The Macroeconomic Implications of the Transition of the Forestry Industry towards Bioeconomy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

sufficiently restructured

Author Response

We would like to thank you for the useful recommendations that helped us improve our research

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Introduction should be divided two parts: introduction and literature review.

Review of literature needs to present more about the definition of bio-economy and its link with forest. 

Subsection for review of literature is necessary at this moment.

Authors need to present theoretical implication of this research more. It should be based on the review of literature to identify the research gap by ensuring the stream of literature. 

Author Response

Thank you for the useful recommendations. In the following paragraphs we will explain how we revised our manuscript (marked with red color in our study):

 

We have separated the two sections, namely introduction and literature review of our manuscript. In the introduction section we have presented the relevant concepts and theoretical framework, also with the rationale behind our choice for this interesting topic.  We have also presented in the introduction the aim of our paper, the additional insights within the literature and the gap that our research fills in. All the mentioned adjustments are marked with red color.

In the new created section, literature review, we have developed our research hypotheses and we have presented the importance of the forest sector for bio-economy and the links between them, considering the fact that the forest-based sector plays a central role in bio-economy, because provides materials (wood and non-wood products), bioenergy and a wealth of other regulating and cultural ecosystem services.

The conclusion section has been also adjusted, considering the recommendations, marked with red color.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

It is revised well. 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- what are the 133 observations? 133 sets of the values measured in the member states? how many observations in each one from 2013 to 2019?

- how generalizable is this sample diachronically?

- what kind of wood consumption? fire wood, wood fuel, roundwood etc? each kind of wood has a different meaning/interpretation for the social situation, policy, technological status of each country.

- variables such as social and intellectual capital include quite vague and arbitrary dimensions/indicators and surely not the only ones which can be proposed. Detailed indicators are necessary.

- corruption estimation is quite problematic and unreliable (e.g. it is made by "experts" who are also influenced by tv and journalist fantasy like everyday laypeople)

- fig.4 is unclear

- are so much statisticasl results and tables really necessary?

- abstract and conclusion should become more specific and point out findings which can be regarded as innovative

- the more limitations and future resrarch questions are posed, the more criticism will be anticipated

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Introduction and review of literature section needs to be separated.

The authors need to present relevant concept and theoretical framework at the review of literature section more organized manners.

The source of data needs to be explained more.

The authors need to present more about the variables regarding both dependent and independent variables. 

Moreover, the authors need to present the econometic instruments more concretly. Why it was necessary and how it can minimize bias in the estiamtion. 

The conclusion section is very weak. It is essential to strengthen theoretical implication of this work more. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for your submission of the article. This article provides an interesting and comprehensive analysis of the macroeconomic implications determined by the transition to forest bio-economy, with focus on the impact on the national gross value added.

Comments on individual parts:

·         The abstract is precise enough.

·         The introduction highlights the research problem and research objectives in a comprehensive manner. Please add the bullet points in lines 132-139.

·         The methodological section describes how the objective of the study will be achieved. The study design is well justified and clearly explained.

·         The results section includes an interesting data analysis. The key findings can be considered significant and important. However, a critical assessment of the results would improve the quality of the analysis.

·         The conclusions section includes an overview of the key research results. However, the research limitations and potential directions for further research could be presented in more detail.

The academic language is correct, however some expressions, wording, and abbreviations - might be improved.