Do Geographical Indication Products Promote the Growth of the Agricultural Economy? An Empirical Study Based on Meta-Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper examined the relationship between production of geographical indication products and agricultural economy growth by using meta-analysis framework. The authors reviewed a vast number of existing literature and came out with some solid conclusions, which are important in the current context of sever competition in international agricultural markets, especially for developing country perspective. The pathway from products to agricultural growth (economic benefits, trade, price, development) is OK, but needs reordering. The Figure1 needs to be modified to develop a strong theory of change. For example, geographic indicators first bring in more demand from both domestic and international markets, due to this price will increase, then there may be possibility of expanding production, area, resulted in increased economic activities in a particular area where geographical indication is earmarked, then the entire area will be developed. The same thing has to be reflected in a “Theory of Change” figure. For better understanding of theory of change, please see “Reddy, Anugu Amarender, Indrek Melts, Geetha Mohan, Ch Radhika Rani, Vaishnavi Pawar, Vikas Singh, Manesh Choubey, Trupti Vashishtha, A. Suresh, and Madhusudan Bhattarai. "Economic impact of organic agriculture: evidence from a Pan-India survey." Sustainability 14, no. 22 (2022): 15057” which developed a theory of change for organic products. A similar study on electronic agricultural markets was presented in “Reddy, A. A. (2018). Electronic national agricultural markets. Current Science, 115(5), 826-837”. Authors can also cite Durand, C., & Fournier, S. (2017). Can geographical indications modernize Indonesian and Vietnamese agriculture? Analyzing the role of national and local governments and producers’ strategies. World Development, 98, 93-104.
Then more important factors in enhancing the impact of geographical indicators is “area or number of farmers growing geographical indicators” and local impact or country wise impact. Authors have to distinguish between local and country/economy wise impacts. Local impacts may be higher prices for farmers, area expansion, production expansion, increase in farmers incomes. While economy wide/country wide impacts may not be significant.
The countries may be categorised as small countries with high dependent on agriculture, small countries with less dependent on agriculture, large countries with high dependent on agriculture, large countries with low dependent on agriculture.
If quantification is difficult, authors may mention a summary table with commodity type (local/global commodity), country type(small, large), country type (developed/developing), Market orientation of product type(export/domestic), commodity type(processed or raw) etc, then give details about the % with significant increase in market size/demand, % reported price increase, % reported increase in farmers incomes, % increase in local economy impact, % increase in country wide impacts.
Authors put lot of inconsistent arguments, like H1a, b, c, d to H10, with this many Hypothesis paper is becoming confusing.
Reduce the number of Hypothesis inline with “Theory of Change” then for each Hypothesis one summary table may be provided.
Authors may try to incorporate point wise reply to the above comments
Needs improvement
Author Response
Dear editor:
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. P3. Please proofread the paper carefully. The authors repeat "Firstly, unlike previous studies that focused solely on the impact of geographical indications on the agricultural economy, this study focuses on providing a scientific response to the controversy over the relationship between geographical indication products and the growth of Agricultural Economy".
2. Please clarify the contribution of this manuscript.
3. It is suggested to improve the language quality of the manuscript as a whole.
4. P16. “6. Conclusions and discussion”. It is suggested that the author further summarize and condense this part. For example, in “6.2. Analysis of regulatory effect”, it is suggested that the author increase the analysis and discussion of this part. At the same time, reduce the sense of simple list of articles.
It is suggested to improve the language quality of the manuscript as a whole.
Author Response
Dear editor:
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors aim to empirically investigate whether geographical indications of agricultural products have a positive impact on the development of the agricultural economy.
-Firstly, it is crucial to address the issue of language proficiency, as there are numerous instances of grammatical and structural errors in the manuscript. For example, consider the following sentence from the manuscript: 'Secondly, in contrast to previous studies that focused on data from only one country or region, the raw data of this study is based on 405 observation values provided in 64 independent research samples from the context of different regions around the world. This approach allows us to analyze the relationship between geographical indications and agricultural economic growth in a more comprehensive and precise manner, providing quantitative support for accelerating the development of geographical indications.'
The primary mistake here is the excessive length of the sentence, containing a staggering 73 words. Native writers tend to keep sentences concise and straightforward, as lengthy sentences are more prone to errors. Many sentences in the manuscript exhibit similar issues with length and language quality, underscoring the necessity for professional proofreading. It is important to note that manuscripts written in flawed English significantly increase the likelihood of rejection.
-Additionally, the reference style in the manuscript is highly unusual and confusing.
-Furthermore, the authors should recognize that theoretical research falls under the category of qualitative research, while empirical research pertains to quantitative research. It is apparent that the authors may have limited knowledge of economic theory, as they assert, 'However, in qualitative research, it is usually very difficult to scientifically clarify which differences in premise assumptions will lead to different estimation results.' In reality, the opposite is true; a theoretical economist can readily elucidate which assumptions influence specific outcomes.
-A major issue with the manuscript is the absence of a theoretical foundation. Empirical studies lacking theoretical underpinnings are inherently limited in their usefulness. Therefore, it is imperative to incorporate a theoretical framework or provide an intuitive explanation.
-The authors contend that a Pearson correlation coefficient of R=0.176 indicates a weak positive correlation. However, some statisticians argue that a value as small as 0.176 is essentially negligible and suggests little to no relationship. According to what I have learned in the 1980s, an R-value below 0.6 (or above -0.6) implies no significant relationship.
-Moreover, it is possible that the research question is misleading. The authors implicitly assume that, from the perspective of consumers, all agricultural goods are homogeneous, leading to the expectation of a uniform effect of geographical indication on the agricultural economy. However, when we abandon the assumption of homogeneity among agricultural products, it becomes evident that the impact of geographical indication can vary significantly. Geographical indication serves as a signal for specific product characteristics. For instance, some French consumers prefer to purchase agricultural products from their region, believing they have a smaller ecological footprint compared to similar products from elsewhere. Others may focus solely on price and disregard geographical indication. Individual preferences can differ widely across various agricultural products.
-Conversely, geographical indication may have a negative impact in certain cases. Many European consumers avoid Chinese tea due to concerns about pesticide residues and heavy metals, which can be harmful to health. Similarly, U.S. beef is often avoided because it may contain antibiotic residues, contributing to antibiotic resistance in humans. In such scenarios, geographical indication can deter sales. While not all Europeans may share these concerns, if the group of consumers who do is sufficiently large compared to the group that doesn't, the overall effect of geographical indication may be negative. This illustrates that different studies using data from diverse regions and countries, considering different products, can yield varying outcomes regarding the promotion of products from specific regions or countries through geographical indication.
-To emphasize this point, consider whether the authors themselves would be willing to consume vegetables produced in Fukushima, Japan. It is highly likely they would not, as there is a significant probability that the vegetables may be radioactive.
The manuscript is riddled with errors in grammar, syntax, and diction.
Author Response
Dear editor:
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The impact of geographical indication products on the development of agricultural economy
may be multifaceted. The study results show that geographical indications not only generate more economic benefits than ordinary products but also contribute to the growth of the agricultural economy by effectively promoting the development of agricultural product trade and the enhancement of agricultural product price. Overall, the manuscript is of high quality, but the following suggestions are made:
1.The quality of the chart is poor, such as Figure 3, which is not clear and has background
2.p should be italic
3.Clarify the novelty: Provide a more detailed explanation in the introduction about the specific novelty or contribution of the research. Clearly state how the proposed approach or findings differ from existing methods or studies in the field.
4.Provide more context: Expand the background information to give readers a better understanding of the significance of the research. Discuss the current challenges or limitations in the field and explain how the proposed approach addresses them.
5.Elaborate on the methodology: Provide a more comprehensive description of the methodology used in the study. Include specific details about the experimental setup, measurement procedures, and data analysis techniques. This will help readers replicate the study and better understand the validity of the results.
6.Present and discuss results in more detail: Provide a thorough analysis and interpretation of the obtained results. Discuss any unexpected findings or limitations encountered during the study. Compare the results with existing literature and provide possible explanations for any discrepancies.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear editor:
Please see the attachment. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Undoubtedly, the paper has seen significant improvements. The English language usage is now quite satisfactory, earning it a rating of 9 on a scale from 0 to 10 (excellent). The arguments presented are much clearer and more comprehensible, and all the points I raised have been effectively addressed.
As a suggestion for the future, I recommend that both authors and reviewers consider investing time and effort in polishing the English language quality before submitting a manuscript. In many other journals where I serve as a reviewer, poor English is often a grounds for rejection, without the opportunity for revision. With the current improvements, the paper is in good shape.
