Competitiveness and Diversification in Grape Exports: Keys to Their Sustainability in Global Markets

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My suggestions for the authors to improve the quality of the manuscript agriculture-3784829 are the following:

(1) The authors claim that “The study concluded that no country achieved an ideal balance between diversification and competitiveness”, but this balance between diversification is not sufficiently described. I suggest further explaining the conceptual correlation between diversification, agricultural competitiveness and sustainability, especially from the perspective of the economic pillar of sustainable development. For reference, please consider the conceptual link presented in https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12020232.
(2) The introduction touches upon major wine producers like Italy, Spain, and other traditional European producers, among others, but the reviewed studies are consistently dealing with the revealed comparative advantage (RCA) as a proxy for competitiveness, and it becomes repetitive (same for Mexico one paragraph above). Please consider expanding the analysis with other metrics of grape-wine competitiveness assessment methods (https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2025/69/313).
(3) Although this research is justified comprehensively before the literature review (Subsection 1.1), the research objective is not explicitly stated. Please consider improving this aspect.
(4) In the methodology section, I propose the authors present the formulas utilized RCA, HHI etc. The selected timeframe (2018–2022) is relatively short and includes years with major global disruptions (referring to the COVID-19 pandemic), which could bias observed export values and concentration trends. Please justify the temporal scope and explicitly discuss how temporary shocks may have influenced the HHI and RCA values.
(5) The manuscript could benefit from the development of inferential or explanatory modeling to empirically test the relationship between export diversification and outcome competitiveness variables, thereby moving beyond descriptive diagnostics and offering a more explanatory and policy-relevant framework. The research findings rely heavily on the values of two indicators; hence I am kindly asking for robustness check to test results sensitivity.
(6) Although the article concludes with several policy recommendations aimed at enhancing the sustainability of grape exports, these suggestions appear generic and insufficiently anchored in the empirical findings. The proposed interventions are presented with little differentiation across the diverse competitiveness and concentration profiles revealed through the HHI and RCA indices. The absence of diagnostic clarity regarding the structural origins of competitiveness loss (could be logistics, certifications, trade barriers or/and others) further weakens the causal link between observed outcomes and proposed remedies. Because of this weak point of the manuscript, the policy section reads more as a generic wish list than an analytically grounded, empirically driven vision for development, capable to deliver sustainable systemic competitiveness throughout the value chain (https://doi.org/10.3390/land14040731). Please consider reassessing the policy recommendation through the lens of the systemic nature of competitiveness, which would lead to a more comprehensive and sustainable manner of attaining sustainability.
(7) The reference list does not respect the technical notes of the journal and I am kindly asking the authors to revise accordingly. Please double check if you really want to cite paper 39, as it is retracted. 

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer’s observations and suggestions, all of which have been addressed in the revised version of the manuscript. Adjustments have been made to clarify the conceptual relationship between diversification, competitiveness, and sustainability, explicitly state the research objective, detail the formulation of indicators, and justify the temporal scope. The empirical basis of the policy recommendations has also been strengthened by addressing the structural causes of competitiveness loss within the framework of systemic competitiveness. It is important to note that the references suggested by the reviewer have been considered and cited, ensuring a more comprehensive discussion aligned with the journal’s standards.

Reviewer 1

 

(1) The authors claim that “The study concluded that no country achieved an ideal balance between diversification and competitiveness”, but this balance between diversification is not sufficiently described. I suggest further explaining the conceptual correlation between diversification, agricultural competitiveness and sustainability, especially from the perspective of the economic pillar of sustainable development. For reference, please consider the conceptual link presented in https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12020232.

Response: The theoretical explanation in the introduction was expanded to link diversification, agricultural competitiveness, and economic sustainability, following the suggested reference.

 

(2) The introduction touches upon major wine producers like Italy, Spain, and other traditional European producers, among others, but the reviewed studies are consistently dealing with the revealed comparative advantage (RCA) as a proxy for competitiveness, and it becomes repetitive (same for Mexico one paragraph above). Please consider expanding the analysis with other metrics of grape-wine competitiveness assessment methods (https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2025/69/313).

Response: The discussion on grape competitiveness assessment was strengthened by expanding the conceptual context of RCA with insights from recent approaches, as per the suggested reference.

 

(3) Although this research is justified comprehensively before the literature review (Subsection 1.1), the research objective is not explicitly stated. Please consider improving this aspect.

Response: The research objective was explicitly added at the end of the introduction.

 

(4) In the methodology section, I propose the authors present the formulas utilized RCA, HHI etc. The selected timeframe (2018–2022) is relatively short and includes years with major global disruptions (referring to the COVID-19 pandemic), which could bias observed export values and concentration trends. Please justify the temporal scope and explicitly discuss how temporary shocks may have influenced the HHI and RCA values.

Response: RCA and HHI formulas were added, the 2020–2024 period was justified, and COVID-19’s impact on the indicators was discussed.

 

(5) The manuscript could benefit from the development of inferential or explanatory modeling to empirically test the relationship between export diversification and outcome competitiveness variables, thereby moving beyond descriptive diagnostics and offering a more explanatory and policy-relevant framework. The research findings rely heavily on the values of two indicators; hence I am kindly asking for robustness check to test results sensitivity.

Response: Methodological limitations were acknowledged, and robustness checks were recommended for future research.

 

(6) Although the article concludes with several policy recommendations aimed at enhancing the sustainability of grape exports, these suggestions appear generic and insufficiently anchored in the empirical findings. The proposed interventions are presented with little differentiation across the diverse competitiveness and concentration profiles revealed through the HHI and RCA indices. The absence of diagnostic clarity regarding the structural origins of competitiveness loss (could be logistics, certifications, trade barriers or/and others) further weakens the causal link between observed outcomes and proposed remedies. Because of this weak point of the manuscript, the policy section reads more as a generic wish list than an analytically grounded, empirically driven vision for development, capable to deliver sustainable systemic competitiveness throughout the value chain (https://doi.org/10.3390/land14040731). Please consider reassessing the policy recommendation through the lens of the systemic nature of competitiveness, which would lead to a more comprehensive and sustainable manner of attaining sustainability.

Response: Policy recommendations were reformulated to link them with the findings and consider structural causes of competitiveness.

 

(7) The reference list does not respect the technical notes of the journal and I am kindly asking the authors to revise accordingly. Please double check if you really want to cite paper 39, as it is retracted.

Response: The reference list was adjusted to the journal’s format

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled "Competitiveness and Diversification in Grape Exports: Keys to Their Sustainability in Global Markets" to Agriculture. Your topic is highly relevant to global agricultural trade and provides a valuable cross-national assessment of diversification and competitiveness using HHI and NRCA indices. However, before the manuscript can be considered for publication, several key areas require substantial revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The study’s topical relevance and current data render it publishable in principle; nevertheless, the manuscript requires major structural, methodological, and editorial corrections to reach the clarity, transparency, and scholarly rigour expected by the journal. Addressing the listed major concerns is essential before the work can be reconsidered for acceptance.

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer’s assessment and constructive feedback, which have guided a substantial revision of the manuscript to enhance clarity, methodological rigor, and coherence. The introduction was restructured to remove redundancies and improve logical sequencing, with smoother transitions between sections and case studies. The methodology section has been expanded to include the full derivation of the NRCA index, detailed data-cleaning procedures, and replicability considerations. Table caption errors were corrected, and the empirical foundation of policy recommendations was strengthened to ensure closer alignment with the presented findings.

Reviewer 2

 

General Overview

This manuscript examines the sustainability of global table-grape exports (2020–2024) by

coupling market diversification (HHI) with competitiveness (NRCA) across the seven dominant exporters. Its quantitative scope, current data set, and cross-country comparison address a clear gap in agri-trade literature and offer potentially valuable insights for policy makers. The article is well-structured overall and grounded in relevant theory; however, pervasive weaknesses in writing clarity, data presentation, methodological transparency, and reference discipline impede its scientific rigour and communication effectiveness. Substantial re-working is necessary before the paper can meet the standards of Agriculture Journal.

Response: Writing clarity, data presentation, and methodological transparency were improved.

 

Major Concerns

1. Redundant and unfocused introduction (Page 2, Section 1, Lines 56–83): repeated

statistics on exporter concentration blur the statement of purpose and disrupt logical flow.

Response: Redundancy in the introduction was reduced

 

2. Abrupt narrative shifts (Page 3, Lines 93–112): transition from Peru’s growth to

Mexico’s decline lacks connective argumentation, undermining inductive coherence.

Response: A connective argument was added between the Peru and Mexico cases.

 

3. Inadequate methodological detail (Page 7, Section 2, Lines 295–345): NRCA formula

derivation, data-cleaning steps, and significance testing are omitted, limiting replicability.

Response: Methodological details on NRCA calculation, data cleaning, and limitations were added.

 

4. Caption mislabelling of tables—e.g., Table 4 heading cites “Peru” but contains

Netherlands data (Page 9, Lines 379–386).

Response: The caption of Table 4 was corrected to match its content.

 

5. Absence of graphical visualization (Results Section, Pages 8–14): eleven dense tables

are presented without figures to illustrate HHI/NRCA trends, impeding intuitive

interpretation.

Response: No graphs were added; the tabular presentation was maintained to preserve data comparability

 

6. Terminology inconsistency (Page 7, Lines 337–345): the indices are alternately called

“NRCA”, “RCAN”, and “Balassa’s RCA” without clear definition hierarchy.

Response: Terminology was unified, using “RCAN” as the standard term.

 

7. Over-reliance on self-citation (References, Pages 17–20): four core citations are by the

lead author(s), potentially biasing literature coverage.

Response: Self-citations were retained due to their relevance and contribution to understanding the problem context.

 

8. Policy recommendations exceed evidence base (Conclusion, Page 16, Lines 619–645):

proposals for trade-fair participation and phytosanitary agreements are advanced without

supporting analysis in the Results.

Response: Policy recommendations were improved and grounded in specific results from the study.

 

Minor Concerns

1. Wordiness and stylistic redundancy (Page 3-4, Lines 118–147): phrases such as

“rapidly increased both the value and volume” reduce concision.

Response: Conciseness in lengthy paragraphs was improved.

 

2. Tense inconsistency (Results Section, Page 9, Lines 392–397): alternation between past

and present verbs weakens stylistic uniformity.

Response: Verb tense in the results was standardized.

 

3. Metaphorical language (Page 2, Lines 74–78): expressions like “eroded the ground of

traditional producers” detract from technical precision.

Response: Metaphorical language was replaced with technical expressions.

 

4. Unit formatting inconsistency (Throughout tables): mixed use of “USD million”,

“USD 1.7 billion”, and commas/points in thousands.

Response: Monetary unit formatting and number separators were standardized.

 

5. Outdated or non-peer-reviewed sources (Page 18, Ref. 9; news-media URLs) dilute

scholarly authority.

Response: Outdated and non-academic sources were removed.

 

6. Reference formatting drift (Page 18, Lines 698–704): inconsistent journal abbreviations

and DOI placement relative to Sustainability guidelines.

Response: References were formatted according to the journal’s guidelines.

 

The study’s topical relevance and current data render it publishable in principle; nevertheless, the manuscript requires major structural, methodological, and editorial corrections to reach the clarity, transparency, and scholarly rigour expected by the journal. Addressing the listed major concerns is essential before the work can be reconsidered for acceptance.

Response: : The relevance of the observations is acknowledged, and structural, methodological, and editorial improvements have been implemented to enhance the manuscript’s clarity, transparency, and scholarly rigour, addressing the points raised.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript "Competitiveness and Diversification in Grape Exports: Keys to Their Sustainability in Global Markets" addresses a topic of interest to researchers in agricultural economics and readers of Agriculture. The paper deals with the analysis of the sustainability of the export of fresh grapes in the period from 2020 to 2024, with a special focus on two key aspects: market diversification and international competitiveness. Using the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI) and the normalized index of revealed comparative advantage (RCAN), the authors analyze the export performance of leading exporters—including Peru, Chile, Italy, the Netherlands, the United States, South Africa, and China. The main contribution of the work is reflected in providing a quantitative (combining two complementary indicators HHI and RCAN) and comparative analysis of the export structure and competitiveness of countries, with a clear identification of vulnerabilities resulting from high market concentration and reliance on a limited number of buyers. Methodologically, the work is well structured, with clearly defined indicators and data analysis from international databases such as the Trade Map. The theoretical framework relies on classical theories of comparative advantages, but also on modern approaches to sustainable export. Also, the paper gives clear recommendations to economic policymakers. I believe that the paper meets the requirements for publication in the journal Agriculture after the minor corrections that can improve the quality of the paper:

 

• In the introduction, authors should include a hypothesis for the paper (not only the main question), as well as outline its structure.
• As the period covers 2020-2024, the authorities should comment on whether there are any trade distortions as a result of the COVID-19 crisis.
• In one paragraph, the authors should emphasize the limitations of the study, especially in the context of potential criticism of the indicators (which are known in the literature).
• Authors should emphasize what could be potential topics for future research.

 

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer’s comments and suggestions, which have contributed to improving the manuscript. The introduction was expanded to include the working hypothesis along with an outline of the article’s structure to guide the reader. A dedicated paragraph was included to explicitly address the study’s limitations, incorporating considerations on the criticisms found in the literature regarding these indicators. Finally, the conclusion section was expanded to highlight potential avenues for future research, in alignment with the findings and identified gaps.

Reviewer 3

 

The manuscript "Competitiveness and Diversification in Grape Exports: Keys to Their Sustainability in Global Markets" addresses a topic of interest to researchers in agricultural economics and readers of Agriculture. The paper deals with the analysis of the sustainability of the export of fresh grapes in the period from 2020 to 2024, with a special focus on two key aspects: market diversification and international competitiveness. Using the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI) and the normalized index of revealed comparative advantage (RCAN), the authors analyze the export performance of leading exporters—including Peru, Chile, Italy, the Netherlands, the United States, South Africa, and China. The main contribution of the work is reflected in providing a quantitative (combining two complementary indicators HHI and RCAN) and comparative analysis of the export structure and competitiveness of countries, with a clear identification of vulnerabilities resulting from high market concentration and reliance on a limited number of buyers. Methodologically, the work is well structured, with clearly defined indicators and data analysis from international databases such as the Trade Map. The theoretical framework relies on classical theories of comparative advantages, but also on modern approaches to sustainable export. Also, the paper gives clear recommendations to economic policymakers. I believe that the paper meets the requirements for publication in the journal Agriculture after the minor corrections that can improve the quality of the paper:

 

In the introduction, authors should include a hypothesis for the paper (not only the main question), as well as outline its structure.

Response: A hypothesis and the paper’s structure were added in the introducti

 

As the period covers 2020-2024, the authorities should comment on whether there are any trade distortions as a result of the COVID-19 crisis.

Response: Trade distortions from COVID-19 were discussed.

 

In one paragraph, the authors should emphasize the limitations of the study, especially in the context of potential criticism of the indicators (which are known in the literature).

Response: A paragraph on study limitations and criticisms of the indicators was included.

 

 

Authors should emphasize what could be potential topics for future research.

Response: Potential topics for future research were indicated.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved according to the suggestions.

Author Response

It was reviewed and improved.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the Authors

Thank you for the revision. The topic—assessing the sustainability of global table-grape exports (2020–2024) by combining market concentration (HHI) and normalized revealed comparative advantage (NRCA)—is timely and policy-relevant. The manuscript is generally better organized; I appreciate the clearer methods section, the improved transition between Peru and Mexico, and the correction of the earlier table-caption error. However, several substantive issues remain before the paper can meet the journal’s standards. My recommendation at this stage is Major Revision with the following required actions.

Major issues to address

1. Add essential figures (currently results are tables only).
   Please include:

   • A country 2×2 plot with mean HHI (x-axis) vs. mean NRCA (y-axis) for 2020–2024.

   • Time-series line charts (2020–2024) for HHI and an illustrative market-level NRCA for 2–3 representative countries.

   • A 2024 bubble chart (export value vs. HHI; bubble size = total exports).
     Figures are necessary to make trends and cross-country contrasts interpretable at a glance.

2. Provide statistical support or delimit claims.
   At minimum, report simple trend tests (e.g., linear trend or Mann–Kendall) for 2020–2024 HHI/NRCA and add uncertainty (e.g., bootstrapped CIs for mean NRCA). If you prefer to keep the analysis descriptive, please explicitly state that choice and refrain from inferential or causal language.

3. Standardize terminology.
   The manuscript alternates between NRCA, RCAN, and references to (Balassa’s) RCA. Choose one label (NRCA recommended) and apply it consistently across text, tables, and captions, clarifying its relation to classical RCA.

4. Data verification and label consistency.

   • Re-check at least one implausible value (e.g., a spike for Chile’s exports to the Netherlands in 2022) against the original source.

   • Harmonize end-row labels (“World” vs. “Total”) and ensure all table captions precisely match their contents.

5. Reference discipline and coverage.
   Reduce reliance on self-citations and replace non-peer-reviewed media items with peer-reviewed literature or official statistics where feasible. Ensure all references comply with the journal’s style (abbreviations, DOI placement).

6. Clean copy requirement.
   The PDF still shows track-changes artifacts (e.g., “Deleted:”/“Formatted:”). Please submit a clean version with all changes accepted.

7. Link recommendations to your quantitative evidence.
   Anchor each policy recommendation to specific numeric findings (e.g., “Because Country A’s HHI is X and NRCA in Market B declined to Y, we recommend…”). This strengthens the practical value of the work.

8. Tighten the Introduction further.
   Remove repeated concentration statistics and sharpen the statement of purpose and contribution. One cohesive paragraph on concentration is sufficient; move country vignettes to literature/context if needed.

Minor/clarity edits

• Maintain consistent verb tense in Results.

• Replace any residual metaphorical phrasing with technical wording.

• Ensure unit formatting and thousand/decimal separators are uniform across all tables (e.g., “USD million”; consistent rounding).

• State explicit HHI interpretation thresholds and briefly explain how to interpret negative vs. positive NRCA for readers outside trade-metrics circles.

• Double-check all table captions and market labels for accuracy.

With these changes, the paper will communicate its contributions much more convincingly and will be substantially closer to publishable quality.

Author Response

Major issues to address

1. Add essential figures (currently results are tables only).
   Please include:
• A country 2×2 plot with mean HHI (x-axis) vs. mean NRCA (y-axis) for 2020–2024.
• Time-series line charts (2020–2024) for HHI and an illustrative market-level NRCA for 2–3 representative countries.
• A 2024 bubble chart (export value vs. HHI; bubble size = total exports).
  Figures are necessary to make trends and cross-country contrasts interpretable at a glance.

 

The requested figures  have been incorporated to enhance the analysis. However, in certain cases, tables were retained as they provide a more precise and quantitative representation of the results.

 

1. Provide statistical support or delimit claims.
   At minimum, report simple trend tests (e.g., linear trend or Mann–Kendall) for 2020–2024 HHI/NRCA and add uncertainty (e.g., bootstrapped CIs for mean NRCA). If you prefer to keep the analysis descriptive, please explicitly state that choice and refrain from inferential or causal language.

 

The methodology was reinforced to clarify that the study follows a quantitative descriptive approach; accordingly, the analysis is presented in descriptive terms, and inferential or causal claims have been deliberately avoided.

 

1. Standardize terminology.
   The manuscript alternates between NRCA, RCAN, and references to (Balassa’s) RCA. Choose one label (NRCA recommended) and apply it consistently across text, tables, and captions, clarifying its relation to classical RCA.

 

In accordance with the suggestions, terminology was standardized throughout the manuscript. It is explicitly clarified that RCA and NRCA are distinct measures, and the analysis was conducted exclusively with NRCA, which has been applied consistently across the text, tables, and figure captions, while also noting its relation to the classical RCA.

 

1. Data verification and label consistency.
• Re-check at least one implausible value (e.g., a spike for Chile’s exports to the Netherlands in 2022) against the original source.
• Harmonize end-row labels (“World” vs. “Total”) and ensure all table captions precisely match their contents.

 

The data were re-verified, and the reported value corresponds to the official sources. In addition, label consistency was ensured by harmonizing end-row entries to read “Total” across all tables, and captions were adjusted to precisely match their contents.

 

 

 

 

1. Reference discipline and coverage.
   Reduce reliance on self-citations and replace non-peer-reviewed media items with peer-reviewed literature or official statistics where feasible. Ensure all references comply with the journal’s style (abbreviations, DOI placement).

 

The references were carefully reviewed. While the use of peer-reviewed literature was prioritized, the inclusion of national statistics and official reports was deemed essential, as they provide authoritative data directly relevant to the study. Given the limited availability of peer-reviewed research in Peru applying these indicators, some self-citations and official statistical sources were retained, as they synthesize and report the most reliable information available. All references have been revised to comply with the journal’s style requirements, including abbreviations and DOI placement.

 

1. Clean copy requirement.
   The PDF still shows track-changes artifacts (e.g., “Deleted:”/“Formatted:”). Please submit a clean version with all changes accepted.

 

A clean version of the manuscript with all changes accepted has been prepared and submitted, ensuring that no track-change artifacts remain in the PDF.

 

1. Link recommendations to your quantitative evidence.
   Anchor each policy recommendation to specific numeric findings (e.g., “Because Country A’s HHI is X and NRCA in Market B declined to Y, we recommend…”). This strengthens the practical value of the work.

 

All policy recommendations were explicitly anchored to specific numerical findings in the corresponding section (e.g., linking HHI and NRCA values to tailored policy actions), thereby strengthening the practical relevance of the study.

 

1. Tighten the Introduction further.
   Remove repeated concentration statistics and sharpen the statement of purpose and contribution. One cohesive paragraph on concentration is sufficient; move country vignettes to literature/context if needed.

 

The introduction was refined by removing repeated concentration statistics and consolidating them into a single cohesive paragraph. The statement of purpose and contribution was sharpened, and the country-specific details were relocated to the literature/context section to improve clarity and focus.

Minor/clarity edits

• Maintain consistent verb tense in Results.
• Replace any residual metaphorical phrasing with technical wording.
• Ensure unit formatting and thousand/decimal separators are uniform across all tables (e.g., “USD million”; consistent rounding).
• State explicit HHI interpretation thresholds and briefly explain how to interpret negative vs. positive NRCA for readers outside trade-metrics circles.
• Double-check all table captions and market labels for accuracy.

With these changes, the paper will communicate its contributions much more convincingly and will be substantially closer to publishable quality.

 

 

It was reviewed and improved.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf