion to formulate a hypothesis in addition to outlining our research goals. Upon reflection, we agree that introducing a clear hypothesis could strengthen the framework of our study and provide a more structured approach to investigating our research question. We have now formulated and included a hypothesis that aligns with our research objectives, which we believe enhances the clarity and purpose of our study.
• Contribution to the Literature: We understand your concern regarding the clarity of our contribution to the existing literature in our conclusions. In response, we have revised the conclusion section to explicitly articulate our contributions to the academic discourse on this topic. This includes highlighting the novel aspects of our research findings and how they build upon or diverge from existing knowledge. We hope this revision makes our contributions to the literature more explicit and appreciable.
• Contribution to Economic Practice: We also acknowledge your point on the need to outline our research’s implications more clearly for economic practice. We have expanded our conclusions to include a detailed discussion of the practical implications of our findings, specifically how they can be applied by policymakers, industry stakeholders, and other practitioners in the field. This section now provides a clearer guide on the practical significance of our work and its potential to influence economic practices and decisions.
• Limitations of the Research: Your observation regarding the omission of the research limitations in our manuscript was an oversight on our part. We agree that acknowledging the limitations is crucial for providing a balanced view of our research's scope and the interpretability of our findings. Therefore, we have added a section that candidly discusses the limitations of our study, including methodological constraints and the generalizability of our results. This addition, we believe, offers a more comprehensive and honest assessment of our research.

We hope these revisions and clarifications satisfactorily address your concerns and significantly improve the quality and impact of our manuscript. We are committed to ensuring our work contributes meaningfully to both the academic community and economic practice. We are grateful for your guidance in this process and welcome any further advice you may have to enhance our manuscript.

Warmest regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

After analyzing the manuscript  Market Diversification and Competitiveness Of Fresh Grape Exports In Peru, I made a few observationThis paper makes a good analysis of the Peruvian grape export industry,

including value evolution, average price, market diversification, competitiveness and market concentration.

Improvement suggestion

Provides a broader theoretical framework and details elements related to international trade, export dynamics, and the competitiveness of the agricultural sector and fruit marketing.

For transparency and clarity in the methods section, the techniques for data collection and analysis are detailed and the limitations identified during the study are mentioned.

During the discussion, practical suggestions are provided for understanding sales and export markets.

Consider a comparative analysis with similar studies in other countries or regions to gain a broader understanding of the global grape export market and to identify a unique perspective specific to Peru.

idea

Overall, this article provides an original insight into the dynamics of the grape export sector, making it valuable to academics, professionals, and policymakers interested in understanding agricultural export trends and challenges. That being said, given the growing importance of
agricultural exports to developing economies, this paper discusses a timely and relevant topic with implications for economic development, trade policy and market competitiveness. Therefore, with appropriate revisions and improvements, this article has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the scientific community."

Author Response

iewer,

We are genuinely grateful for your constructive feedback and insightful suggestions regarding our manuscript. Your comprehensive review not only underscores the potential impact of our work but also provides a clear path for enhancing its value and relevance. Please find below our response to your improvement suggestions:

1. Broader Theoretical Framework: We acknowledge the importance of providing a more extensive theoretical background to enrich the context of our study. In line with your suggestion, we have expanded the theoretical framework to include a deeper analysis of international trade, export dynamics, and the competitiveness within the agricultural sector, especially focusing on fruit marketing. This enhancement aims to better situate our research within the broader discourse on agricultural exports and their significance.
2. Transparency and Clarity in Methods Section: Your advice on improving the transparency and clarity of the methods section is well-taken. We have detailed the techniques used for data collection and analysis, ensuring that each step of our methodology is clearly articulated. Furthermore, we have included a discussion on the limitations encountered during our study, providing a transparent account of the challenges we faced and how they may affect the interpretation of our findings. This revision aims to give readers a comprehensive understanding of our research process.
3. Practical Suggestions in the Discussion: In the discussion section, we now offer practical suggestions for understanding sales and export markets more effectively. These recommendations are designed to be directly applicable for practitioners in the field, potentially aiding in strategic decision-making and enhancing the competitiveness of exports, particularly in the grape sector.
4. Comparative Analysis: Incorporating your suggestion, we have conducted a comparative analysis with similar studies from other countries or regions. This comparison has allowed us to place the dynamics of Peru's grape export market within a global context, highlighting unique challenges and opportunities specific to Peru. This broader perspective enriches our study and provides valuable insights into the global competitiveness of grape exports.

Your encouragement regarding the originality and relevance of our article deeply motivates us. We are inspired by your recognition of the importance of agricultural exports to developing economies and the potential implications of our research. We have endeavored to address each of your suggestions meticulously, aiming to enhance the manuscript's contribution to the scientific community, policymakers, and industry professionals.

We hope that these revisions meet your expectations and significantly improve the manuscript's quality and impact. We are grateful for the opportunity to refine our work based on your esteemed feedback and remain open to any further suggestions you might have.

Warmest regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have improved the quality of the manuscript according to the suggestions. However, the references list is still not formatted according to the requirements of the journal. I think this will be resolved in later publication stages.