Peruvian Agro-Exports’ Competitiveness: An Assessment of the Export Development of Its Main Products
, Alberto Luis Pantaleón Santa MarÃa, Diego Alejandro Ludeña Jugo, William Teófilo Castro Muñoz, Juan Cesar Farias Rodriguez, Billy Heinrich Maco Elera and Kelly Cristina Vasquez HuatayRound 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPeruvian Agro-Exports Competitiveness: An Assessment of the Export Development of its Main Products
A1) Abstract can be conveyed more clearly.
A2) The introduction is too long. This part should be shortened.
A3) Visual presentations should be made in the introduction section. In this form, the article is visually weak.
A4) Theoretical foundations and an in-depth discussion regarding export development and competitiveness should be presented.
A5) Revise Table IX, Table 9. headings in a compatible manner.
A6) Recommendations should be more comprehensive and compatible with the study.
Author Response
Review Report
Dear Editorial Committee of Economies,
We are pleased to inform you that the recommendations and suggested modifications have been fully implemented. Below, we detail the changes made:
A1) The abstract has been revised to convey the content more clearly.
A2) The introduction has been shortened as per the recommendations.
A3) Regarding the visual presentation in the introduction section, it has been noted that adding visual elements is not feasible due to the nature of the research.
A4) Theoretical foundations and an in-depth discussion on export development and competitiveness have been presented.
A5) The headings for Table IX and Table 9 have been reviewed and revised to ensure compatibility.
A6) The recommendations have been made more comprehensive and aligned with the study.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Best regards,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript discusses an important topic, but I recommend modifying the structure of the article:
- In the last paragraph of the introduction, the objectives should be clean formulated instead of the methods used in the study (lines 209-223). This information belongs rather to Chapter 2.
- On the other hand, Chapter 2 contains only a description of the data used, but a clear description of the methods used is missing. A scientific method is not the use of contingency tables (also in the abstract).
- Chapters 4 and 5 seem artificially split. They provide essentially the same information and in addition, the recommendations are given additionally in Chapter 6.
- I believe that citations and references do not follow the guidelines for authors.
Author Response
Review Report
Dear Editorial Committee of Economies,
We are pleased to inform you that the recommendations and suggested modifications have been fully implemented. Below, we detail the changes made:
Article Structure:
Objectives in the Introduction: In the last paragraph of the introduction, the objectives of the study have been clearly formulated. The information regarding the methods used has been moved to its appropriate section in Chapter 2.
Description of Methods: A clear and detailed description of the methods has been added.
Unification of Information: Chapters 4 and 5, which previously seemed artificially split, have been reviewed and unified into a single section to avoid redundancies. The recommendations have been reorganized and presented clearly.
Compliance with Guidelines: The format of citations and references has been verified and adjusted to ensure compliance with the guidelines established by the journal.
We are confident that these changes have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the manuscript, aligning it with the scientific and editorial standards of Economies.
Sincerely,
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
