Consumers’ Financial Knowledge in Central European Countries in the Light of Consumer Research
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors, thank you for providing a comprehensive contribution to the important research topic of financial knowledge literacy in Europe. The conducted survey is a very strong part of your study, while the overall structure (i.e., no clear read thread, long paragraphs and sentences, lack of clustering and subdivision) and presentation (i.e., additional well formatted high-quality tables and graphics) as well as inclusion of a few missing literature references provide potential of improvements. Therefore, the manuscript would benefit from implementing the following improvements:
Abstract: The abstract would benefit from reducing general information (first sentences) and adding instead more specific information about your method of your survey and its outcomes, as well as limitations, concrete conclusions and further research directions.
Introduction: Add background information and describe the problem setting in more detail and delete the last paragraph of the introduction (not necessary in such a short article).
Literature: Delete the first paragraph of the literature section. Proof with references that “the results of most studies in Europe assess the level of financial knowledge of consumer as high”. Section 2.1 and especially 2.2 are too long (i.e., try to sum up the wordy literature comparison of lines 190-259 in a table) and miss a clear read thread. Try to formulate more precise and compact to get space for adding a third section in the literature section. Describe in this third section about “Knowledge Transfer to Stakeholder” about possible ways how to improve the financial literacy in the general public. In other disciplines game-based simulation workshops and simulation games proofed to be a great way to transfer knowledge, so discuss also the literature on this topic and draw connections to other branches such as logistics (i.e., doi.org/10.11128/sne.34.tn.10681, doi.org/10.2507/IJSIMM19-3-526) where solution approaches like this were already implemented to transfer complex knowledge in a risk free setting.
Empirical Verification: Call this section method and describe in detail how the questionnaire was developed (report on test rounds with focus groups and revisions) and how the study participants were chosen in more detail. Delete 1. In Line 302. Describe the statistic tests in more detail and report why they fit/can be used in this case.
Financial knowledge research: This section is a mix out of introduction, results and method, so delete the section and shift the information to the appropriate section order to follow the standardized journal format.
Results: Try to shorten the results section, use figures and graphs if possible and add a real discussion section (should not only be a short part of the conclusions) where you compare your findings with those of others (i.e., lines 190-259).
Conclusions: Further develop the conclusion section in order to provide an additional value for the reader (do not simply sum up already presented information from the results/discussion): list additional managerial implications, further critical limitations of your study and interesting research directions. Report on the originality, impact and main contribution of your study. How do your findings impact other countries/industries?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required to ensure scientific soundness.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your time and thorough analysis of our article. The comments you submitted are very valuable to us and we decided to take them into account.
Comment 1 [Abstract]
Response 1 Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. The changed abstract is more specific and focuses on the most important issues raised in the article. Practically the entire second part of the abstract is new text responding to the suggestions made in the review.
Comment 2 [Introduction]
Response 2 Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. The description of the text structure is a response to suggestions from other reviewers and therefore we decided not to remove it at this stage.
Comment 3 [Literature Review]
Response 3 Thank you for pointing this out. In line with the comments made in the review, we have made changes to paragraph 2.1 (suboptimal financial decisions) to make it more understandable and logically linked to paragraph 2.2. We have added a new paragraph 2.2 relating to knowledge transfer - in this case, we have not only considered the comment made in the review, but also used the recommended literature.
Comment 4 [Empirical verification]
Response 4 Thank you for pointing this out. In this section we added details how the questionnaire was developed and how the study participants were chosen. We describe the statistic tests in more detail justifying his choice.
Comment 5 [Financial knowledge research]
Response 5 Thank you for pointing this out. Considering the suggestion contained in the review, we are in the process of confirming the guidelines from the Editorial Office in order to make any changes in the presentation of the study results.
Comment 6 [Results & discussion]
Response 6 Thank you for pointing this out. The attached text has significantly more changes than those suggested in the review - they are the result of considering the comments included in the second review.
Comment 7 [Conclusions]
Response 7 Thank you for pointing this out. The comments concerning this part of the text were very valuable and have been practically fully incorporated in the revised text of this paragraph.
We hope that our response and changes in the text will be satisfactory. If there is a need for further modifications to the text, we are open to suggestions and comments.
With respect,
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research topic is trending and has several implications. The paper is written well; however, it needs some improvements.
1. Make the abstract more explicit which must contain objectives, methods, and key findings.
2. The research gap should be justified more.
3. LR is sufficient.
4. Method is ok.
5. Discussion is not mature. It should be aligned with objectives and Literature.
6. Conclusion is ok
All the best
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First of all, we would like to thank you for your time and attention. It is very important to us that the overall impressions of reading the article were positive and that our work was appreciated.
We agree with the suggestions included in the review and the recommended changes have been introduced.
Comment 1 [Make the abstract more explicit which must contain objectives, methods, and key findings]
Response 1 Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. The changed abstract is more specific and focuses on the most important issues raised in the article.
Comment 2 [The research gap should be justified more]
Response 2 Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. The research gap has been clarified and we refer to it in several places in our article.
Comment 3 [LR is sufficient]
Response 3 Thank you for pointing this out.
Comment 4 [Method is ok]
Response 4 Thank you for pointing this out.
Comment 5 [Discussion is not mature. It should be aligned with objectives and Literature]
Response 5 Thank you for pointing this out. The discussion was intended to focus on the results of the study because there are not many references in the literature to the fact that consumers overestimating their level of knowledge. The study was limited to Polish consumers only and that's why we referred to local literature. Nevertheless, this part of the text has also been supplemented.
Comment 6 [Conclusion is ok]
Response 6 Thank you for pointing this out.
The attached text has significantly more changes than those suggested in the review - they are the result of taking into account the comments included in the second review.
We hope that our response and changes in the text will be satisfactory. If there is a need for further modifications to the text, we are open to suggestions and comments.
With respect,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
