Sustainability of Public Finance through the Lens of Transfer Prices and Their Associated Risks: An Empirical Research
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors present a hypothesis in the article, but this is not a hypothesis, it is a research question. The hypothesis must be formulated differently and statistical methods must be used to prove it.
References to graphs in the text are missing in the article.
Figures 2-5 are not analyzed are only listed without comments
The whole article is just the processing of the results of the questionnaire survey without added value.
The article lacks a discussion that would compare the results of the questionnaire survey.
There are very few theoretical approaches in the literature review that relate to the issues addressed.
The conclusion of the questionnaire survey is repeated in the general conclusion. In the conclusion, the most important findings of the survey should emerge and not to repeat what is already stated in the results.
The idea of the article is interesting, but it is necessary to significantly modify all parts of the article - theoretical background, methodology, results and conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper investigates the sustainability of public finance. The authors selected data from 95 questionnaires conducting a quantitative survey during the last two months of 2020, November and December. The method used was the Computer Assisted Web Interviewing (CAWI) and each questionnaire included 14 questions. The research findings showed that the companies that took part in the survey were more sensitive and uncertain about the risks and transfer prices. In what follows I mention my comments.
- I would please the authors of this paper in the section “Abstract” to indicate in detail the duration of the research and the origin and quantity of the data.
- In the paper, the authors report that the questions are 14 in number but only the 10 questions are analyzed. I would ask the authors to analyze in detail all the questions included in the questionnaire.
- I would suggest to the authors to make a table that includes all the abbreviations mentioned in the paper.
- I would recommend the authors to include clarifying notes in all figures and tables.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I congratulate the authors for their work and research, which proved to be interesting to follow. Nevertheless, in order for the paper to gain more insight and solid scientific ground and details, I am in the position to suggest, commenting, the following:
- founded on the extension of research methodology by developing clear and coherent hypotheses;
- the analysis and interpretation of results from the public finances sustainability perspective;
- a much more detailed statistical analysis (in the current form, there is a simple percentage assessment of the answers to the questionnaire).
Other comments, more to the point, can be:
- sustainability must be presented more than a simple check and control process of financial actions;
- literature does not present the concept in the title: public finance sustainability, the overview of the public finance sustainability through the lens of transfer prices and risks;
- a clear enunciation of the hypotheses is required from the point of view of the concepts mentioned in the title;
- empirical research must be improved accordingly, as well as the results presentation and the conclusions (less theoretical insight on the questionnaire and much more statistical-mathematical input).
- also, a revision of the English language will clarify the meanings of the research undertaken.
I am sure that, going through all these suggestions, the authors will improve and obtain a coherent and well-developed research and paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After editing, the article is significantly better in terms of content. Nevertheless, there were minor errors in the article. Comments on Figures 2-5 should be directly below each image. The text written in this way is confusing and uncomfortable for the reader. Figures 8 to 15 have no references in the text. It means, that the text does not indicate which comment applies to which figure.
Line 443-450 - the comment that is given is not in the context of Figure 6, as stated by the authors.
Line 220 states to prove the hypotheses, but these are not part of the article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I am happy with the new version.
Author Response
Thank you.
Reviewer 3 Report
I have read the answers of the authors and checked the changes made in the paper text.
Unfortunately, they did not fulfil the requirements mentioned before and precariously addressed them.
It would add value to the paper, which will prepare it for publication if the authors will address the following:
- the argument presented for the research question vs hypothesis is unfounded and must be scientifically proved. As not a heuristic research is developed, the must is for creating some research hypothesis that will be part of the scientific research undertaken.
- there is no way to find a well-grounded connection between the title and the content of the paper, therefore very detailed attention must be given to the logical correlation of the two
- in this form, the methodology and research is simple and not suitable for a scientific paper requesting a detailed analysis and improvement from the way it is now (an interpretation of some questionnaire results)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper was improved and presently took a well-developed format (research and overall presentation).
Good luck to the authors!
