Competitiveness of the Largest Global Exporters of Concentrated Apple Juice
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease check again the grammar and spelling in the section 2 with english professional organism.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Please check again the grammar and spelling in the section 2 with english professional organism.
Author Response
The authors sincerely thank the Reviewer for the kind reception of the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript agriculture-3668007 provides an interesting triangulation to assess competitive position of concentrated apple juice (CAJ) using MS, export orientation ratios, and RCA offers a useful operationalization of competitiveness at the meso level. The topic is relevant considering current trade disruptions, data provides a long-term perspective (2005-2023), and the manuscript is well-organized.
To improve the quality of the paper, I propose the following:
(1) Overloading country-specific findings at the price of a clear, coherent analytical viewpoint on CAJ export competitiveness causes the abstract to lose focus. It breaks the flow into isolated national outcomes instead of stressing more general structural trends or worldwide causes of change. Please improve the impact of the abstract with this suggestion in mind.
(2) CAJ export as a keyword is not fitting well. The abbreviation CAJ for concentrated apple juice is not well-known in the more general literature and might make the article difficult to find in indexing systems. Please reconsider.
(3) The authors successfully identify the systemic nature of agricultural competitiveness and describe it between the lines 95-108, yet explicit references to this approach are missing. Please consider https://doi.org/10.3390/land14040731. With reference to RCA (lines 113-121), I do agree that it is a well-recognized method to assess competitiveness through the lens of export performance, but there are some more limitations (besides line 118) that should be acknowledged: https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2022.04.04.
(4) The triangulation between the conceptual lens of competitiveness, the case of CAJ, and a context shaped by recent disruptive events (geopolitical tensions, the COVID-19 pandemic, food security concerns) is broken in flow. These dimensions are introduced, but not into a coherent analytical framework. The narrative shifts between them without establishing clear causal or interpretive explicit linkages. As a result, the potential to produce a structurally rich and policy-relevant analysis is underutilized. Please consider strengthening the theoretical anchoring the paper, with additional focus on research gaps and the necessity of conducting this research.
(5) The Introduction section should end with a paragraph describing the structure of this empirical paper.
(6) The correlation analysis provides a preliminary sense of association, but the use of bivariate Pearson correlations as the primary analytical tool is insufficient for drawing meaningful inferences about causal mechanisms or structural determinants. In several instances, the authors make causally suggestive statements without addressing the endogeneity, omitted variable bias, or reverse causality inherent in such relationships. This issue is particularly evident in lines 603–621, where the negative correlation between GDP per capita and RCA in countries like China is interpreted as a causal decline in export competitiveness due to rising affluence. However, this conclusion is based solely on bivariate correlations (Table 8) and lacks to control for confounding factors such as rising domestic demand, structural economic shifts, or policy interventions. Without a multivariate or model-based approach, such causal interpretations are methodologically risk misattribution. From my perspective, the analysis should either be reformulated as exploratory and descriptive, or supported by more rigorous econometric methods that allow for valid inference.
(7) Given the applied nature of the CAJ competitiveness assessment, I suggest the authors develop a more structured policy narrative. Some questions that could be considered in this regard (not mandatory): What should emerging exporters consider in order to sustain competitiveness? How should importing countries balance food security and open trade? What are the environmental trade-offs in exporting CAJ vs. fresh apples?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely thank you for your time and valuable comments. We kindly ask for your kind consideration of our responses to the review and, if possible, a prompt reply.
With kind regards,
The Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe quality of the paper is improved in comparison to the earlier versions.
Author Response
The authors sincerely thank the Reviewer for the kind reception of the manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript examines the changing export competitiveness of concentrated apple juice (CAJ) among the world’s leading producers, primarily China, Poland, Turkey, Ukraine, and Moldova, over the period 2005 to 2023. Using data from UN Comtrade and FAOSTAT, it evaluates trends through multiple indicators: Market Share (MS), Gross and Net Export Orientation, and the Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) index. The study offers a detailed cross-country comparison and investigates the correlation between competitiveness metrics and macroeconomic variables like GDP per capita and apple farm-gate prices. The findings reflect both structural shifts in global trade and evolving domestic priorities in major exporting nations, especially China. Please address the weaknesses below:
- Please consider simplifying or breaking up the second sentence of the abstract. The phrase "Assessing competitive position is important for several economic and business reasons..." is quite generic. You could briefly specify one economic and one strategic reason related to CAJ trade.
- In the introduction, where you explain competitiveness using six levels of analysis (lines 65–66), you mention "micro-micro (individual consumers)." This level is not addressed elsewhere in the paper and seems unrelated to sector-level competitiveness. Consider omitting it to keep the focus clear.
- In the methods section, under the formula for Gross and Net Export Orientation (lines 241–259), the explanation of "W – conversion coefficient" mentions an assumed value of 7. Please provide the source or reasoning behind choosing this average, especially since the practical range is quite broad (6.5 to 8.6).
- In the explanation of RCA categories (lines 270–272), it would be useful to add a short parenthetical example showing what kind of RCA values Poland or Moldova typically achieved, to immediately connect theory with observed values.
- When discussing China’s falling RCA values (lines 389–391), you note the drop from >4 to below 2 after 2019. However, you could briefly specify whether this decline was gradual or sudden, and what external factors (like tariffs or EU restrictions) most contributed during that period.
- The sentence about Poland importing CAJ for re-export (lines 454–455) needs clarification. Please state whether this import-export activity affects Poland’s net export orientation and whether RCA values account for such re-exports or not.
- The paragraph starting "The competitive position of CAJ exports from Turkey increased..." (line 475) presents data well but lacks a short statement on whether this trend is expected to continue. A sentence suggesting whether this growth is stable or volatile would improve the discussion.
- In Table 6 and the paragraph describing Moldova’s RCA values (lines 507–515), the exceptionally high RCA figures are mentioned. Please add a note explaining whether such values (e.g. 202.4) are typical or if this is an outlier due to low global base values or small country effect.
- In the paragraph on correlation results (lines 600–622), you state that Poland and Moldova show a positive relationship between GDP per capita and export share. This is an interesting point but seems counterintuitive. Please elaborate briefly on why this might occur in contrast to China.
- In the conclusion (lines 693–699), you mention that Moldova and other developing countries may benefit as China's CAJ exports fall. Please consider qualifying this statement by adding that investment in processing infrastructure is still a major barrier, which may limit the speed or scale of such a shift.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely thank you for your time and valuable comments. We kindly ask for your kind consideration of our responses to the review and, if possible, a prompt reply.
With kind regards,
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have improved the quality of the manuscript according to the suggestions and have acknowledged the limits of the current research.
Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have no further comments.
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
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for the opportunity to review this article which examines the competitive positioning of major CAJ exporters from 2005-2023. This methodologically rigorous study analyzes market dynamics through multiple competitiveness metrics including Market Share indicators, Export Orientation indices, and Revealed Comparative Advantage calculations. The findings demonstrate significant shifts in the global CAJ marketplace, with China losing its dominant position while countries like Moldova, Ukraine, and Turkey show increasing competitiveness. The research also reveals important correlations between economic development and competitiveness indicators. Below are my specific comments on aspects requiring improvement:
1. The abstract would benefit from clearer articulation of the research gap being addressed. While it states the purpose as determining competitive positions, it should explicitly state what knowledge gap this fills compared to existing literature on CAJ competitiveness.
2. The introduction contains several typographical errors and sentence structure issues that affect readability. For example, on line 40-45, the sentence beginning with "The agri-food sector..." is overly long and would be more effective if split into two distinct statements about globalization impacts.
3. The theoretical framework section presents numerous definitions of competitiveness without establishing which conceptualization the authors adopt for their analysis. A clear statement of the specific definition being operationalized would strengthen the methodological foundation.
4. The literature review focuses primarily on CAJ market studies but lacks sufficient connection to broader competitiveness theory. Including more theoretical works on international trade competitiveness would better position this research within the existing body of knowledge, such as:
Javed et al., (2019). Pakistani basmati competitiveness in international markets and its macroeconomic factors. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 36(1), 303-310.
5. The methodology section requires more detailed explanation of why the selected indicators (MS, Egr/Enet, RCA) were chosen over other potential competitiveness measures. The justification provided on pages 5-6 comes too late and should be integrated earlier in the methods section.
6. The results section presents extensive data in tables but would be enhanced by including visual representations (graphs/charts) showing trends over the study period, making the changes in competitive positions more immediately apparent to readers.
7. The discussion of China's declining position (lines 286-292) attributes this to domestic consumption growth but provides limited empirical evidence supporting this assertion. This important finding needs stronger substantiation through additional data on Chinese domestic consumption patterns.
8. The correlation analysis in section 3.3 introduces new analytical approaches not previously mentioned in the methodology section. This creates structural inconsistency and should be properly introduced earlier in the paper.
9. The conclusion section (lines 582-627) effectively summarizes findings but fails to adequately address implications for industry stakeholders and policymakers. Adding specific recommendations based on the findings would enhance the practical value of the research.
10. While the paper mentions environmental considerations briefly (lines 164-171), this increasingly important aspect of agricultural competitiveness deserves more thorough treatment, particularly given growing sustainability requirements in international markets as noted on lines 533-536.
11. The reference list appears comprehensive but includes some inconsistently formatted citations. For example, reference 81 has an incomplete URL while reference 79 is formatted differently from other similar references, suggesting the need for standardization.
The introduction contains several typographical errors and sentence structure issues that affect readability. In addition, similar problems are found in other sections.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have reviewed the paper again, and unfortunately, I cannot recommend its publication, as it does not meet the usual standards of scientific research.
My main concerns are the following:
-The authors fail to provide a clear and compelling motivation for the manuscript, and it is unclear who the intended audience would be. Furthermore, no meaningful predictions regarding competitiveness can be drawn from the paper unless one erroneously relies on adaptive expectation formation.
-The analysis is purely descriptive, which is insufficient for a scientific publication. The paper lacks a novel approach or original ideas and merely presents calculations of a few indicators and correlation coefficients. Based on its simplicity, I believe these calculations could be replicated in MS Excel within less than two hours.
-The indicators appear to be based solely on quantities in kilograms, which is highly unusual. In addition, the price is measured per liter. Given that 1 kg of Concentrated Apple Juice is approximately 0.77 to 0.83 liters. Furthermore, it is unclear whether a single global market price exists and remains relatively stable. I suspect that seasonal fluctuations may cause significant price variance. If this is the case, then the analysis does not make sense.
-The definition of RCA used in the manuscript differs from established definitions in the literature.
-Some variables (Ebc, Enc) are not defined or explained, nor do the authors clarify the distinction between gross and net indicators or the significance of their variation.
-Finally, the authors' responses did not address my concerns convincingly."
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The paper contains a number of syntax and grammar mistakes.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI believe the authors have sufficiently improved the new version of the paper. I have no further comments.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI have no further comments.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview report
Title Competitiveness of the Largest Global Exporters of Concentrated Apple Juice Authors are invited to revise the manuscript according to thoee main points: 1. Introduction: Joint the etructure of the paper ( Section2...., Section3 ...., etc) 2. Your research question-s/ assumptions? To be provide in the introduction section. 3. Materials and Methods: * Market Share (MS): Is it only these cited references [48,74] who deal withe MS? Argument your response? * Gross and Net Export Orientation indices 𝐸𝑔𝑟 : [49] The same? * Table 1. Export volume in selected countries (thousand tons). China's Export Competitiveness Measures : Is it logical to compare the China's Exportation ( volume) to the other sample emarging countries like Poland, Chile, Hangary, etc.? * Table 2. China's Export Competitiveness Measures : The period (2017/2018) is the better periode compared to the previous and laster ones? What are me principale causes? Argument your findings 4. Authors sould add sources for all tables. It is more significant join suitable figure to get more comprenhension and visibility. This related research paper helsps your findings with strong empirical farmework follow it : Knowledge spillovers and technical efficiency for cleaner production: An economic analysis from agriculture innovation, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 320, 2021,128830. doi :https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128830 (Scopus + WoS Impact factor) 5. Table 8. Correlations of Selected Competitiveness Measures * Modovia Vs. China : (0,51 Vs. -0,94) Can we get real findings? Or It is just regional phenomenon which has other criteria? Explain? 6. Present the principal limitations and build to future researches. 7. Englsih language: grammar to be checked. -- G luck Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerated english revisions required.
