Global Tomato Production: Price Sensitivity and Policy Impact in Mexico, Türkiye, and the United States

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

1. Clarify Objectives: Clearly articulate the research questions or objectives in the opening paragraph to set the tone and expectations for the study.
2. Contextual Background: Add more details about why tomatoes are a critical crop for Mexico, Türkiye, and the USA, emphasizing economic, social, and environmental perspectives.
3. Problem Statement: Explicitly state the gaps in the current research that your study aims to address.
4. Significance of Study: Highlight the relevance of the study in the context of global agricultural policies and food security.

 

Method

1. Detailed Framework: Expand on the Nerlovian time-series methodology, specifying how it accommodates lagged price and non-price factors.
2. Data Sources: Clearly describe the data sources, including the time frame and the reliability or limitations of these datasets.
3. Variable Definition: Elaborate on the non-price factors (e.g., subsidies, GAP supports) and their expected impact on supply response.
4. Analytical Techniques: Justify the use of specific techniques like Error Correction Models and stationarity tests, with references to existing literature for validation.
5. Assumptions: State the assumptions underlying the time-series analysis and discuss how they influence the results.

 

Results and Discussion

1. Result Clarity: Present key findings in bullet points or summarized tables for better readability.
2. Comparison Across Countries: Elaborate on the cross-country differences in price sensitivity and policy impacts with specific examples.
3. Policy Implications: Connect findings to actionable policy recommendations tailored to each country’s context (e.g., modifying subsidies, improving trade agreements).
4. Limitations and Robustness: Discuss potential limitations of the findings, such as data quality or methodological constraints, and suggest how they could be addressed in future studies.
5. Visualization: Consider including more graphical representations (e.g., trend analysis, comparative charts) for significant findings to enhance comprehension.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

Author Response

Attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to review the paper titled “Global Tomato Production: Price Sensitivity and Policy Impact in Mexico, Türkiye, and the United States”. The manuscript provides valuable insights into the effects of price fluctuations and evolving agricultural support schemes on tomato production in three major producing countries: Mexico, Türkiye, and the United States. It also highlights their roles in the global market through specialized production and trade. However, the paper requires some revisions before it can be published in the journal Horticulturae.

In the Introduction section, the motivation for this study is not clearly articulated. Specifically, it is unclear why the authors undertook this research. Is there a gap in the existing literature on this topic? A dedicated section or additional paragraphs within the Introduction could help establish the rationale and provide a strong foundation for the study’s objectives. Furthermore, the objective(s) of this research could be better emphasized through the formulation of research questions or hypotheses, which could also guide the discussion section. For example, see:

Rohith, S., & Nabay, O. (2024). Price Dynamics of Tomato, Onion and Potato (TOP) in India. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology, 42(3), 134-143.

Li, Y., Yao, J., Song, J., Feng, Y., Dong, H., Zhao, J., ... & Xia, J. (2024). Investigation of causal public opinion indexes for price fluctuation in vegetable marketing. Computers and Electrical Engineering, 116, 109227.

De Cianni, R., Zanchini, R., De Pascale, A., Lanfranchi, M., Mancuso, T., D'Amico, M., & Di Vita, G. (2023). Determinants influencing the food digestibility perception: A study based on consumer-stated preferences for sweet peppers. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 9(1), 30-51.

Paul Jr, M., Molua, E. L., Nzie, J. R. M., & Fuh, G. L. (2020). Production and supply of tomato in Cameroon: Examination of the comparative effect of price and non-price factors. Scientific African, 10, e00574.

Additionally, it would be beneficial to include a brief outline of the paper’s structure at the end of the Introduction section.

In the second section and the methodology section, the authors present, discuss, and elaborate on data that do not appear to be recent. This raises a concern about whether the conclusions drawn in the study are applicable to the current scenario. I recommend that the authors address this point by discussing the relevance of their findings in the context of more recent data or by explaining how their conclusions could still hold true today.

Furthermore, in addition to the previous point, the discussion section appears underdeveloped, as it lacks sufficient references to the literature and does not address specific research questions or hypotheses. Strengthening this section with a deeper engagement with the existing literature and tying the discussion to well-defined research questions or hypotheses would significantly enhance the paper’s rigor.

Additionally, the conclusion section could be enriched by including a discussion of the study's limitations and offering recommendations for future research.

Author Response

Attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for your revision,

all my sugesstion have been addressed 

Author Response

We are writing to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough and constructive feedback during the first round of reviews for our manuscript. Your insightful suggestions significantly enhanced the quality and clarity of our work, and we deeply appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our submission.

We are pleased to note that you have accepted the revisions made based on your initial review. It is encouraging to know that the revised manuscript meets your expectations. Thank you once again for your thoughtful comments and for reviewing the manuscript during this second round. Your contributions have been invaluable to this process.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please check the references

Author Response

Please refer attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf