Dear Dr. Wisenthige,

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 2025 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.

• 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,

S Ezhil Vendan, Ph.D

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 .

2. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. We do appreciate that you have a title page document uploaded as a separate file, however, as per our author guidelines (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-title-page) we do require this to be part of the manuscript file itself and not uploaded separately.

Could you therefore please include the title page into the beginning of your manuscript file itself, listing all authors and affiliations.

3. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please check the manuscript structure with respect to the journal guidelines. The introduction section is too long, please reduce the general statements and strict to the rationale of the study objectives. Avoid sub headings in the introduction section. Based on the reviewers comments and raised queries, the manuscript needs major revision.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The manuscript, "Key Determinants of Cinnamon Export Income: Insights from the World's Top Five Producers", explores the factors influencing cinnamon export income (CEI) for five major exporting countries (China, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Madagascar, and Vietnam) over three decades. While the study provides valuable insights and has strong potential, it also has certain limitations that could be addressed to strengthen its contributions. Below is a critical review with suggestions for improvement and examples:

Strengths

1. Timely and Relevant Topic: The focus on cinnamon export income is pertinent, given the spice's global demand and economic significance. The emphasis on analyzing multiple countries adds depth to the investigation.

2. Well-Defined Objectives: The study clearly outlines primary and secondary objectives, aligning them with the research gap identified in existing literature.

3. Data Coverage: The analysis spans three decades (1992–2022), providing a robust time series for examining trends and relationships.

4. Multifactor Analysis: By incorporating production volume (PV), domestic consumption (DC), exchange rate (ER), and cultivated land area (CLA), the study provides a multidimensional view of the factors affecting CEI.

Limitations and Suggestions for Improvement

1. Theoretical Framework

o Limitation: The theoretical framework connecting the identified factors to CEI is underdeveloped. While the study identifies PV, DC, ER, and CLA as key variables, it does not adequately explain the mechanisms through which these factors interact or influence CEI.

o Suggestion: Introduce a conceptual model or flowchart showing causal relationships and interdependencies among the variables. For instance, explain how exchange rate volatility impacts both price competitiveness and market stability.

2. Methodological Justification

o Limitation: The choice of a simple linear regression model may oversimplify the complex relationships among the variables. Factors like exchange rate and domestic consumption could have nonlinear impacts on CEI.

o Suggestion: Consider adopting more advanced econometric models, such as panel data regression or structural equation modeling, to capture nuanced relationships and address potential multicollinearity.

o Example: For exchange rates, explore whether their impact varies with changes in market conditions (e.g., fluctuations in global demand).

3. Inconsistent Findings

o Limitation: The study reports conflicting impacts of PV and CLA on CEI across countries (e.g., PV has a negative impact in some countries but a positive impact in others). While these findings are interesting, the manuscript does not explore the underlying reasons for these differences.

o Suggestion: Add a discussion on contextual factors (e.g., differences in trade policies, agricultural practices, or market structures) that could explain these variations.

o Example: Investigate whether Indonesia's positive PV-CEI relationship is influenced by government subsidies or trade incentives.

4. Limited Analysis of Policy Implications

o Limitation: The study briefly mentions implications for policymakers, but these are not detailed or actionable. For instance, recommendations for managing exchange rate volatility are lacking.

o Suggestion: Provide concrete policy recommendations tailored to each country, focusing on areas such as foreign exchange risk management, technological innovation in agriculture, and export promotion strategies.

5. Data Presentation

o Limitation: While the manuscript includes some descriptive statistics, the data presentation is limited in terms of visual appeal and explanatory detail.

o Suggestion: Add more graphs, charts, or tables to visualize key findings. For example, use a comparative bar graph to show country-level differences in the impact of DC or CLA on CEI.

o Example: A scatter plot illustrating the relationship between ER fluctuations and CEI across the study period would enhance reader comprehension.

6. Narrow Scope of Study

o Limitation: The study focuses exclusively on cinnamon. While this adds specificity, the findings may not generalize to other spices or agricultural exports.

o Suggestion: Acknowledge this limitation and propose future research extending the analysis to other high-value crops or spices to validate the generalizability of findings.

7. Literature Review

o Limitation: The literature review does not adequately compare the current study's contributions to prior research, nor does it highlight its novelty.

o Suggestion: Expand the literature review to include a critical assessment of gaps in prior studies and explicitly state how the current research fills these gaps.

8. Language and Formatting

o Limitation: The manuscript contains instances of awkward phrasing and grammatical errors, which may detract from its professional presentation.

o Suggestion: Perform thorough proofreading and editing to improve clarity and coherence.

Examples of Specific Improvements

• Clarity in Data Interpretation: Discuss why DC negatively impacts CEI in most countries but positively in Sri Lanka. Hypothesize that higher domestic consumption in Sri Lanka indicates robust internal demand, stabilizing export prices.

• Improved Visualization: Add a line graph showing annual CEI trends for each country, overlaying global cinnamon price indices for context.

• Policy Insights: Suggest that Sri Lanka adopt integrated marketing campaigns to leverage its unique position as a supplier of True Cinnamon.

By addressing these limitations and implementing the suggested improvements, the manuscript can significantly enhance its academic rigor, practical relevance, and overall impact.

Reviewer #2: Dear authors

You wrote a good article for the improvement of agricultural international trade. Unfortunately, you could not show the novelty of this study well. In addition, you used the SLR method, while secondary data has non-stationary data that cause spurious regression. This issue cannot be solved with SLR but must be solved with advanced econometric models that adopt unit root tests. For that, you need to consider advanced econometric models such as ARDL, ECM or others.

Best wishes

**********

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:  Md Takibur Rahaman, PhD

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Agus Dwi Nugroho

**********

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE_D_25_10270_Review Report.docx

Dear Dr. Krishantha Wisenthige,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 10 2025 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.

• 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,

S Ezhil Vendan, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Additional Editor Comments:

The revised manuscript is not satisfactory. Authors have not responded to the earlier (editor’s) comments. Still, the manuscript needs major revision with respect to the following comments;

Authors should check the manuscript organization/structure with respect to the journal guidelines (Manuscript organization: Title, Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions) and revise the manuscript.

The introduction section is too long, please reduce the general statements and strict to the rationale of the study objectives.

Authors should avoid sub headings in the introduction section and should reduce the introduction section.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

Reviewer #1: I am happy that the authors considered my concern seriously and successfully addressed all the comments. Can be accepted, i don't have any further comments

Reviewer #2: Dear authors

This article is very good but unfortunately you missed the unit root test which is mandatory for secondary data.

Best wishes

**********

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:  Dr. Md. Takibur Rahaman

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Agus Dwi Nugroho

**********

[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.

Dear Dr.  Wisenthige,

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 Nov 06 2025 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.

• 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,

S Ezhil Vendan, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Additional Editor Comments:

The revised manuscript is not satisfactory with respect to the manuscript organization. As per the journal guideline, research article manuscript should be organized with the content of abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion, and conclusions (optional). Please check the manuscript structure and authors should revise the manuscript with respect to the journal guidelines for manuscript organization.

As research article, remove elaborated literature review with the subheading “Literature review” in the introduction section.

Check the subheadings “Data and methodology”, “Results and Discussion” and “Conclusion and recommendations” and write appropriate subheadings and revise the manuscript as per the journal guidelines for manuscript organization.

Please check errors in scientific name of plants (italic, capital & small letter fonts) throughout the manuscript (e.g., Line 116) and revise.

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

[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.

Dear Dr. Wisenthige,

• The manuscript needs minor revision.

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.

• 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 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,

S Ezhil Vendan, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

The manuscript is improved compared to the previous version. Still, the manuscript needs revision for considerable further. Please revise the with respect to the following comments;

Line 123-124: Write expansion of PV, CLA, ER and DC.

Line 129: Write expansion of CEI.

The conclusion section is too elaborative. Should brief the conclusions with respect to the highlight of the obtained results and write recommendations in few lines only.

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

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Unlocking Cinnamon Export Success: Key Determinants from the World's Top Five Producers

PONE-D-25-10270R4

Dear Dr. Krishantha Wisenthige,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

S Ezhil Vendan, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: