Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a timely and policy-relevant topic for Bangladesh—export diversification and structural transformation in the context of LDC graduation—and leverages an updated Social Accounting Matrix (SAM 2022) to identify key sectors and explore diversification scenarios. The use of recent data and the applied focus are clear strengths, as is the attempt to translate linkage-based evidence into practical implications for sector prioritization. However, to reach a stronger level of rigor and persuasiveness, I recommend revisions that improve the clarity of the analytical design, the transparency of the simulations, and the caution of the policy interpretation.

First, the introduction and literature review would benefit from a more explicit statement of the research gap and contribution. While the paper provides adequate background, it should more clearly specify: (i) the central research question(s) in 1–2 sentences, (ii) why SAM 2022 enables an advance over prior evidence (what substantively changes with the updated accounts), and (iii) what is novel in this manuscript—e.g., a sectoral mapping based on updated data, a specific way of designing scenarios, or a more operational bridge between linkages and diversification priorities. Even for an applied paper, it is helpful to articulate clear analytical expectations (hypotheses or propositions) that guide the reader on what patterns should emerge and why.

Second, the methods section should be strengthened to enhance reproducibility and conceptual consistency. Please provide more detail on how SAM 2022 was constructed/obtained (data sources, balancing steps, sector aggregation level, and any adjustments), and describe precisely how backward/forward linkages were computed and normalized (including the definition of “key sectors” and the selection thresholds). For the simulations, I strongly suggest presenting a single consolidated table describing all scenarios, clearly indicating: the shock applied (where/how), its magnitude, the underlying assumptions, the outcome variable(s) reported, and the economic rationale for each scenario. The distinction between scenarios (e.g., “present” vs. “foster,” or equivalent labels) should be unambiguous, because it is currently partly implicit and this weakens interpretability.

Third, the presentation of results can be improved for readability and economic interpretation. In all tables and figures, please make explicit: units, variable definitions, the baseline for comparison (levels vs. changes), and how to interpret signs and magnitudes. Whenever possible, summarize the key message of each table/figure in 2–3 concise sentences so that interpretation does not rely solely on visual inspection. Also ensure tight consistency between narrative and numbers: when stating that a sector “dominates,” “leads,” or “generates larger gains,” specify the metric (e.g., top-3 by linkage, percent change in an outcome, relative contribution, etc.). If many sectors are involved, ranking summaries (top 5/10) or a heatmap-style presentation could help readers quickly grasp the hierarchy.

Fourth, the discussion and conclusions should be more cautious about the inferential strength of SAM/IO-based exercises. Because this framework typically relies on fixed technical coefficients and does not incorporate behavioral responses, supply constraints, prices, substitution, or dynamic reallocation, policy implications should be framed as exploratory/indicative rather than definitive prescriptions. Please add an explicit limitations paragraph (e.g., static structure, no price/elasticity mechanism, risk of treating linkages as a direct proxy for “priority,” sensitivity to sector aggregation, and dependence on scenario parameterization). Ideally, include at least one robustness check: sensitivity of the sector ranking to alternative normalizations/thresholds, comparisons under different aggregation schemes (if feasible), or a brief triangulation with external evidence (export shares, employment, productivity) to support the plausibility of the “key sectors” identified.

Fifth, the English language can be improved to enhance clarity and flow, particularly in transitions (motivation → methods → results) and in the phrasing of policy implications. A professional language edit is recommended, as several passages are grammatically awkward and/or ambiguous in ways that may affect the reader’s understanding of what was done and what was found.

With these revisions—especially greater transparency in the simulation design, clearer presentation and interpretation of results, and a more careful discussion aligned with the method’s limitations—the manuscript would become substantially more robust and more useful for readers interested in industrial policy, diversification, and sector planning in developing economies.

      Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is generally understandable, but it would benefit from careful editing to improve clarity, flow, and precision. Several sentences are overly long or awkwardly structured, with occasional grammatical issues (articles, verb agreement, and prepositions) and imprecise wording that can obscure the intended meaning—especially in the transitions between motivation, methods, results, and policy implications. I recommend a professional language revision (ideally by a native or advanced academic editor) to tighten phrasing, reduce repetition, and ensure consistent terminology throughout (e.g., for scenarios, sector labels, and key methodological terms).

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled Unlocking Key Sectors in Bangladesh: A Simulation from Export Diversification using SAM 2022 examines the structural role of economic sectors in Bangladesh using a Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) framework combined with linkage analysis and export diversification simulations. The topic is timely and policy-relevant, particularly in the context of Bangladesh’s upcoming graduation from Least Developed Country (LDC) status and the need to strengthen export diversification strategies. The use of the 2022 SAM database and the SIMSIP-SAM analytical framework provides a solid empirical basis for the analysis.
Overall, the manuscript is well structured, and the empirical approach is appropriate for the research question. The combination of linkage analysis and simulation scenarios is a valuable methodological contribution, and the results provide useful insights into the sectors capable of generating broader economic spillovers. In particular, the identification of agriculture, retail trade, inland transport, and other services as key sectors with strong forward and backward linkages offers important implications for development policy.
However, several aspects of the manuscript could be improved to strengthen its clarity and contribution.
First, the introduction is somewhat lengthy and could be streamlined. Some background information is repetitive, and the research gap is not sufficiently emphasized. The authors should more clearly articulate the study's novelty and contribution relative to previous SAM-based analyses of the Bangladesh economy.
Second, although the methodological framework is generally sound, the paper would benefit from a clearer presentation of the research objectives and analytical logic. The distinction between the “foster diversification” and “present diversification” scenarios should be explained more explicitly, including the economic rationale for allocating export shocks across intensive and extensive sectors.
Third, the discussion of the results could be expanded. While the simulation results are clearly presented, the interpretation remains somewhat descriptive. The authors should more strongly relate their findings to the broader literature on export diversification, structural transformation, and development economics.
Fourth, the policy implications section could be further developed. The manuscript identifies sectors with strong intersectoral linkages, but the policy recommendations remain relatively general. Providing more concrete suggestions for policymakers, such as specific strategies to support extensive sectors, would increase the practical relevance of the study.
In conclusion, the manuscript addresses an important topic and offers relevant empirical insights into export diversification and structural development in Bangladesh. With moderate revisions aimed at improving clarity, strengthening the discussion, and refining the language, the paper could make a useful contribution to the literature on economic structural change and development policy.

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript is substantially stronger than the previous version. The introduction now presents the research gap and contribution more clearly, the methodological section offers much better transparency regarding SAM construction, linkage measures, and simulation design, and the discussion now includes a more explicit acknowledgment of the limitations of the static SAM framework. These revisions improve the clarity, structure, and credibility of the study. That said, a few issues still need attention before publication. First, the manuscript would benefit from a final professional language edit, as several awkward or incomplete expressions remain throughout the text. Second, the results section still requires a careful consistency check, particularly regarding units and currency notation, since the text and tables do not appear fully aligned in all places. Third, although the additional threshold analysis improves the interpretation of sector classification, the robustness of the findings should still be presented cautiously, given the inherent limitations of a static SAM approach. Overall, the authors have addressed the main concerns in a substantive manner, and the manuscript is now much improved, but it would still benefit from a final round of minor revision focused on precision, consistency, and English polishing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is generally understandable, but it would benefit from careful editing to improve clarity, flow, and precision. Several sentences are overly long or awkwardly structured, with occasional grammatical issues (articles, verb agreement, and prepositions) and imprecise wording that can obscure the intended meaning—especially in the transitions between motivation, methods, results, and policy implications. I recommend a professional language revision (ideally by a native or advanced academic editor) to tighten phrasing, reduce repetition, and ensure consistent terminology throughout (e.g., for scenarios, sector labels, and key methodological terms).

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf