Civic Engagement and Personality: Associations with the Big Five and the Dark Triad

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you very much for inviting to review the paper entitled: “Civic engagement and personality: Associations with the Big Five and the Dark Triad”. The paper uses fixed- 11 effects regression models to analyze the impact of green investment on corporate sustainability in Chinese listed companies for the period of 2010 to 2020. It also investigates the moderating effects of government environmental subsidies, investor attention, and executives’ overseas experience on the relationship between green investment and corporate sustainability. After going through the manuscript it seems to me that it will be great paper indeed if the following comments are addressed:

 

1)    Abstract is ok. I think it will be fantastic if authors put the sampling technique and name of the data analysis tools here.

2)    Authors started the introduction with the following lines that seems alluring. It will be great if authors cite any relevant recent paper for these lines: 

 

“Civic engagement is the attitude of believing that one can and should make a difference for betterment of the community, requiring knowledge, attitudes, skills, and values to achieve that betterment.” (cite here)

 

I noticed throughout the paper that authors followed APA referencing styles. Authors should follow the journal referencing strictly. In-text citations should be [1, 2, 3, 7].

 

It consists of promoting the quality of life of a community through civic behaviors (considering both political and non-political processes, given their relationship), which in turn has positive effects on citizens' sense of community and their attachment to their place of residence (Binder, 2020; Ehrlich, 1997; Vidal et al., 2013).

 

3)    What is research gap in this study, and why is important to fill this gap, and how the study fill this gap and contribute the green investment and socially responsible behaviour literature? 

4)    In “2. Materials and Methods” section, authors mentioned that Spanish students were considered as samples for this study. But, students belong to which classes did not mention. For example: schools/high schools/colleges/universities?  Should be mentioned in the revised version? Also should be mentioned the study location, for example: state name; 

Which sampling technique was used was not mentioned?. They should mention it in the revised version. Authors should explain in details the data collection procedures that show the integrity of the study. 

Which data analysis tools were used was not mentioned here? 

Have authors checked the test of normality and common method bias as they used huge respondents as samples and items to measure the variables? If yes, should be mentioned in the revised version.

 

5)    “3. Results” section is overall ok. Just need to reorganize the tables so that it look attractive.

6)    “4. Discussion” is ok. 

7)    “5. Conclusion” is ok. It will be great if authors put the “Implications of the study” as a separate paragraph.

8)    What are the key contributions of the study to socially responsible investment (SRI) literature?  I encourage the authors to add the study contribution to the Introduction section and explain it in more details in Conclusion section. 

9)    Authors should reorganize the references with the citations and should follow the journal referencing style.

10) I found few grammatical errors and types that should be fixed in the revised version. 

Good-Luck

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx