Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript examines the impact of China’s agricultural outward foreign direct investment (OFDI) on agricultural imports using provincial panel data (2014–2022) and a combination of regression, mediation, and spatial econometric models. The study is timely and relevant, offering novel insights into mechanisms (reverse technology spillovers, international relations), regional heterogeneity, and spatial spillovers, with clear policy implications for food security. Overall, the work is well-structured and methodologically solid, but its contribution compared to prior literature could be more explicitly highlighted, the endogeneity approach needs further justification, and the discussion would benefit from broader international comparisons. English expression is generally clear but requires editing for fluency. In terms of evaluation, the paper shows moderate-to-high novelty, fits well within the journal’s scope, and provides significant findings of interest to readers, though revisions are necessary to strengthen theoretical framing and writing.

Clarity and organization
The paper is overall well-structured, but the Introduction is too long and repetitive, and the Discussion section is underdeveloped.
Suggested revision: Shorten the literature review in the Introduction (lines 37–118) by removing general background on globalization and focusing on direct research gaps.  Expand the Discussion (lines 436–486) with a deeper comparison to international evidence (Japan, Canada, Africa) to show broader significance.  In the discussion of spillover effects, the authors may consider referencing recent works (https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166746, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11294-023-09871-0, https://doi.org/10.3390/math13050838), which could provide a complementary perspective on how interdependencies shape trade and investment dynamics

Scientific quality
Good, but methodological justification is weak in parts.
Suggested revision: In the endogeneity test section, provide stronger justification for the chosen instrument (cubic power of deviation from mean OFDI). Authors should run an additional robustness check using an alternative instrument (e.g., lagged OFDI) and report first-stage statistics (F-test).

Proper context
Partially. Relevant references are included, but international comparative studies are under-cited.
Suggested revision: Add more discussion and citations on OFDI–trade linkages in other contexts (e.g., Japan, EU, African FDI in agriculture).

Errors/ambiguity
Some terms are ambiguous. For example, “production and marketing balance areas” and “hold a greater sway” are unclear.
Suggested revision: Provide a clear operational definition of regional categories (perhaps in a separate table in Methods) and revise unclear phrasing.

English language
Understandable but awkward in many places.
Examples: “Agricultural OFDI holds a greater sway” → “Agricultural OFDI exerts stronger influence.” “Which leads to a rupture in the supply chain” → “This has disrupted the agricultural supply chain.”

Figures and tables
Tables are clear, but some (robustness checks) could be moved to an appendix to reduce clutter. Captions are adequate but too minimal.
Suggested revision: Expand captions to explain variables and key results briefly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the Introduction, the context and research problem are very well characterized. In the database used as a sample, was any analysis performed to identify outliers that could create some analysis bias in the data? The control variables are consistent with the study. Even so, are there other possible control variables that should be considered? Could the authors comment on this or suggest such variables (if applicable) for future research? In Table 1 (pages 5 an6 ), it would be interesting if the authors included the "mode" and the "median". The tests performed and the data analysis are well described in the article, in a didactic manner, which facilitates the reader's understanding. In section "4. Discussion", the authors can further explore the comparisons between the results obtained in the research carried out in relation to results from previous studies, better explaining the main contributions of the study carried out. In section "5. Conclusion", in turn, it would still be important for the authors to explain a little more about the main contributions of the study to the field of knowledge and, mainly, implications and developments (practical implications) in the public policies of the country (China) in relation to the research findings. One final suggestion: The theoretical background used in the article is adequate. Even so, the authors could include a few more recent publications (2023-2025). This will further enhance the study carried out. Respectfully, these are my comments and suggestions to the authors. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Editor! See the comments in the "Comments and Suggestions for Authors" box.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on the panel data of 30 provincial levels in China from 2014 to 2022, this article systematically examines the impact of Agricultural foreign direct investment (Agricultural OFDI) on agricultural product imports and its mechanism of action. A lot of work has been done around the topic of the article. However, at present, there are still some problems and shortcomings in the paper. In order to make the paper more scientific and perfect, the following suggestions are given:

Comment 1: The abstract section concisely explains the sample, methods, main findings and policy recommendations. However, the setting of the spatial weight matrix and the core conclusion of the spatial effect were not explained. It is suggested that the article supplement the core values of the spatial spillover effect and simplify the non-core information.

Comment 2: The introduction is relatively clear in its statement, but it lacks explanations of the theoretical or policy motivations for "why at the provincial level" and "why 2014-2022 was chosen".

Comment 3: The existing reviews mainly list the literature and lack critical comparisons. The existing literature does not distinguish the different impact mechanisms of the three types of agricultural OFDI, namely "market-seeking type", "resource-seeking type" and "strategic asset-seeking type", on imports. The literature review of "reverse technology spillover" in this article is insufficient. It only cites Kogut & Chang (1991) and a few Chinese studies. International empirical research on reverse technology spillover in the agricultural or food industry in the past decade should be supplemented.

Comment 4: The literature review is only a list of some articles, but does not clarify the main issues, research results, problems, and defects of existing research in the academic field. According to the keyword search of “agricultural outward foreign direct investment” and “reverse spillover effects”, it is suggested that the author read the following literatures:

Agricultural production efficiency estimation and spatiotemporal convergence characteristic analysis in the Yangtze River Economic Belt: A semi-parametric metafrontier approach. Land Degradation & Development, 2023, 34(15), 4635-4648.

Mechanisms and spatial spillover effects of science and technology financial ecosystem on carbon emission reduction from multiple perspectives: evidence from China. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1025 (2025).

Comment 5: The article uses "the cube of the difference between agricultural OFDI and the mean" as an instrumental variable, and its exogeneity assumption needs further argumentation. It is suggested to supplement the exclusivity test.

Comment 6: In the research results section, the OFDI coefficients in the main sales areas and the production and sales balance areas are significant, while those in the main production areas are not. The author explains this as "the self-sufficiency rate in the main production areas is high". However, the T-values of the samples from the main production areas are relatively low, which may be affected by the fewer observed values. It is necessary to report the inter-group coefficient difference test.

Comment 7: In the discussion section, the conclusion that reverse technology spillover reduces import demand seems to contradict the positive total effect of the benchmark "OFDI promotes imports". The author should clarify the net effects and applicable scopes of the two mechanisms.

Comment 8: Language polishing is recommended to improve the readability and professionalism of the article. Ensure that the logical flow of the article is clear and the connections between the various parts are tight.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After carefully reviewing the revised version of the manuscript, I find that the authors have addressed the referees’ comments in a satisfactory manner. The revisions have strengthened the overall quality, clarity, and rigor of the study, and the manuscript now meets the requirements for publication in Sustainability. I therefore consider it sufficiently improved to warrant acceptance.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Analyzing the adjustments or improvements made by the authors, I understand that the suggested recommendations were made satisfactorily. I just suggest that in line 311 the authors adjust "gricultural" to "agricultural".

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

ACCEPT.