An Empirical Study of Trade in Goods between China and Brazil: Analysis of Competitiveness and Complementarity
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This objective of the paper is to review the China-Brazil economic and trade facts, to analyze the challenges faced, and to provide an outlook on future economic and trade cooperation. The paper tackles an interesting topic. Though the paper is fairly well written, there are a few grammatical mistakes.
However, the manuscript requires some improvements in a few areas.
1. First, the title of the manuscript is very long, and it should be succinct.
2. The manuscript also lacks a review of literature related to the topic.
3. Authors have done a good job discussing the China-Brazil economic and trade corporation. However, using the data in hand, if the authors could have conducted some type of statistical analysis, that would have improved the quality of the manuscript.
4. There was also some reference to China-Pakistan economic and trade facts in the abstract as well as in Figure 1. This could be an error and it should be corrected.
5. Authors have presented statistics on China-Brazil exports and imports in goods and services, and some data on bilateral investment could also have been presented.
6. When citing the references, authors have used the numbering format in the body of the paper, but the references are not numbered.
The quality of English language is good.
Author Response
Point 1: First, the title of the manuscript is very long, and it should be succinct.
Response 1:
We thank the reviewers for their comments. We have revised the title of the article.
The revised title of the article is “An empirical study of trade in goods between China and Brazil: econometric analysis of competitiveness and Complementarity”.
Point 2: The manuscript also lacks a review of literature related to the topic.
Response 2:
We thank the reviewers for their comments. We added literature relevant to the article.
A second section, "Literature Review", has been added to the article, which describes the factors influencing inter-country trade from the perspectives of geography, trade facilitation, size of the country's economy, and infrastructure development. Finally, the article analyses the trade in goods between China and Brazil from the perspective of trade competitiveness and complementarity.
Point 3: Authors have done a good job discussing the China-Brazil economic and trade corporation. However, using the data in hand, if the authors could have conducted some type of statistical analysis, that would have improved the quality of the manuscript.
Response 3:
We thank the reviewers for their comments. Your comments help us a lot to improve the article.
We have added four analytical formulas in our revision, from the four aspects of the trade revealed comparative advantage index, the trade competitive advantage index, the trade integration index and the trade complementarity index.
Point 4: There was also some reference to China-Pakistan economic and trade facts in the abstract as well as in Figure 1. This could be an error and it should be corrected.
Response 4:
We thank the reviewers for their comments. We have made changes to the summary and other sections.
Point 5: Authors have presented statistics on China-Brazil exports and imports in goods and services, and some data on bilateral investment could also have been presented.
Response 5:
We thank the reviewers for their comments.
Due to the substantial revision of the article, the main direction of the article was modified to the study of China's trade in goods with Brazil, with the necessary analyses mainly from the perspectives of trade complementarity and competitiveness.
Point 6: When citing the references, authors have used the numbering format in the body of the paper, but the references are not numbered.
Response 6:
We thank the reviewers for their comments.
We rechecked the formatting of the references cited in the article. Make sure that each reference is labelled in the article.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper studies the Current Situation, Challenges, and Opportunities of China-Brazil Economic and Trade Relations. It has certain practical significance. But there are still many problems that need to be modified.
(1) The title of the paper is too long, it is suggested to simplify the title, such as deleting "Research on".
(2) Abstract. A lot of words are used to introduce the background of China-Brazil trade, but there is little or no introduction to the research methods, research objects, research data, research conclusions and research significance. It is recommended to add related content.
(3) Introduction. In this part, the relevant data cited is relatively old, and the discussion on research marginal contribution, research purpose and research structure arrangement is lacking. It is suggested to add.
(4) "Review of China-Brazil Economic and Trade Cooperation". In this part, the author's argument is more confused. Judging from the title, the author should be introducing the relevant literature. However, the content of this part of the paper is to introduce the current situation of China-Brazil economic and trade cooperation. This is obviously a discrepancy in the text. It is suggested that the author supplement the literature review in this part. And the introduction of the relevant status quo as the third part.
(5) The research method used in this paper is too simple, and the processing of relevant data is also relatively simple. It is suggested that the author should add high-level research methods.
(6) "Discussion and limitations". This part lacks the summary of conclusion. There is a lack of discussion on implications. Meanwhile, the discussion about limitations is too simple, and it is suggested to supplement.
In conclusion, it is suggested that the author continue to revise the paper. The editor is advised to reject the manuscript.
The full text of the language needs to find a native English speaker to help polish and revise.
Author Response
Point 1: The title of the paper is too long, it is suggested to simplify the title, such as deleting "Research on".
Response 1:
We thank the reviewers for their comments. We have revised the title of the article.
The revised title of the article is “An empirical study of trade in goods between China and Brazil: econometric analysis of competitiveness and Complementarity”.
Point 2: Abstract. A lot of words are used to introduce the background of China-Brazil trade, but there is little or no introduction to the research methods, research objects, research data, research conclusions and research significance. It is recommended to add related content.
Response 2:
We thank the reviewers for their comments.
We have substantially revised the article to improve the relevant research.
Point 3: Introduction. In this part, the relevant data cited is relatively old, and the discussion on research marginal contribution, research purpose and research structure arrangement is lacking. It is suggested to add.
Response 3:
We thank the reviewers for their comments.
We have revised the introductory section of the article and adjusted parts of it as appropriate.
Point 4: "Review of China-Brazil Economic and Trade Cooperation". In this part, the author's argument is more confused. Judging from the title, the author should be introducing the relevant literature. However, the content of this part of the paper is to introduce the current situation of China-Brazil economic and trade cooperation. This is obviously a discrepancy in the text. It is suggested that the author supplement the literature review in this part. And the introduction of the relevant status quo as the third part.
Response 4:
We thank the reviewers for their comments.
A second section, "Literature Review", has been added to the article, which describes the factors influencing inter-country trade from the perspectives of geography, trade facilitation, size of the country's economy, and infrastructure development. Finally, the article analyses the trade in goods between China and Brazil from the perspective of trade competitiveness and complementarity.
The third part of the article analyses the current status of China's trade in goods with Brazil. In the fourth part, the competitiveness and complementarity of China's trade in goods with Brazil are examined with the help of relevant analytical methods.
Point 5: The research method used in this paper is too simple, and the processing of relevant data is also relatively simple. It is suggested that the author should add high-level research methods.
Response 5:
We thank the reviewers for their comments. Your suggestions will be of great help to us.
We have added four analytical formulas in our revision, from the four aspects of the trade revealed comparative advantage index, the trade competitive advantage index, the trade integration index and the trade complementarity index.
Point 6: "Discussion and limitations". This part lacks the summary of conclusion. There is a lack of discussion on implications. Meanwhile, the discussion about limitations is too simple, and it is suggested to supplement.
Response 6:
We thank the reviewers for their comments.
We have reworked the conclusions of the article to summarise the current status of competitive and complementary trade in goods between China and Brazil in conjunction with the data analyses in the fourth part. Furthermore, we revised the limitations that existed in the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Abstract- see last sentence "China-Pakistan economic and trade facts"- is it mistake?
Introduction- there is no information about related researches; literature gap; no information about structure of paper and applied methodology
line 123- tween China and Brazil, with a deficit of USD8.73 billion in 2013 and a deficit of The deficit...
Figure 1- also contains one line China-Pakistan trade in goods as a share of China?
Authors have analysed bilateral trade in goods, trade in services and bilateral investments between China and Brasil in last 10 years. The paper is written in very descriptive way and as such it is missing the scientific component. The tables (trade data) anyone can get from statistical office. There is no comparison with similar researches/analysis and no specific analysis. The reference list is relatively poor.
Suggestion to author- consider to define specific area/issues in the framework of analysed comprehensive China-Brasil agreement and provide statistical or econometric analysis. The topic requires the quantitative analysis.
Author Response
Point 1: Abstract- see last sentence "China-Pakistan economic and trade facts"- is it mistake?
Response 1:
We thank the reviewers for their comments. We have made changes to the summary.
Point 2: Introduction- there is no information about related researches; literature gap; no information about structure of paper and applied methodology.
Response 2:
We thank the reviewers for their comments.
We have revised the introductory section of the article and added some content.
Point 3: line 123- tween China and Brazil, with a deficit of USD8.73 billion in 2013 and a deficit of The deficit..
Response 3:
We thank the reviewers for their comments.
We have double-checked the data in the article.
Point 4: Figure 1- also contains one line China-Pakistan trade in goods as a share of China?
Response 4:
We thank the reviewers for their comments.
As the article describes the current status of China's trade in goods with Brazil, it applies to the share of China's and Brazil's trade in goods as a proportion of the total imports and exports of the two countries. Therefore, there is a curve of the share in the chart.
Point 5: Authors have analysed bilateral trade in goods, trade in services and bilateral investments between China and Brasil in last 10 years. The paper is written in very descriptive way and as such it is missing the scientific component. The tables (trade data) anyone can get from statistical office. There is no comparison with similar researches/analysis and no specific analysis. The reference list is relatively poor.
Response 5:
We thank the reviewers for their comments. Your suggestions will be of great help to us.
First. We have added four analytical formulas in our revision, from the four aspects of the trade revealed comparative advantage index, the trade competitive advantage index, the trade integration index and the trade complementarity index.
Second. A second section, "Literature Review", has been added to the article, which describes the factors influencing inter-country trade from the perspectives of geography, trade facilitation, size of the country's economy, and infrastructure development. Finally, the article analyses the trade in goods between China and Brazil from the perspective of trade competitiveness and complementarity.
Point 6: Suggestion to author- consider to define specific area/issues in the framework of analysed comprehensive China-Brasil agreement and provide statistical or econometric analysis. The topic requires the quantitative analysis.
Response 6:
We thank the reviewers for their comments.
We changed the original single declarative analysis to a quantitative one by drastically revising the article. We are very grateful for your suggestion and we recognise that this proposed change is essential.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This revised paper shows some improvement over the previous version of the manuscript. Authors have addressed all my concerns in the previous manuscript.
However, though the new title of the paper is much better than the previous one, since there is no econometric analysis conducted other than calculating four indexes, it is not appropriate to include the term econometric in the title of the paper.
As I mentioned in my comments on the previous version of the manuscript, if the authors could have conducted some type of statistical analysis other than only calculating the trade revealed comparative advantage index, the trade competitive advantage index, the trade integration index, and the trade complementarity index, that would have improved the quality of the manuscript.
The quality of the English language is good.
Author Response
We thank the reviewers for their comments. We have revised the title of the article.
The revised title of the article is “An empirical study of trade in goods between China and Brazil: analysis of competitiveness and Complementarity”. We have deleted the word "econometric" from the original title. Your comments have been very helpful. Thank you very much.
Reviewer 2 Report
It could be acceptable.
It could be acceptable.
Author Response
We are very grateful to all the reviewers for their efforts and time in reviewing our manuscript. Your comments helped us a lot to improve our article. And we have touched up the article.
Reviewer 3 Report
No further suggestions
Author Response
We are very grateful to all the reviewers for their efforts and time in reviewing our manuscript. Your comments helped us a lot to improve our article. And we have touched up the article.
