PONE-D-23-38514A time series analysis of labor productivity in Brazil (1950-2010)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cateia,

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.

After reading carefully the paper, I fully agree with the reviewers' comments regarding the novelty of the study. Why do you think this study is relevant compared to others on the same topic? The data used in the study are too old (150-2010) and all econometric tests should performed. Most of the comments raised by reviewers are common. Please carefully, respond to these comments and improve the quality of the paper.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 06 2024 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,

Essossinam Ali, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. 

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://aje.com/go/plos) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that Data will be shared upon request.

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either a. In a public repository, b. Within the manuscript itself, or c. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

Additional Editor Comments:

After reading carefully the paper, I fully agree with the reviewers' comments regarding the novelty of the study. Why do you think this study is relevant compared to others on the same topic? The data used in the study are too old (150-2010) and all econometric tests should performed. Most of the comments raised by reviewers are common. Please carefully, respond to these comments and improve the quality of the paper.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: 1. Title: The title of this study is general and should be more specific. The study period should not be mentioned in the title.

2. Abstract: (1). The results of the study are in a qualitative way. It is suggested to report here the findings of the study in a quantitative way (2). It is suggested to include the policy implications concisely at the end of this section.

3. Introduction: The novelty of the study should be improved. This section should be enriched with some graphs using statistical data.

4. Review of Literature: A separate section on literature review should be added. Sections 2 and 3 of the manuscript should be part of the review section. Furthermore, this section should be divided into two parts. The first part must be based on the theoretical foundation. The second part should be based on the empirical review directly or indirectly related to this study. Finally, find the research gap that this study fills.

5. Methodology: (1). This study was carried out for the period 1950-2010; we will soon enter 2024. It is suggested to extend the study period until 2023. (2). The flow of this section does not follow the standard format. (3). It is recommended to include a table regarding the “description of the data series” used in this study (4). It is recommended to justify the significance of each variable included in the model/estimation. (5). Referring to equation (1), in the MA part of the ARIMA model, replace t-p with t-q and also include the residual term. (6). Section 4.2 The empirical strategy should be part of the methodology section. (7). Furthermore, the use of modern econometric techniques is suggested to address the mentioned issue. (8). Please consult papers Ullah et al. (2018). Forecasting of peach area and production wise econometric analysis. Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, 28(4); Khan et al. (2020). Forecasting area and production of guava in Pakistan: An econometric analysis. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 36(1), 272-281, for improving this section.

6. Results and Discussion: (1). It is recommended to revise this section in light of the above-mentioned comments (2). This section is not written in standard format. (3). Referring to Table 1, the Zivot Andrews test was not performed for FBCF. Also, include the column at last to conclude the data series as I(0)or I(1). (4). Referring to Fig. 3, it is recommended to mention the unit on both axes. (5). Correlate your study with previous studies directly or indirectly related to your study.

7. Conclusions: This section should be named “Conclusions and Policy Implications”. (1). It is suggested to Include policy implications based on study findings. (2). It is recommended to include “Future Research Directions” at the end of this section.

Reviewer #2: The theme addressed by the author may seem interesting, but its topicality and relevance are open to question. The study covers the period from 1950 to 2010. The data used is therefore not recent. The contribution to the literature is therefore questionable, insofar as the economic policy recommendations that should be based on the results found would not appear to be relevant. In addition, the overall coherence of the article is questionable, insofar as the author claims to be dealing solely with the concept of "labour productivity", but we note that he deals with the relationship between investment and productivity in a large part of his article, without it being clear why he chose this orientation.

In addition, the author makes many gratuitous statements that are not based on sources. However, when sources are cited by the author, they are very dated or poorly presented.

The central question of the study presented in the introduction, as well as the subsequent specific objectives, are not consistent with the theme dealt with.

The title of Section 2 of the article focuses on the method used and not on the key concept indicated in the title of the paper. In fact, Beveridge-Nelson decomposition is a method and not the main concept, which is the subject of the study. Consequently, this method should be discussed in the section on the methodology studied.

Furthermore, the author seems to confuse the literature review with a lesson in the history of economic thought. Indeed, the whole of section 2 refers more to a course than to a review of the literature, as is generally expected.

As for section 3, it does not seem to us to be consistent with the subject being dealt with, which is supposed to be labour productivity. In addition, no reasons are given for the period chosen, which raises the question of its relevance. Apart from the link with the subject, which is not found in this section, Figure 1, which deals with gross fixed capital formation, seems to us to be out of place. On reading this section, we find it extremely difficult to understand the real purpose of the study. Major clarifications are needed.

Section 4, and more specifically subsection 4.2 on empirical strategy, is more like a lecture than a succinct presentation of empirical strategy. In addition, the author should propose a sub-section dealing with the description of the data used and the definition of the variables mobilised.

With regard to section 5, apart from the poor numbering of the sub-sections, the author takes too little care in presenting the tables. In addition, this section still contains equations, which we find inadequate. In addition, the font used in the last paragraph of this section is not the same as that used for the other paragraphs in the section. This needs to be harmonised.

As for the conclusion, the font used is not the same as that used in the rest of the document. This needs to be harmonised.

Finally, the section on references needs to be redone in its entirety. The use of APA style is recommended.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[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.

Trade liberalization and total factor productivity in Brazil: a VECM modeling

PONE-D-23-38514R1

Dear Julio Vicente Cateia,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Opeoluwa Adeniyi Adeosun

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Comments to the Author

1. 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.

Yes

**********

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

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.

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.

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)

The comments have been largely addressed. The authors made significant efforts to update the data and rerun the model. They also reinterpreted the analysis and added more value to the paper.

**********

**********