The Influence of GVC Participation and Division of Labor Status on the Comparative Advantage of China’s Wood-Based Panel Industry
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Review of manuscript:
The Influence of GCV Participation and Division of Labor Status on The Comparative Advantage of China's Wood-based Panel Industry
The topics of the manuscript generally correspond to the purpose of the journal 'Forests'. The conclusions of the data analysis after appropriate corrections can be helpful in the field of forestry-related sciences and industry.
I am convinced that the correct methodology was applied.
Points for improvement
1) The title of the article should abbreviate the words: global value chain ‘GVC’ instead of ’GCV’.
2) L12: The word: ‘This…’ has been unnecessarily written in bold.
3) L190: Rresearch Method --> Research Method
4) Change the citation format throughout the text:
For example:
‘… trade[1-2],’ should be replaced by: ‘…[1-2].’
5) Please correct the numbering of all Tables.
6) L380:
Please replace:
5.2. variable selection --> 5.2. Variable selection
7) L367:
Incorrect numbering of subsection.
4.1 --> 5.1
8) The chapter ‘7. Discussion and Conclusion’ should be divided:
‘7. Discussion’
‘8. Conclusions’
9) Careless preparation of the References list! The Authors have not taken into account the standards used in the MDPI publication. The following is an example, which I would like you to consider as a model.
Betlej, I.; Antczak, A.; Szadkowski, J.; Drożdżek, M.; Krajewski, K.; Radomski, A.; Zawadzki, J.; Borysiak, S. Evaluation of the Hydrolysis Efficiency of Bacterial Cellulose Gel Film after the Liquid Hot Water and Steam Explosion Pretreatments. Polymers 2022, 14, 2032. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14102032
Author Response
dear reviewer,
Thank you for your constructive comments on this article in your busy schedule. All of us authors have carefully read the comments that you have given us, and have discussed and revised each of these issues. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors,
Your proposed manuscript is a regional competitive analysis of the wood-based panel industry. The article contains a lot of data and analysis. The results are discussed, and main conclusions are drawn. I have identified some issues and have some recommendations.
1. Аbreviations such as RCEP, GVC or others to be described in words at first appearance in the text
2. Some abbreviations do not match the description in the text, such as Comparative Advantage Index (RCA), which is Revealed comparative advantages (RCA)
3. The term “artificial board industry” sounds inadequate. It is mostly known as the wood-based panel industry.
4. Table 3 to be corrected to 3.1
5. There is an error in the calculation of the mean value of 𝑩𝒊∗𝒌 Index of China in Table 3.1. It is not 0.17. Change needed in the text where the result for 𝑩𝒊∗𝒌 Index for China is analysed.
6. In Table 3.2, data for 𝐍𝐁∗Index of China are missing.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your constructive comments on this article in your busy schedule. All of us authors have carefully read the comments that you have given us, and have discussed and revised each of these issues. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. The following is my list of revisions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The topic of the research work and manuscript is really interesting and provides new information. However there are some issues to be addressed towards its quality improvement before publication. The use of acronyms in the title is not a good idea, since it is not helpful to the wider readership. In the abstract, the RCEP has not been explained. There are commas that should be dots, spaces to be erased, the references in parentheses in the text should not be superscript. Lines 60-63 need clarification. The practical meaning and significance of this work should be highlighted in the end of introduction. The meaning of "global value chain" as you use it in the text of introduction should be specified. The contribution of this work findings/conclusions has not been adequately highlighted also in the end of the manuscript. In line 98 something is missing. In line 190 and 572 type errors. Please provide the DOI numbers or URL is the references list in the end of manuscript. In 491 line, provide the number of reference. In 497 line, is it competitive or cooperative? Please, provide a brief comment/statement on the different types of wood residual biomass that can be utilized in wood-based panels industry (forest or agricultural biomass raw material) incorporating the relevant study of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104913 to support this statement. In general the use of English language is quite satisfying, though there are some points especially in the introduction that need clarification.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
In general the use of English language is quite satisfying, though there are some points especially in the introduction that need clarification.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your recognition of our paper, and thank you for your constructive comments on this article in your busy schedule. All of us authors have carefully read the comments that you have given us, and have discussed and revised each of these issues. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
As I have checked the authors have implemented the proposed changes in the revised verion of manuscript towards the improvement of their work. Almost all the changes have been implemented and in my opinion, the manuscript is well-prepared and organized enough to be accepted for publication in this journal. I remain at your disposal for any clarification.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The use of English language is acceptable.
