Quote: Gil-Pareja S, Llorca-Vivero R, Martinez-Serrano YES (2019) Reciprocal versus non-reciprocal trade agreements: which were the best to encourage exports? PLoS ONE 14 (2): e0210446. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210446 Finally, in column 8, we present the results in two parts: one for the years up to 2008 and the other for the 2008 data. This will allow us to check whether non-reciprocal preferences have been eroded in recent years as a result of the increase in EPAs between developed and developing countries over the past decade or the significant revision of the European GSP in 2014. The results confirm the erosion of preferences in later years. The estimated coefficient for this 2008 variable is very close to zero and is not statistically significant at the conventional level.  Comparing the period 1970-2013 to the period that omitted the last five years of their sample (1973-2008), they also indicate a partial erosion of Canada`s trade preferences and a total erosion of trade preferences granted by Australia and the European Union. Reciprocity in international trade, reciprocal concessions on tariffs, quotas or other trade restrictions. Reciprocity implies that these concessions are neither contemplated nor expected to be extended to other countries with which the contracting parties have entered into trade agreements. Reciprocity agreements can be concluded between countries or groups of countries. Columns 3 to 5 show the results if we break down, in turn, the decoding of the PTA, the fake GATT or both depending on the group to which each trading partner belongs. Two comments are correct. First, in all cases and regardless of the type of standard errors considered, the results show a positive and statistically significant effect (at least 10%) for models of mutual agreements that will account for the impact on exports when developed countries are the target markets.