Assessing the Decision Usefulness of Integrated Reports of Namibian Listed Companies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper analyzes the decision usefulness of integrated reports made by listed companies, which is a current economic issue.

 

Specific comments:

- lines 4-5 - word "using" redundant?

- line 15 - are seven keywords too many?

- line 38 - abbreviation "IIRC" not explained

- lines 67-68 - the sentence is not clear enough

- lines 101-102, 106, 131 and 313 - abbreviations not explained

- lines 202-206, 374, 387 and 398 - different font used

- line 227 - the title of Figure 1 is not clear enough

- lines 228, 373 and 397 - several typos on the figures

- lines 245-252 - different formatting of the text

- line 292 and 345 - the sources for the tables are not stated

- line 346 - the reference should be to Table 2

- line 356 - the title of the paragraph should be checked

- line 397 - Figure 5 mentions "N=312" which is not explained in the text

- lines 447-453 are almost identical to majority of the lines 404-419

- lines 462-467 - this information has already been presented in the conclusion

- there are sources used in the paper that are not listed in the literature, e.g. Moloi (2015a; 2015b) - all the sources in the paper and in the literature should be checked

- plagiarism check done by Turnitin software - 14 % overall similarity, references excluded

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your valuable input, comments and suggestions. Attached please find our responses to your comments

Thank you and we look forward to your continued support

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors present a study evaluates the decision usefulness of integrated reports by listed Namibian companies. The research was carried out on the example of 23 companies of the Namibia Stock Exchange (NSX) as of 31 December 2019. At that time, on the Namibia stock market was 32 firms listed. The analysis was using control checklists of 2018-2019. The study finds that integrated reports produced in Namibia are generally decision useful, though report usefulness varies by company and industry. The findings provide detailed insights into the decision usefulness and quality of Namibian listed companies' integrated reports.

The study is interesting, and the paper is generally well prepared, with relevant data.

I appreciate Authors research work. However, I have following observation and remarks. I encourage Authors to address them:

1)     The method is generally well presented, but it should be more supported in the literature. Especially it concerns the explanation of the method selection conceptual content analysis. At this point, there is only a reference to one of the Co-authors - Moloi (2015a; 2015b). It should be emphasized that these works are not included in the literature list. They must necessarily be corrected.

2)     It is puzzling why the authors of the study included only 24 companies, while there were only 43 of them on the stock exchange. In the opinion of the Reviewer, the number of companies was not too large and the study could include reports of all companies. The reviewer mentions that the presented sample selection is explained and seems to be correct. However, using the full sample would be more advantageous in this case. This remark is food for thought. It is recommended to include the results in future research.

3)   In the text are more editorial errors. They must necessarily be corrected.

a)      in line 179, 266 there are too many parentheses e.g. Moloi (2015a; 2015b)).

b)     in line 202-205 and 213 and 214 you must check punctuation marks. In the opinion of the Reviewer, commas should be used.

c)     in line 305, 357  the sentence should end with a full stop,

d)     in line 346 there is “…Table 1 above shows..”, and it should be “…Table 2 above shows..”,

4)     In the description of tables and figures, it is better to indicate the number than the phrase above or below.

5)     Different fonts are used in the titles of Tables 1 and 2. It must be unified.

6)     Different fonts are in the pictures. They should also be standardized.

7)     Conclusions need to be corrected as they repeat themselves.

I think that the experiment is interesting, but that the manuscript do need to be refined.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your valuable input and suggestions. Attached please find our responses to your comments

Thank you and we look forward to your continued support

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

See attached 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your valuable input and comments. Attached please find our responses to your comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf