Import Risks of Agricultural Products in Foreign Trade
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Introduction
I consider it is important to add the references from which the risk types are obtained (lines 94-97).
In table 2, I think social risks could be considered as another group of risks, where aspects such as demonstrations, blockades, etc. are included.
In line 76, which country is referred to in the objective? With this sentence, it is implied that the study focuses on a specific country, however, in the results shown in table 2, there are results from 4 different countries. In case the research is focused on a specific country, it is important to go deeper in the analysis of the context of import risks in that particular country
Methodology
It would be interesting to comment through a robust literature the CIRA methodology, and specify if it has been used in other research fields.
I have not been able to understand the last methodological step, "Countries Import Risk Assessment". I do not know if this step is not necessary or if it has not been well developed.
Results
In my opinion, the results are very nice and valuable, but I consider that they should be better interpreted. At the moment the results are commented in a very general way. It would be interesting to make a much deeper analysis.
In table 7, total range column is the average of the results evaluated by the three methods (SAW, TOPSIS and GM). However, this is not explained in the methodology. It is not understood why the average is performed and not another type of deeper analysis. It would be interesting to clarify this point.
In order to be able to replicate this type of research, it would be advisable to annex the results of the surveys that allowed the quantitative analysis of the SAW, TOPSIS and geometric methods.
Discussion and conclusions
Discussion must be improved, more developed and supported by references (cross reference with the previous parts of the paper). Include more discussion about the factors that led to these specific results would be quite enriching for the paper.
Author Response
RESPONSES TO THE REVIEWER'S REMARKS
International Journal: Economies
Article: Import Risks of Agricultural Products in Foreign Trade
We thank the reviewers for their very thoughtful comments and useful suggestions. We will address each of them separately.
We believe that the manuscript is now suitable for publication.
Reviewer 1 comment:
I consider it is important to add The references from which the risk types are obtained (lines 94-97).
Response:
The references are added (lines 515). Thank you for your attention.
Reviewer 1 comment:
In table 2, I think social risks could be considered as another group of risks, where aspects such as demonstrations, blockades, etc. are included.
Response:
We agree that Social Risks could be singled out into a separate risk group. However, in our research we have singled out only the main, common for all import supply chain risk groups and there are not so many social risk factors, i.e. they are not the main ones in every supply flows (according to the literature), so social risks we have been added to the Political Risks Group (lines 275).
Reviewer 1 comment:
In line 76, which country is referred to in the objective? With this sentence, it is implied that the study focuses on a specific country, however, in the results shown in table 2, there are results from 4 different countries. In case the research is focused on a specific country, it is important to go deeper in the analysis of the context of import risks in that particular country.
Response:
We agree with the reviewer and add the explanation (lines 287-295): The case of one country (Lithuania) is analysed. So, most of the experts were from Lithuania. However, the international experts allowed us to see the situation from a broader perspective and to have an impartial opinion.
Reviewer 1 comment:
It would be interesting to comment through a robust literature the CIRA methodology, and specify if it has been used in other research fields.
Response:
We agree that there was not clear presented CIRA, so we add more information in text (lines 360, 427-429). We have created CIRA and it wasn’t used in other research fields.
Reviewer 1 comment:
I have not been able to understand the last methodological step, "Countries Import Risk Assessment". I do not know if this step is not necessary or if it has not been well developed.
Response:
We agree that there must be more explained for what purpose "Countries Import Risk Assessment" is needed. The explanations are added in text (lines 450-455).
Reviewer 1 comment:
In my opinion, the results are very nice and valuable, but I consider that they should be better interpreted. At the moment the results are commented in a very general way. It would be interesting to make a much deeper analysis.
Response:
We added more interpretations in text (lines 424-468).
Reviewer 1 comment:
In table 7, total range column is the average of the results evaluated by the three methods (SAW, TOPSIS and GM). However, this is not explained in the methodology. It is not understood why the average is performed and not another type of deeper analysis. It would be interesting to clarify this point.
Response:
We agree with the comment on why the average is performed and not another type of deeper analysis is used. There is a coincidence between all the assessments of the first three places and the last one. And there is a question about the allocation of two risk groups according to the importance (Supply risks or Management and operational risks are more important). We found that cumulative rank can be used according Palevičius et al. (2016) and add it to the text (lines 358-360).
Reviewer 1 comment:
In order to be able to replicate this type of research, it would be advisable to annex the results of the surveys that allowed the quantitative analysis of the SAW, TOPSIS and geometric methods.
Response:
In this survey, we presented not only the results of the three multicriteria methods SJ (SAW), Cj (TOPSIS) and GM (Geometric mean), but also the results of each respondent. They are visible in columns E1-E7 for each method in Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5.
Reviewer 1 comment:
Discussion must be improved, more developed and supported by references (cross reference with the previous parts of the paper). Include more discussion about the factors that led to these specific results would be quite enriching for the paper.
Response:
We agree with the comment and expand Discussions in text (lines 424-468).
Reviewer 2 Report
Interesting approach with an extensive literature review. Some other aspects might be also considered, e.g. how Free Trade Agreements are born (see among others: DOI: 10.14254/2071-8330.2020/13-1/3)
However, there are some concerns with the methodology and the results explanation:
1) In the paper CIRA method is mentioned several times but it is not explained
2) Please explain how you selected the experts mentioned in Table 2. Why are Lithuanian experts so overrepresented?
3) Table 3 and 4 are hard to follow, the lines are not matching with the first column.
4) Discussion and conclusions part should be strengthened, including more your own results.
Author Response
RESPONSES TO THE REVIEWER'S REMARKS
International Journal: Economies
Article: Import Risks of Agricultural Products in Foreign Trade
We thank the reviewers for their very thoughtful comments and useful suggestions. We will address each of them separately.
We believe that the manuscript is now suitable for publication.
Reviewer 2 comment:
Interesting approach with an extensive literature review. Some other aspects might be also considered, e.g. how Free Trade Agreements are born (see among others: DOI: 10.14254/2071-8330.2020/13-1/3)
Response:
Thank you for the suggestion. We add text on Free Trade Agreements (lines 231-243) with references.
Reviewer 2 comment:
However, there are some concerns with the methodology and the results explanation:
1)In the paper CIRA method is mentioned several times but it is not explained
Response:
We agree that there was not clear presented CIRA, so we add more information in text (lines 360, 427-429). We have created CIRA and it wasn’t used in other research fields.
2) Please explain how you selected the experts mentioned in Table 2. Why are Lithuanian experts so overrepresented?
Response:
We agree with the reviewer and add the explanation (lines XXX): The case of one country (Lithuania) is analysed. So, most of the experts were from Lithuania. However, the international experts allowed us to see the situation from a broader perspective and to have an impartial opinion.
3) Table 3 and 4 are hard to follow, the lines are not matching with the first column.
Response:
The Table 3 and Table 4 are reformatted. Thank you for your attention.
4) Discussion and conclusions part should be strengthened, including more your own results.
Response:
We agree with the comment and expand Discussions in text (lines 424-468).
Reviewer 3 Report
When reviewing scientific papers for publication, I usually start with a general overview in terms of a structure, abstract, literature review, methodology, findings of the research, discussion, conclusions, as well as limitations of the study and future directions of the research. I also pay attention to the language level, especially if the paper is written in English, and English is not the native language.
The reviewed paper entitled “Import Risks of Agricultural Products in Foreign Trade” is generally structured in a proper way. The important problem with the paper is that we do not have formulated hypotheses in this paper. Where is the research gap and its justification and hypotheses? There are some general information in "Introduction" and "Literature Analysis" sections. Please note that research hypotheses should be formulated in accordance to the following rules: 1) if…. then, or 2) ‘x phenomenon has a positive/negative impact on Y phenomenon. In this case there are just some sentences taken from the literature.
The literature review is quite good and is founded in the existing literature of the topic. Generally I claim that Author (s) provide theoretical foundations for the analysis using appropriate references. I would, however, recommend to add some references to “Discussion” section devoted to the latest literature associated with the topic in question (including Web of Science and Scopus papers).
A very weak point of this paper is "Discussion" section. This section should discuss the results achieved; In addition, there should be references to the results of other scholars. Unfortunately we have not too much in this part, and the second aspect is missing at all. Discussion is an interpretation of the results – implications, significance of results. Provide the response to the research question(s). Interpret results taking into account alternative explanations - where applicable. What are the practical implications (and theoretical –where applicable) suggested by the results of your research. New questions which emerge from your research. Be careful not to “go beyond” your data and results, in particular if the focus of your study is narrow. You can “suggest”, or even “speculate” in the discussion, but it must be clearly evident what is derived from a result and what is your suggestion, comment or speculation, ...
I also recommend a final proofreading of the paper to be done by the native speaker.
Author Response
RESPONSES TO THE REVIEWER'S REMARKS
International Journal: Economies
Article: Import Risks of Agricultural Products in Foreign Trade
We thank the reviewers for their very thoughtful comments and useful suggestions. We will address each of them separately.
We believe that the manuscript is now suitable for publication.
Reviewer 3 comment:
When reviewing scientific papers for publication, I usually start with a general overview in terms of a structure, abstract, literature review, methodology, findings of the research, discussion, conclusions, as well as limitations of the study and future directions of the research. I also pay attention to the language level, especially if the paper is written in English, and English is not the native language.
The reviewed paper entitled “Import Risks of Agricultural Products in Foreign Trade” is generally structured in a proper way. The important problem with the paper is that we do not have formulated hypotheses in this paper. Where is the research gap and its justification and hypotheses? There are some general information in "Introduction" and "Literature Analysis" sections. Please note that research hypotheses should be formulated in accordance to the following rules: 1) if…. then, or 2) ‘x phenomenon has a positive/negative impact on Y phenomenon. In this case there are just some sentences taken from the literature.
Response:
We agree with the comment and underline the research gap and its justification and hypotheses (lines 83-85).
Reviewer 3 comment:
The literature review is quite good and is founded in the existing literature of the topic. Generally I claim that Author (s) provide theoretical foundations for the analysis using appropriate references. I would, however, recommend to add some references to “Discussion” section devoted to the latest literature associated with the topic in question (including Web of Science and Scopus papers).
Response:
We agree with the comment and expand Discussions in text (lines 424-468).
Reviewer 3 comment:
A very weak point of this paper is "Discussion" section. This section should discuss the results achieved; In addition, there should be references to the results of other scholars. Unfortunately we have not too much in this part, and the second aspect is missing at all. Discussion is an interpretation of the results – implications, significance of results. Provide the response to the research question(s). Interpret results taking into account alternative explanations - where applicable. What are the practical implications (and theoretical –where applicable) suggested by the results of your research. New questions which emerge from your research. Be careful not to “go beyond” your data and results, in particular if the focus of your study is narrow. You can “suggest”, or even “speculate” in the discussion, but it must be clearly evident what is derived from a result and what is your suggestion, comment or speculation, ...
Response:
We agree with the comment and expand Discussions in text (lines 424-468).
Reviewer 3 comment:
I also recommend a final proofreading of the paper to be done by the native speaker.
Response:
The English text was revised with advanced Grammarly tool, and corrections are placed in-text appropriately.
Reviewer 4 Report
The topic is interesting actual and relevant.
The author(s) presented a very accurate and complete literature review with referred and actualized references. The multicriteria model is adjusted, but besides the normal presentation at the beginning we cannot understand what kind of conflict goals are presented. They are nor clearly identified. For example if that all the goals in risk groups include the minimization of risks, all of them ex: min(rij | i = 1, …, m), if j from Supply risks, demand risks, etc. Please explain better, because that step could also better explain the results obtained.
Minor revision
At the first paragraph in Abstract please clearly indicate the problem in study. Why your topic is important. You can find text from the introduction, because in that section you already explain that.
About the Policy and regulatory risks in my opinion you should refer in that type of risks the institutional risks. On the model you include together the Political risks and Policy and regulatory risks. This should refer the institutional risks.
On line 79 you refer “The risk 79 groups set out in this article could help to manage countries’ Argo trade.” Please adjust this is very limited.
Author Response
RESPONSES TO THE REVIEWER'S REMARKS
International Journal: Economies
Article: Import Risks of Agricultural Products in Foreign Trade
We thank the reviewers for their very thoughtful comments and useful suggestions. We will address each of them separately.
We believe that the manuscript is now suitable for publication.
Reviewer 4 comment:
The author(s) presented a very accurate and complete literature review with referred and actualized references. The multicriteria model is adjusted, but besides the normal presentation at the beginning we cannot understand what kind of conflict goals are presented. They are nor clearly identified. For example if that all the goals in risk groups include the minimization of risks, all of them ex: min (rij | i = 1, …, m), if j from Supply risks, demand risks, etc. Please explain better, because that step could also better explain the results obtained.
Response:
Risk groups are ranked in order to know which risk groups are the most important and which the country needs to manage first in order to ensure the management of the country’s import risk, and at the same time the country’s trade performance (lines 450-455).
Reviewer 4 comment:
At the first paragraph in Abstract please clearly indicate the problem in study. Why your topic is important. You can find text from the introduction, because in that section you already explain that.
Response: We agree with the comment and add the problem in the Abstract (lines 10-14).
Reviewer 4 comment:
About the Policy and regulatory risks in my opinion you should refer in that type of risks the institutional risks. On the model you include together the Political risks and Policy and regulatory risks. This should refer the institutional risks.
Response:
The institutional risks are included into the group of Policy and regulatory risks (lines 275).
Reviewer 4 comment:
On line 79 you refer “The risk groups set out in this article could help to manage countries’ Argo trade.” Please adjust this is very limited."
Response:
We argue that to know the priorities of risk groups helps to manage the country’s import risk more easily, and thus the country’s Agro trade, because imports are important for the country’s entire trade. For example, by establishing that the main focus should be on the management of Production risk group, the country’s focus will be on the management of these risk factors and, consequently, less attention will be wasted on the management of other risk groups. Other risk groups should receive attention depending on their ranking (lines 450-455).
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for considering my comments. In my opinion, the article can be published.
