The Effects of Business Strategy and Inventory on the Relationship between Sales Manipulation and Future Profitability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Weaknesses of the paper: discussion (is missing)

 

The topic is interesting, but the paper has serious flaws and is accepted only after major revisions. I have some thoughts for possible improvement which the authors may consider:

 

Methodology should transparently present materials and methods (without the theoretical background).

And discussion? Discussion should be the evaluation of the obtained results (author's original thoughts) in the light of the previous research (could include the items as explanation of the hypothesis).

Please, see tables + it is necessary to clearly describe the link with the journal (sustainability).

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript. We have used “Track Changes” function to highlight changes in the text and have carefully addressed all the comments. The corresponding changes and refinements made in the revised paper are summarized in our response below.

Thank you again for consideration of our revised manuscript.

Best regards

 

Reviewer’s Comments

The topic is interesting, but the paper has serious flaws and is accepted only after major revisions. I have some thoughts for possible improvement which the authors may consider:

Methodology should transparently present materials and methods (without the theoretical background).

As suggested by the reviewer, we have added materials and methods about methodology (line 351-389).

And discussion? Discussion should be the evaluation of the obtained results (author's original thoughts) in the light of the previous research (could include the items as explanation of the hypothesis).

As suggested by the reviewer, we have added the evaluation of the obtained results in the conclusion section (line 605-621).

Please, see tables + it is necessary to clearly describe the link with the journal (sustainability).

As suggested by the reviewer, we have added description about the link with the journal (sustainability) in the multivariate results section (line 523-525, line 537-538, line 564-566).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I personally enjoyed reading this paper and learning about sales manipulation's effect on future profitability. and can become a lever in which firms can improve performance based on their specific business landscape and situation. The literature review was complete and extensive, and the methodology taken is appropriate for the objective of the study.

One negative point I want to make aware is the need of extensive English editing.  I detected multiple grammar mistakes and redundancies, as well as simple spelling mistakes.  Please correct it and resubmit.  

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript. We have used “Track Changes” function to highlight changes in the text and have carefully addressed all the comments. The corresponding changes and refinements made in the revised paper are summarized in our response below.

Thank you again for consideration of our revised manuscript.

Best regards

 

Reviewer’s Comments

I personally enjoyed reading this paper and learning about sales manipulation's effect on future profitability. and can become a lever in which firms can improve performance based on their specific business landscape and situation. The literature review was complete and extensive, and the methodology taken is appropriate for the objective of the study.

One negative point I want to make aware is the need of extensive English editing. I detected multiple grammar mistakes and redundancies, as well as simple spelling mistakes. Please correct it and resubmit.  

 

As suggested by the reviewer, we have corrected grammar mistakes, redundancies, and spelling mistakes. We have undergone extensive English editing by MDPI.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Weaknesses of the paper: discussion (is missing)

 

And discussion? Discussion is not conclusion. Discussion should be the evaluation of the obtained results (author's original thoughts) in the light of the previous research (could include the items as explanation of the hypothesis).

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript. We have used “Track Changes” function to highlight changes in the text and have carefully addressed all the comments. The corresponding changes and refinements made in the revised paper are summarized in our response below.

Thank you again for consideration of our revised manuscript.

Best regards

 

Reviewer’s Comments

And discussion? Discussion is not conclusion. Discussion should be the evaluation of the obtained results (author's original thoughts) in the light of the previous research (could include the items as explanation of the hypothesis).

As suggested by the reviewer, we have added the evaluation of the obtained results (author’s original thoughts) in the light of the previous research in the discussion and conclusion section (line 604-627).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is accepted in present form.