PONE-D-23-09683Shifting Dynamics in International Trade Networks: A Longitudinal Analysis of Major Exporting Economies (1992-2020): A case of the US, China, India, Japan and South KoreaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yazawa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 16 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Magdalena Radulescu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors,

Based on the reviewers' reports, we decided major revision for your submission. See the reports listed below. Please consider very carefull each suggestion, address all comments and elaborate a response letter for reviewers point by point.

Best regards,

Magdalena Radulescu

Associate Editor Plos One

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: REFEREE'S REPORT ON

"Shifting Dynamics in International Trade Networks: A Longitudinal Analysis of Major Exporting Economies (1992-2020): A case of the US, China, India, Japan and South Korea"

Comments: The authors studied “shifting dynamics in international trade networks” in US, China, India, Japan and South Korea. This paper needs improvement as has been listed below:

1.Abstract

�The policy proposal of the study's originality and importance should be written in this section.

�Explaining the method and variable in one sentence would be sufficient.

�The policy proposal of the study's originality and importance should be written in this section.

2.Introduction

�The main motivation of the study should be explained correctly in this section.

�The study's importance, purpose and theoretical framework should be discussed in detail.

�Theoretical explanations regarding the main topic is insufficient.

�The general plan of the study should be written at the end of the section.

3.Literature

�It is very important to approach literature studies critically. However, a literature review was not conducted in the study. I suggest creating a literature table.

�The difference of the study from the literature and its contribution to the literature should be explained under this title

4.Data and Methods

�Analyzes and the findings have not been adequately discussed.

�You must explain why you chose US, China, India, Japan and South Korea and the dates 1992-2020.

�You need to write the basic theory of analysis.

5.Conclusion

�Policy recommendations are incomplete and inadequate.

�The comparison of the study with the literature and its original contribution is not given.

I consider it appropriate to MAJOR REVISION the study for the above-mentioned reasons.

Reviewer #2: Title: Shifting Dynamics in International Trade Networks: A Longitudinal Analysis of Major Exporting Economies (1992-2020): A case of the US, China, India, Japan and South Korea

Suggestion:

The objective of this manuscript is to analyze the relationship among trade networks of exporting economies in USA, China, Japan and Korea. Data and methods are appropriate. Study has interesting findings. however, I have some concerns about this paper:

1. The author(s) should clearly present the contribution of this paper to the literature. It should be elaborated on what makes this topic an interesting research area, explaining the novelty of this research output on the subject matter.

2. The author(s) should clearly explain the empirical approaches implemented in their analysis. The author(s) provide the results of various tests without including a clear explanation of their use and why they were chosen.

3. Some arguments should be further analysed to be better supported and the ideas behind them should be developed to help the reader’s understanding (e.g. arguments included a section on the methodology and data used).

4. Some tables included and the related analysis should be revised as they are not clear for the reader to have a better understanding on the outcome of this empirical analysis.

5. Some conclusions reported cannot be fully supported by the statistical information provided. A careful revision on this matter is needed.

6. The quality of English in the paper needs to be improved.

7. Please change manuscript title, it seems rough and long.

8. Abstract need complete re-writing, please add study problem, method and results.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Ibrahim Cutcu

Reviewer #2: Yes: Umer Shahzad

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Dynamics of International Trade: A 30-Year Analysis of Key Exporting Nations

PONE-D-23-09683R1

Dear Authors,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Magdalena Radulescu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: REFEREE'S REPORT ON

"Shifting Dynamics in International Trade Networks: A Longitudinal Analysis of Major Exporting Economies (1992-2020): A case of the US, China, India, Japan and South Korea"

Comments: The authors studied “shifting dynamics in international trade networks” in US, China, India, Japan and South Korea. This paper needs improvement as has been listed below:

1. Abstract - All revisions done successfully.

� The policy proposal of the study's originality and importance should be written in this section.

� Explaining the method and variable in one sentence would be sufficient.

� The policy proposal of the study's originality and importance should be written in this section.

2. Introduction - All revisions done successfully.

� The main motivation of the study should be explained correctly in this section.

� The study's importance, purpose and theoretical framework should be discussed in detail.

� Theoretical explanations regarding the main topic is insufficient.

� The general plan of the study should be written at the end of the section.

3. Literature - All revisions done successfully. Please read and check these studies. Also, please add some current studies to the literature tables.

https://doi.org/10.3390/math10152553

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137517

� It is very important to approach literature studies critically. However, a literature review was not conducted in the study. I suggest creating a literature table.

� The difference of the study from the literature and its contribution to the literature should be explained under this title

4. Data and Methods - All revisions done successfully

� Analyzes and the findings have not been adequately discussed.

� You must explain why you chose US, China, India, Japan and South Korea and the dates 1992-2020.

� You need to write the basic theory of analysis.

5. Conclusion - All revisions done successfully

� Policy recommendations are incomplete and inadequate.

� The comparison of the study with the literature and its original contribution is not given.

I consider it appropriate to ACCEPT the study for the above-mentioned reasons.

Reviewer #2: no further comments. All comments are addressed properly. Authors have revised the draft appropriately. I suggest to accept current draft.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Ibrahim Cutcu

Reviewer #2: Yes: Umer Shahzad

**********

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Report 2.docx