Volatility Spillovers among the Major Commodities: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of this paper is interesting, and with potential to dive deep inside. Here are some comments and recommendations to be addressed as follows:

Introduction

1.      reader.

2.      The research gap and research motivation are not clear in the introduction section.

3.      The authors stated the following “The data collection for the present study was carried out using two electronic tools, Google Scholar.” Only one tool is mentioned, what about the second tool?

4.      Theoretical (Methodology) background presents some interesting ideas; however, it would be better if supported with a more recent literature review.

5.      A title for each table would be advantageous to the reader.

6.      As in the Table containing the “Number of Publications per Journal”, the authors can provide statistics of the number of publications per publisher. 

7.      Conclusions can be enhanced if the research limitations and implications (managerial and policy) are highlighted.  

8.      Long paragraphs are not a good standard to enhance the readability of the paper.  

9.      A consistent English language proofing needs to be performed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the insightfull comments. We have now completed all the necessary changes and answered the relevant questions. Our answers can be found on the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The studying the volatility of the Major Commodities and their effects have been one of the highly researched area in economics and finance. Thus, giving the A bibliometric review in this field can be seen as a great contribution. For this reason, I would like to congratulate your efforts. But I have some concern about your research.

1. I think in all these studies it is extremely important how they measure and model the volatility. but I haven't seen in your paper that indicates this point.

2. Important drawback of your paper is that after determining the gap in the existing literature, you fail to advise the methods and research area to focus on.

3. Based on your research, why didn't you include a general assessment of current papers if they serve the purpose.

4. Please provide an information about how the studies in this topic started and how it is evolved.

some suggestions:

1. please, if possible, try to list the papers in terms of their purposes and research questions.

2. evaluate the papers in terms of the methods used in the study.

3. please also consider the connectedness analysis, which is so popular in these days.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

there is need for proofreading. 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the insightfull comments. We have now completed all the necessary changes and answered the relevant questions. Our answers can be found on the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

The topic of study is good. However, your paper not ready to submit to JRFM. Please revise it and resubmit.

Sincerely

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language of the manuscript is good.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the insightfull comments. We have now completed all the necessary changes and answered the relevant questions. Our answers can be found on the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is quite interesting and its outcome can be a significant contribution to the body of knowledge after major changes. Below are some comments to address:

This paper requires proofreading, there are spelling and grammatical mistakes throughout.

The abstract should be provided be part of the paper- it is missing.

 Abstract needs to be revised. It should have one sentence per each: purpose/ background, methodology, findings, originality and implications.

The introduction is not well written. It needs to revised - it should be started from a broader area or global context then relate to your area of research local/specific context. Highlight gaps/problems/issues in your area of research and your solution (objectives). also provide you contributions in a precise and focused way therein. Authors should consult: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-022-24842-4, which will help in revising this paper. 

 The methodology should be specific and detailed.

Which methodological tool was used? be specific. Which reliable source was used? be specific, especially in the first two sentences of methodology. 

The results and discussion should be improved, strengthen the discussion through latest literature. 

Also strengthen the discussion by highlighting the implications of your study. 

Limitations and future research directions should be provided.

Update references. Latest references (covering 2024) should be part of this study.

I hope the comments and paper provided will help in this regard. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Proofreading is required.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the insightfull comments. We have now completed all the necessary changes and answered the relevant questions. Our answers can be found on the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the revised version, I would like to thank the authors for the modifications and efforts made to ameliorate the quality of the paper. The work is now suitable for publication with JRFM. Good luck

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for reading thoroughly the earlier version of our paper and helping us improve vastly our research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for improving the paper based on the commnets and providing responses to each comment. I am satisfied with your answers.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for reading thoroughly the earlier version of our paper and helping us improve vastly our research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s)

Your manuscript look much better than before and already to publish

Sincerely

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Author(s)

Your manuscript look much better than before and already to publish

Sincerely

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for reading thoroughly the earlier version of our paper and helping us improve vastly our research.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read the revised version of this manuscript. I thoroughly read this paper and feel that there is a need for more improvements. Below are some comments to address:

The abstract section needs to have findings of this study. 

The debate in the introduction section should be supported through latest literature covering to 2024 and 2023. Literature should be updated throughout, its outdated throughout. The introduction section should be improved to enhance the readability of this study. All key points and their important should be discussed. There is a need to discuss how past studies oversighted similar type of research and what are/ will be the consequences. Why is this study important. Literature and citations should be updated. Also need to improve the overall discussion. Author should consult: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-022-24842-4 

I hope the comments and paper provided will help in this regard.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Proofreading is required.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for reading thoroughly our paper in the second round and proposing the above changes. As per the reviewer’s suggestion, we have amended the abstract to include the findings of this study.

With regards to the second comment concerning the use of the literature from 2023 and 2024, we underline that given that we are providing a review of the relevant research items, there should naturally be a cut-off point. In our case, this cut-off point is 2022, and we know also include this in the abstract. We note that if we were to include papers from 2023 and 2024, we would have to re-do the whole methodology and of course re-write the current study. While we do understand that newer papers will always exist, we believe that future reviews will cover these two years, something we already acknowledge in the conclusions section.

Also, the paper that the reviewer has provided was of great help to us when it came to the methodology and the steps that we have taken. Nevertheless, given the different scope of the proposed paper it is difficult for the current research to follow the specific lay-out of Jan et al.,  (2023). For example, there aren’t specific policy recommendations that we can include given the number of commodities and the number of the other assets that are included in our study. However, we cite the paper on page 4 of the revised document, given its methodological relevance.