Study on the Evolution and Forecast of Agricultural Raw Material Exports in Emerging Economies in Central and Eastern Europe Using Statistical Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: A Statistical Approach to Forecasting Agricultural Raw Material Exports in Emerging Economies of the European Union

 

The manuscript  aims to explore impact of agricultural raw material on economics growth in seven Central and Eastern European countries over 1995–2023, and , providing forecasts for 2024–2026. However, to improve the quality of the manuscript, I have improved the bellow question and suggestion.

1. The manuscript title requires improvement, as it should more clearly reflect the study’s objectives and main contributions. Therefore, I suggest that the authors revise the title to be more in line with the study objective.
2. The manuscript obstructs needs significantly revised, the current abstract cannot stand alone and cannot represent the hole manuscript.  Specifically, the presentation of the study's objectives and the results section lacks clarity and coherence. I strongly recommend that the authors improve the structure and clearly highlight the key research objective. Additionally, including some quantitative findings in the results section of the abstract would enhance its impact and provide a more comprehensive overview of the study.
3. The organization of the introduction section requires significant improvement to enhance the flow. Specifically, the authors should clearly present the study's problem statement, objectives, significance, and contribution to literature.
4. The authors did not cite any literature in the introduction section. This omission raises concerns about how the study is grounded in existing research. In academic writing, it is essential to cite relevant and recent literature to justify the research context, highlight knowledge gaps, and establish the study's contribution. I recommend that the authors revise the introduction by incorporating appropriate citations to support their statements and strengthen the academic rigor of the manuscript
5. In the Research Methodology section, the authors have ignored key information regarding the research area, data sources, and data collection procedures. I strongly recommend that the authors include these essential components to improve robustness of the manuscript.
6. In the presentation of the ARIMA models, I strongly recommend that the authors provide a clear mathematical formulation of the model using appropriate equations. This will enhance the readers’ understanding of the model structure and ensure clarity in the methodology.
7. The author conducted an estimation for each individual country. I suggest adding an additional analysis using panel data methods, as this could provide more comprehensive insights by capturing both cross-country and time-series variations.
8. The conclusion and recommendations section of the manuscript requires improvement to better align with the study's key findings. I suggest the authors highlight the main implications of their results and provide actionable, evidence-based recommendations
9. The overall readability of the manuscript requires significant improvement, particularly in certain sections where clarity and coherence are lacking.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall readability of the manuscript requires significant improvement, particularly in certain sections where clarity and coherence are lacking. 

Author Response

We thank you for your constructive feedback and valuable suggestions, which have greatly contributed to improving the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed all of your comments, and the corresponding revisions have been incorporated into the manuscript. All changes are highlighted in red in the revised version for your convenience.

Additionally, we have prepared a detailed, point-by-point response outlining how each of your comments has been addressed, which is included in the attached response file. We believe that these revisions have significantly enhanced the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The study examines an important and actual issue, namely the evolution of agricultural raw material exports in seven Central and Eastern European countries (Romania, Poland, Slovakia, Croatia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Hungary) and their forecasting using statistical methods. The abstract is clear and easy to understand, but the research objective is unclear and needs to be clarified. It would be good to formulate a specific research question or hypothesis in the introduction, as its absence is noticeable. It would be justified to include references from the literature in the introduction. The literature review chapter is fine, logically structured and well organized, but perhaps the critical approach and the authors' own opinions are not so clear. Using the ARIMA model, the authors sought to demonstrate how agricultural exports will develop in the future in the selected countries and how this is consistent with the main directions of the common agricultural policy. The ARIMA methodology is accepted and recognized in the field of forecasting, and the methodology is easy to understand. The results are presented by country, which is well explained and understandable. It would be good to write about the limitations of the research in the summary section. The figures are beautifully and elegantly designed, which aids understanding. The references and bibliography are also accurate. The citations to the articles listed in the bibliography are accurate and appropriate. In summary, the main areas for improvement in the study are the abstract and the introduction; expanding the literature review could also improve the current standard of the study.

Author Response

We thank you for your constructive feedback and valuable suggestions, which have greatly contributed to improving the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed all of your comments, and the corresponding revisions have been incorporated into the manuscript. All changes are highlighted in red in the revised version for your convenience.

Additionally, we have prepared a detailed, point-by-point response outlining how each of your comments has been addressed, which is included in the attached response file. We believe that these revisions have significantly enhanced the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reading this paper I have several recommendations to improve its quality:

• Literature review is overly descriptive and lacks synthesis
• Manuscript lacks a clear theoretical framework, there is no conceptual model linking export structure to broader economic development, so authors should identify research gaps and framing hypothesis.
• Only one indicator is used: the share of agriculture raw materials in total export which is considered not enough to claim "structural transformation"
• Tables and figures are just copy-paste, authors did not explain them at all
• Models such as for example ARIMA(2,1,6), ARIMA(2,1,2) etc. are not explained at all....
• Avoid policy recommendations unless supported by multi-dimensional analysis
• Limitations and future recommendations are missing in conclusion

Author Response

We thank you for your constructive feedback and valuable suggestions, which have greatly contributed to improving the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed all of your comments, and the corresponding revisions have been incorporated into the manuscript. All changes are highlighted in red in the revised version for your convenience. Additionally, we have prepared a detailed, point-by-point response outlining how each of your comments has been addressed, which is included in the attached response file. We believe that these revisions have significantly enhanced the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I do not have additional comments.

Good luck to the authors.