Internal Change Mechanism of Integrated Reporting: A Field Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract - the abstract should more clearly present the used method, adding also the aim/objective of the study, respectively the obtained results / main findings.
Literature review - discuss more the literature review, even the authors could use a comparatively analysis table to show how the current study contributes to existing knowledge.
Results section - restructure the results section so that better present the gathered data -> identify main categories and consolidate the answers.
Following the Laughlin (1991) mentioned model, authors should present the main observed results from interviews. Moreover, the authors could split the results following the sector / industry of the company.
Comparatively discuss obtained results with previous studies results.
There are two sections that discuss the Results -> recommnedation merge the Results section with Findings and Results section.
Conclusions - emphasize better the contribution of the study into IR filed, and present the implications for society, practice (companies) and academia.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for taking your time and reviewing our study to be published at Sustainability.
We addressed all your comments, and please find detailed reviewer report attached.
Again thank you so much for reviewing our study to be published at Sustainability.
Have a wonderful academic year,
Sincerely,
Seb Demirkan, PhD
The Johns Hopkins University
Carey Business School
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
your paper addresses a relevant topic from a quite interesting perspective. However, it needs some adjustments to be considered for publication.
First, it is important to define better the research question and purpose. What are exactly the changes you are going to explore? Internal changes/external changes? Both?
Second, it is useful to explain better the reasons why the authors have chosen Turkey as setting and how the firms were selected in the method section.
Third, the model of Laughlin is very interesting but also highly complex. The authors need to consider or 1) to explain better the model and how they have implemented it or 2) to simplify the theoretical approach. Indeed, at the moment, it is very difficult to understand how the authors have investigated the first or second-order change in practice and applied the model to the case. Only a few lines per each section of the findings refer to the model but it is not clear on the basis of what such statements are made.
Fourth, concerning the findings, it is not clear on the basis of what the different sections are identified, in particular the sub-sections of section 4.5. The discussion of findings can be improved and its logic better explained. In the end, what are the changes analyzed and discussed? It does not emerge.
The bullet points listed at the beginning of the discussion do not seem to derive clearly from the findings. In the end, the contributions are not clear.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for taking your time and reviewing our study to be published at Sustainability.
We addressed all your comments, and please find the detailed reviewer report attached. We also copy-edited our manuscript.
Again thank you so much for reviewing our study to be published at Sustainability.
Have a wonderful academic year,
Sincerely,
Seb Demirkan, PhD
The Johns Hopkins University
Carey Business School
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #3,
Thank you for spending your valuable time reviewing our study.
Please see the attachment with our responses to your comments,
Thank you so much and have a wonderful new year in advance,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
To better highlight your contribution, I think you should shortly present in the abstract the main findings (you have stated that there are changes in the reporting process, but you could briefly mention them).
I am referring to this main finding, which should be embedded in the abstract: entities undergo a structural change that affects all components of enterprises (a second-order change in all reporting processes according to the Change Model of Laugh).
Author Response
Thank you for spending your valuable time reviewing our study.
Please see the attachment with our responses to your comments,
Thank you so much and have a wonderful new year in advance,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I am sorry to say that the paper is not sufficiently improved. The reviews made are marginal and do not address the weaknesses recognized. The drawbacks previously recognized are still there, especially those concerning the theoretical model, the findings, and the contributions of the study. The theoretical model is not well explained neither it is explained how it has been operationalized. The findings are not clearly structured and the contributions are not discussed. The few lines added at the end are not sufficient neither scientifically sound.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for spending your valuable time reviewing our study.
Please see the attachment with our responses to your comments,
Thank you so much and have a wonderful new year in advance,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors did a very good job of reviewing the paper, having considered
virtually all of my previous comments. In my opinion, the current version
is frankly better than the previous one and can be accepted for publication.
