The Impact of Forest Certification on the Ternary Margins of China’s Forest Product Export

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

·        The manuscript is clearly written and presented in a well-structured manner. The topic is interesting in introducing green policies to international trade of forest products. In addition, the important economies in the trade of wood products have been considered, which makes this research important for application as well.

·        The methodology is clear, the references cited are relevant and up-to-date, including references from around the world. The manuscript is written scientifically at a high level, and its results are reproducible. The conclusions are well defined and consistent with the data presented.

·        I only miss the scheme representing the algorithm of methodology and (if possible) a scheme or model showing the main results/conclusions.

·        Note: line 115 - dot is missing, check the table 2 (doubled text in two brackets) – is it necessary?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with a topical subject of assessing the impact of green trade measures on Chinese wood forest products export.

1. The paper title is wordy. I understand that it is quite concise, but it would be nice to reformulate it, so that it becomes shorter. Is that necessary to put the words "wood" and " forest" together? Mix forest certification and "wood forest products export"? 

2. The language needs some justification, especially in punctuation. I see a lot of examples of missing commas and points, as well as inappropriate use of (e.g., see two examples on line 115). Some stylistic improvements will be also very welcome ("wood forests products have occupied…").

3. The literature is well focused on the Chinese market. However, the forest products trade was also studied in other countries. Please pay attention to the following literature, as a starting point:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102286

https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102706

https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102737

https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/f12121635

https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/f12060672

Moreover, the style of literature references needs a thorough revision.

4. Why don't you turn the section titles into IMRAD-style? I think there is no need to make them so special and paper-focused.

5. Russia is among the countries with the most deep penetration of FSC-certification (before Feb 2022). The line 584 needs to be reformulated.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the efforts of the authors who have substantially improved the paper.

Some minor things that need to be addressed before the publication. I leave it on authors' responsibility. Good luck.

1. Section 2 could be entitled as "Research Hypotheses" or simply "Methodology". The second option is preferable.

2. There is a repeat on lines 126, 144. I would omit the beginning of the phrases leaving only H1.... You could also emphasize it.

3. Ln 221-222 are formatted in an odd way. Please revise.

4. Data sources below the tables with model estimation results. Please refer to the primary data sources, but not to "calculation results of Stata software". Or just mention "authors' calculation" or something like that.

5. In Table 1. You mean billion of people and trillions of dollars squared? I would omit these units, as they are senseless.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf