Trends and Challenges in Gum Arabic Markets in Key Producing Countries in Africa (Sudan, Chad, Nigeria, and Senegal)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides a comprehensive analysis of the Arabic gum market, focusing on production trends, value chain dynamics, and challenges in key African countries.  Its focus on equitable value distribution and sustainable practices aligns well with global development goals. 

[1] The specific methods (e.g., criteria for data selection, limitations of secondary data) could be elaborated further

[2] The analysis heavily emphasizes Sudan, with less detailed discussion on Chad, Nigeria, and Senegal. A more balanced regional comparison would enhance the study’s comprehensiveness.

[3] Some figures (e.g., Figure 1, Figure 3) are referenced but not included in the provided text. Ensure all visual aids are accessible and clearly labeled.

[4] Minor grammatical errors and repetitive phrases (e.g., "value addition" frequently reiterated) could be refined for smoother readability.

[5] Link findings more explicitly to existing literature (e.g., how results align or contrast with prior studies cited in references).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We sincerely thank all reviewers for their constructive and detailed feedback, which helped improve the quality and clarity of this paper significantly.

I have incorporated my responses to the comments and revised the manuscript accordingly, where necessary

Comment 1: Further elaboration of methods is needed.

Response: Addressed in the expanded Methods section with a clearer description of data sources, criteria, and limitations, especially in the Methods section.

Comment 2: Imbalanced focus—too much emphasis on Sudan.

Response: Additional content has been added on Chad, Nigeria, and Senegal, particularly in trade trends, policy environments, and production structure.

Comment 3: Missing figures.

Response: Figures 1 and 3 have been added and labeled appropriately. I checked the rest of the figures as well.

Comment 4: Repetitive phrases and grammar issues.

Response: The manuscript has been edited to remove redundant phrasing and correct grammatical issues, such as value-added.

Comment 5: Better linkage to literature.

Response: A new discussion subsection includes a comparison of results with prior studies, highlighting alignment and contrasts.

Thank you for your valuable comments on the paper and for helping improve it.

Attached Revised Manuscript 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. This article claims to adopt the "quantities analytical approach" (line 106 on page 2), but it does not present any econometric models, statistical tests or data analysis methods throughout. The so-called "time series analysis" is actually just descriptive statistics and data listing (such as the export trend description on page 3), without the modeling process, regression results or confidence intervals, etc. It seriously violates the basic norms that "quantitative analysis" should have, resulting in the major academic problem of "mismatch between the title and the method".
2. A large amount of the data in the article comes from secondary data sources such as ITC and WITS (such as Table 1 on page 4 and Table 2 on page 5), but the author has not fully explained the economic implications behind the data. For example, it is mentioned in lines 166-167 on page 5 that "France nearly tripled its export revenue despite a drop in quantity", but the structural reasons for the increase in the unit price of exports are not analyzed. Instead, figures like "price per kg" are repeatedly piled up. In addition, there is also the phenomenon of mechanical application in literature citation. For instance, [21] and [28] are actually from the same data site (Tridge), but they are repeated multiple times in the main text, lacking the rigor of citation.
3. This article explicitly raises three research questions on lines 97-100 of page 3, including "The trend of global market growth", "How African countries seize opportunities", and "factors hindering local value-added", but the subsequent content does not systematically answer these questions. In particular, the third issue - "factors hindering local value-added" - should be clarified through field research, interview data or institutional analysis. However, the author only provides some descriptive speculations on lines 293-310 on page 9 and has not formed a logically consistent theoretical chain.
4. The article extensively describes the "Arabic gum value chain" (including from collection, grading, processing to export) from pages 7 to 9. The content is highly repetitive with FAO reports or existing literature such as [2], [30], etc., and there is no substantive theoretical extension or case deepening. The value chain shown in Figure 4 (page 8) is also extremely simplified, lacking analysis of economic dimensions such as institutional structure, governance mechanism, and transaction costs, and thus fails to reflect the theoretical or methodological contributions that an academic paper should have.
5. On the conclusion section of page 10, lines 311-322 mention suggestions such as "increasing farmers' selling prices by 30-50%" and "improving market access for exports", but these predictions have neither quantitative support based on models nor data verification from field investigations. Take a 30-50% price increase as an example. The author did not explain the basis of the estimation, the price transmission mechanism, or the institutional guarantee. It is a groundless assumption and lacks empirical evidence.
6. There are many obvious grammatical errors and non-standard expressions in the text. Such as "quantities analytical approach", "amount of Arabic gam imported", "gam should be gum", "this. Such as "show the variation in prices" (subject-predicate inconsistency), seriously affect the understanding of international readers. Furthermore, there is also confusion in the use of terms. For example, "value addition" is frequently mixed with "markup", and the difference between "local processing" and "post-harvest processing" is not clearly defined.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I have addressed all feedback points and implemented the necessary revisions in the manuscript

Comment 1: The article claims a "quantities analytical approach" but lacks econometric models or statistical analysis.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The language has been corrected from "quantities analytical" to "descriptive analytical." The limitations of this approach and rationale for not using econometrics are now included.

Comment 2: Secondary data is not fully explained, and economic implications of key figures are missing.

Response: The economic meaning of key trends, especially value addition in importing countries (e.g., France), has been clarified. The Methods and Results sections now include more thorough explanations of trends and implications. Repeated citation corrected.

France nearly tripled its export revenue despite a drop in quantity. We added the structural reasons that The sharp rise in unit price reflects France's role in processing raw gum into high-value derivatives, such as spray-dried powders and certified food/pharmaceutical-grade ingredients. These products command premium prices in global markets. Additionally, France benefits from advanced branding, packaging, regulatory compliance (e.g., organic, GMP, Fair Trade), and strong access to high-income buyers. Thus, the revenue growth stems from economic upgrading along the value chain, not volume expansion.

Comment 3: Research questions are not systematically addressed.

Response: The paper has been reorganized to clearly address the three research questions in the Results and Discussion sections. line 319 – 331 added explanation

Comment 4: The value chain section lacks theoretical extension.

Response: The Value Chain section has been enhanced to reflect governance, cost structures, and trade bottlenecks. Links to institutional and policy dimensions have been added. See Line 300 -311.

Comment 5: The 30–50% farmgate price increase claim is unsupported.

Response: Thank you for this important point. Correct, the statement suggesting a 30–50% increase in farmers' prices has no direct empirical support; however, we used it instead to refer to potential income improvements based on existing literature and evidence tied to quality certification, cooperative marketing, and local processing. Added to the conclusion justification.

This estimate has been revised and replaced with a more cautious, literature-based discussion of price improvements tied to quality certification and cooperative selling.

Comment 6: Numerous grammatical and terminology issues.

Response: The entire manuscript has been proofread and revised for grammar, terminology consistency, and style. Terms like "markup," "value addition," and "post-harvest processing" are now used with greater precision.

Gam – Gum, quantities analytical approach (changed), amount of Arabic gum imported (improved), post-harvest (changed), markup (improved the text), value addition (improved)

 

Thanks,

I truly appreciate your feedback on the paper; your insights made it significantly clearer!

Attached Revised Manuscript 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1. The introduction does not give sufficient description of research gap. It is not clear what is the hypothesis and reserach question. Please provide more description of the research problem.
2. the data and method chapter is completly not described. The reader does not know which method and why has been used.
3. The results is not completly described and does not include statistical analysis.
4. The conclusion does not answer and present results concerning aims, hypothesis and policy implications.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper requires deep correction before considering for publication.

 

As above. Paper needs deep correction and improvement.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

I truly appreciate your feedback on the paper; your insights made it significantly clearer!

I have addressed all feedback points and implemented the necessary revisions in the manuscript

Comment 1: The introduction does not give sufficient description of research gap. It is not clear what is the hypothesis and research question. Please provide more description of the research problem.

Response: Thank you for this observation. The introduction has been revised to clearly define the research gap, articulate the research problem, and present three explicit research questions. A hypothesis has also been introduced, focusing on the limited value addition in African Arabic gum-producing countries despite growing global demand.

Comment 2: The data and method chapter is completely not described. The reader does not know which method and why has been used.

Response: The Methods section has been expanded to clarify the descriptive analytical approach used, criteria for secondary data selection, and limitations of using such data. Justification for using trade statistics and value chain analysis is now clearly stated. This study is limited by its reliance on secondary data, which may lack granularity or real-time accuracy. Additionally, due to data constraints, no econometric models or inferential statistics (e.g., regressions, significance testing) were applied. The findings are therefore descriptive and exploratory, intended to inform policy and future empirical research rather than establish causality.

Comment 3: The results are not completely described and do not include statistical analysis.

Response: The Results section has been revised to interpret data with added growth rates, trends, and economic implications of price variations. While econometric models were not feasible due to data constraints, relevant descriptive statistics have been added.

Comment 4: The conclusion does not answer and present results concerning aims, hypothesis, and policy implications.

Response: The Conclusion has been rewritten to directly reflect back on the research questions and hypothesis, summarize key findings, and provide evidence-based policy recommendations.

Thank you for your valuable comments on the manuscript – they were instrumental in refining our arguments

Attached Revised Manuscript 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article received for review, entitled “Trends and Challenges in Arabic Gum Markets in Key African Producing Countries (Sudan, Chad, Nigeria, and Senegal)” highlights recent developments in the gum arabic sector in four of the most important producers globally.
The author of this material presents an overview of the trade evolution, regarding prices, volumes, export destinations and tries to identify the main challenges faced by local actors. Issues such as the lack of local processing, the dependence of producers on raw exports, weak integration in value chains and poor infrastructure are highlighted.
The imbalances between African countries as producers and large processing countries, which benefit from the added value, are presented.
The article presents emerging opportunities such as the use of gum arabic in the bioeconomy, functional nutrition or the 3D printing industry.
To produce the article, the author uses statistical data from international sources such as FAO, UNCTAD, ITC.
The methodology used by the author is vaguely presented, its improvement is requested.
It is recommended to identify and present the research hypotheses.
It is recommended to present the research limits.
The conclusions are vaguely presented, their improvement is recommended.
Please provide the source of the figures below. If they are made by you, please mention this aspect.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

I have addressed all feedback points and implemented the necessary revisions in the manuscript:

Comment 1: Methodology is vague; improve.

Response: The Methods section has been revised to detail data selection, analysis techniques, and their limitations.

Comment 2: Identify and present research hypotheses.

Response: A clear hypothesis has been introduced in the revised introduction.

Comment 3: Present research limitations.

Response: A new subsection on limitations has been added to the Discussion section.

Comment 4: Improve conclusions.

Response: The Conclusion section has been revised to summarize findings, address questions, and include more realistic policy implications.

Comment 5: Clarify figure sources.

Response: Figure sources are now listed; all figures created by the author are labeled as such.

I truly appreciate your feedback on the paper; your insights made it significantly clearer!

Thanks

Attached Revised Manuscript 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no more comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors responded to my comments and improved the paper. It can be published.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the article in accordance with the recommendations submitted.