Study of the Mexican Cocoa Market: An Analysis of Its Competitiveness (2010–2021)
, Enrique Martínez-Muñoz 2, Ma del Rosario García-Velázquez 1 and Alma Delia Román-Gutiérrez 3,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article was properly prepared in terms od methodology and content.
Author Response
Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references
Response 1: According to the observation regarding the introduction, the necessary adjustments were made.
Point 2: Are all the cited references relevant to the research?
Response 2: The section was supplemented with a relevant reference from 2021
Point 3:Is the research design appropriate?
Response 3: We believe that the observation was addressed according to the request requested by the journal and the comment made by the reviewer. We appreciate your comments, which allow us to improve the proposal.
Point 4:Are the methods adequately described?
Response 4: No comments from the reviewer
Point 5:Are the results clearly presented?
Response 5: It was shown why it is a product originating in Mexico and when its cultivation began
Point 6:Are the conclusions supported by the results?
Response 6: No comments from the reviewer
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Review: Study of the Mexican cocoa market: an analysis of its competitiveness (2010-2021)
The paper analyze the competitiveness at the macroeconomic level of the Mexican cocoa product using six indices. The results show a decrease in the competitiveness of the product in the international market
-Introduction: correct the last sentence in line 38. It cannot be understood.
- The first two sections of the paper are very poorly organized as they have a mix of the paragraphs on the methodological approach with the production of Cocoa.
- Introduction: it is not well organized as the paragraphs have no connections between them and lack a good structure and organization:
- The first paragraph (line 24 to 48) of the introduction on measuring competitiveness using indices does not fit with the next two paragraphs (line 49 to line 62) on cocoa production. It needs to be moved to the section on competitiveness starting on line 70. And after reading the material and methods, I suggest that the authors move the text related to measuring competitiveness in the introduction to the material and methods section and that they can focus in the introduction on presenting the research problem and the objective of the study, both of which are missing.
- Add references to the statement on the different indices used for measurement of competitiveness (line 42 to 48).
- Material and methods: this section starts describing the methods used to measure competitiveness and suddenly the authors start talking about cocoa production from line 134 to 230.
- It is necessary to remove the text from 134 to 230 from material and methods and add it to a new section on the cocoa sector or add this information to the introduction.
- The paragraph from line 63 to 69 introduces the sections of the paper and should go at the end of the introduction.
- Lines 295 and 298 "The results" delete the capital letter.
- The document is missing a very important section concerning the description of the data used to calculate the different indexes.
- The discussion section needs to be further developed.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: -Introduction: correct the last sentence in line 38. It cannot be understood.
Response 1: The observation was addressed and the writing error was corrected
Point 2: The first two sections of the paper are very poorly organized as they have a mix of the paragraphs on the methodological approach with the production of Cocoa.
Response 2: Sections have been restructured
Point 3: - Introduction: it is not well organized as the paragraphs have no connections between them and lack a good structure and organization:
Response 3: Attended observation
Point 4: The first paragraph (line 24 to 48) of the introduction on measuring competitiveness using indices does not fit with the next two paragraphs (line 49 to line 62) on cocoa production. It needs to be moved to the section on competitiveness starting on line 70. And after reading the material and methods, I suggest that the authors move the text related to measuring competitiveness in the introduction to the material and methods section and that they can focus in the introduction on presenting the research problem and the objective of the study, both of which are missing.
Response 4: The paragraphs were reordered according to the reviewer's proposal
Point 5: Add references to the statement on the different indices used for measurement of competitiveness (line 42 to 48).
Response 5: Attended observation
Point 6. Material and methods: this section starts describing the methods used to measure competitiveness and suddenly the authors start talking about cocoa production from line 134 to 230.
Response 6. Data on cocoa are incorporated in order to highlight the importance and correlate the method and the methodology used, so it is grouped in another section.
Point 7 It is necessary to remove the text from 134 to 230 from material and methods and add it to a new section on the cocoa sector or add this information to the introduction.
Response 7. The observation was attended to, the reference to cocoa was removed from methods as well as statistical data and a sub-topic was generated
Point 8. The paragraph from line 63 to 69 introduces the sections of the paper and should go at the end of the introduction.
Response 8. The observation was attended
Point 9. Lines 295 and 298 "The results" delete the capital letter.
Response 9. The observation was attended
Point 10. The document is missing a very important section concerning the description of the data used to calculate the different indexes.
Response 10. Because there are six indices and in order not to confuse the reader, it was decided to place the index and variables for its calculation.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I think the article may be of interest. However, from my point of view, the work is not well organized and is incomplete. I point out some major issues.
Abstract
1. This is unnecessary: “Ivory Coast 1,471,267, Ghana 747,635, Indonesia 656,127, Nigeria 340,845, 26 Cameroon 23,2108, Brazil 224,159, Ecuador 155,488, Dominican Republic 60,701, Peru 56,585, Papua 27 New Guinea 44,200 and Mexico7 29,450”
2. Explain the indexes
Introduction
The introduction is not well thought out. There is no context, no background, and the novelty of the article is not expressed. It starts with the indexes and objectives and then the article focuses on the theory. The importance of the study is also not explained.
Method
This has no units: The United States of America is the country that registers the highest consumption 134 of cocoa, in the world, both in the American continent and worldwide, it concentrates 135 757,264, followed by Germany 324,778, France 229,556, United Kingdom 225,000, Russia 136 197,056, Brazil 175,078, Japan 164,056, Spain 106,200, Italy 92,878, Canada 84,378, Australia 137 666,978 and Mexico with 62,778.
In the materials and methods, instead of explaining how the indices are calculated, context information is provided that should be, in part, in the introduction. The methodology does not work as a methodology.
Results
The results explain the indicators, which should be methodology.
In reality, the results are reduced to table 2.
Discussion
The discussion goes back to theory, and there is no dialogue with the empirical background (which does not appear in the discussion).
Author Response
Point 1: This is unnecessary: “Ivory Coast 1,471,267, Ghana 747,635, Indonesia 656,127, Nigeria 340,845, 26 Cameroon 23,2108, Brazil 224,159, Ecuador 155,488, Dominican Republic 60,701, Peru 56,585, Papua 27 New Guinea 44,200 and Mexico7 29,450”
- Explain the indexes
Response 1: Attended observation and the proposed change was made
Point 2: Introduction The introduction is not well thought out. There is no context, no background, and the novelty of the article is not expressed. It starts with the indexes and objectives and then the article focuses on the theory. The importance of the study is also not explained.
Response 2: Attended observation
Point 3. Method. This has no units: The United States of America is the country that registers the highest consumption 134 of cocoa, in the world, both in the American continent and worldwide, it concentrates 135 757,264, followed by Germany 324,778, France 229,556, United Kingdom 225,000, Russia 136 197,056, Brazil 175,078, Japan 164,056, Spain 106,200, Italy 92,878, Canada 84,378, Australia 137 666,978 and Mexico with 62,778.
In the materials and methods, instead of explaining how the indices are calculated, context information is provided that should be, in part, in the introduction. The methodology does not work as a methodology.
Response 3: Attended observation
Point 4. Results. The results explain the indicators, which should be methodology.
In reality, the results are reduced to table 2.
Response 4: Attended observation, the calculation was made and the result obtained from it was placed
Point 5. Discussion The discussion goes back to theory, and there is no dialogue with the empirical background (which does not appear in the discussion).
Response 4: Attended observation
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
I came across a very interesting article. Congratulations to the authors. I have the following recommendation: Focus your efforts on research that will have a wider geographic scope.
Regards!
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Point 1.I came across a very interesting article. Congratulations to the authors. I have the following recommendation: Focus your efforts on research that will have a wider geographic scope.
Response 1: Thank you for the comment, the request for the call was met, that is why the geographical level analyzed
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
It is an interesting article. Yet, some things could be improved.
Abstract
- no need for statistics (production quantities) in the abstract; there is no unit of measure next to the countries' numbers
Introduction
- the beginning of the section should be a bit softer, like the way you started in the abstract;
- start with a broader introduction and clearly explain the purpose of the paper (goals and aims)
Materials and methods
- First, the chosen methodology should be described, followed by the method description
- Content-wise, there is a lot of background information in this section. I suggest putting that into a separate section that will address all the necessary background information.
Table 1
- Production column - unit type is missing (tons?) - mentioned in the text, but should be included in the table
Figures 1 & 2
- "Miles de USD" should be translated
Results
- When introducing and describing indices, more references should be included.
- All indices should be presented in numerical form (not just with C and NC like in table 2), i.e. as calculated
Table 2
- Need to translate "Autosuficiencia".
Discussion
- This section should be extended with a paragraph (or two) in which a strong link with the research results will be established. There is too much focus on cited work.
Conclusion
- Content-wise, some directions for further research and research limitations of the study should be included.
- The last sentence in the fourth paragraph should begin with a capital letter.
References
- Reference formatting should be consistent. You should apply the style as defined by the journal's instructions.
Author Response
Point 1: Abstract- no need for statistics (production quantities) in the abstract; there is no unit of measure next to the countries' numbers.
Response 1: Reviewer's comment was addressed, and data removed
Point 2: Introduction
- the beginning of the section should be a bit softer, like the way you started in the abstract;
- start with a broader introduction and clearly explain the purpose of the paper (goals and aims)
Response 2: The reviewer's suggestion was followed
Point 3: Materials and methods
- First, the chosen methodology should be described, followed by the method description
- Content-wise, there is a lot of background information in this section. I suggest putting that into a separate section that will address all the necessary background information.
Table 1- Production column - unit type is missing (tons?) - mentioned in the text, but should be included in the table
Figures 1 & 2- "Miles de USD" should be translated
Response 3: The reviewer's suggestion was addressed, an additional section was generated according to the reviewer's comment and the aforementioned changes were made
Point 4: Results
- When introducing and describing indices, more references should be included.
- All indices should be presented in numerical form (not just with C and NC like in table 2), i.e. as calculated
Table 2
- Need to translate "Autosuficiencia".
Response 4: The proposed change was made, the description of the index and the variables for its calculation are found in index
Point 5: Discussion
- This section should be extended with a paragraph (or two) in which a strong link with the research results will be established. There is too much focus on cited work.
Response 5: The paragraph suggested by the reviewer was incorporated
Point 6: Conclusion
- Content-wise, some directions for further research and research limitations of the study should be included.
- The last sentence in the fourth paragraph should begin with a capital letter.
Response 6: Attended observation
Point 7.References
- Reference formatting should be consistent. You should apply the style as defined by the journal's instructions.
Response 6: Attended observation
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors address most of my comments, but some remain unaddressed:
Introduction: Regarding point 3: - Introduction: it is not well organized as the paragraphs do not have connections between them and lack a good structure and organization:
- It still lacks a connection between the first section of the introduction ending at line 68 on cocoa production and the next section starting at line 69 on the literature review of competitiveness. The authors should add a sentence or small paragraph to connect the two sections.
- In addition, at the end of the introduction, the main motivation of the study/research questions and the main objectives are still not clear; a paragraph on that should be added.
The authors did not address my last point 11:
- The discussion section needs to be further developed.
- In the abstract: the authors added 7 lines about the different indexes and their definitions, I suggest the authors to summarize this information since we are in the summary and 7 lines more and the way they introduced is too much.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1: The authors address most of my comments, but some remain unaddressed:
Introduction: Regarding point 3: - Introduction: it is not well organized as the paragraphs do not have connections between them and lack a good structure and organization:
- It still lacks a connection between the first section of the introduction ending at line 68 on cocoa production and the next section starting at line 69 on the literature review of competitiveness. The authors should add a sentence or small paragraph to connect the two sections.
- In addition, at the end of the introduction, the main motivation of the study/research questions and the main objectives are still not clear; a paragraph on that should be added.
Response 1: The connector was made where what the reviewer comments is explained, the section was modified incorporating a sub-theme that allows us to see the relevance of analyzing a product that serves as material for the production of chocolate, The objective is incorporated in the introduction and the research questions are attached as suggested by the reviewer.
Point 2: The authors did not address my last point 11
- The discussion section needs to be further developed.
Response 2: The discussion was extended as proposed by the author.
Point 3: - In the abstract: the authors added 7 lines about the different indexes and their definitions, I suggest the authors to summarize this information since we are in the summary and 7 lines more and the way they introduced is too much.
Response 3: Regarding the abstract, the reviewer's observation was addressed.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The text has been substantially improved, especially in structure.
Even so, I do not understand why the authors continue to expose the formulas in methodology and provide more information in the results. Likewise, the empirical background is not clearly stated in the introduction. Mainly the neoclassical theory of comparative advantage is exposed.
Additionally, the introduction does not define the objectives of the article. And there is no theoretical justification as to why these indicators are chosen.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: Even so, I do not understand why the authors continue to expose the formulas in methodology and provide more information in the results. Likewise, the empirical background is not clearly stated in the introduction. Mainly the neoclassical theory of comparative advantage is exposed. Additionally, the introduction does not define the objectives of the article. And there is no theoretical justification as to why these indicators are chosen.
Response 1: At the reviewer's suggestion, the formulas were removed from the methodology and moved to results, the empirical section is expanded and the objective and justification was placed in the introduction.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Most of the issues were solved. However, there is still a need to improve the discussion section where should be the link between the study and literature elaborated in more detail.
Author Response
Point 1: Most of the issues were solved. However, there is still a need to improve the discussion section where should be the link between the study and literature elaborated in more detail.
Response 1: According to the comments of the reviewer, the discussion was complemented by attending to the observations.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
