Corporate Governance vs. Financial Performance for Intensity of Innovation Investments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The reviews of this study are as follows.
- In Introduction, additional explanation about the research background and research purpose is needed.
- The difference between the previous study and this study and the implications of this study need to be further explained.
- Detailed explanation is needed in Results and Discussion.
- In order to expand this research, it is necessary to present additional research directions.
- Please check and correct typographical errors throughout the paper.
This study is an overall creative and suggestive paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for the very useful comments.
We tried to adjust our manuscript according to all suggested comments.
Have a nice day
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Interesting - thank you for the chance to review this.
My biggest concern is not with the research, but rather presentation - there are some grammatical mistakes.
You could add one more reference to the references after this sentence in lines 81-81: "This problem (coherence between technological development, economic growth, reduction of environmental pollution, and social responsibility) has been extensive studied." Adam J. Sulkowski, Melissa Edwards, and R. Edward Freeman, (2018). Shake Your Stakeholder: Firm Initiated Interactions to Create Shared Sustainable Value. Organization & Environment, 31 (3).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for the very useful comments.
We tried to adjust our manuscript according to all suggested comments.
Have a nice day
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, I read your paper with interest, for which numerous gaps emerge. A quantitative scientific paper must follow a clear methodological approach: Introduction and description of the research gap to be addressed, theoretical background and development of the hypothesis, the methodology used, data source, description of the model and measurements of the variables, descriptive statistical analysis, illustration results, discussion and conclusions. Unfortunately in these papers many of the aforementioned sections are absent and in case of presence, they are not clear.
The analysis is unsatisfactory and unclear both in theoretical and empirical terms. In particular, with regard to the methodological section, there are several critical issues:
- The selection of countries appears to be highly unbalanced and this has important repercussions on the empirical analysis;
- All bibliographic references are completely missing, as well as an adequate research design, a precise definition of the hypotheses to be tested and the identification of the selection and identification processes of the sample of the countries analyzed;
- There is no bibliographic reference regarding the selection of the parameters being analyzed;
- Since the introduction, there is no reference to the statistical methodology used.
As regards the empirical analysis, being a panel analysis:
- There is no reference to the function used
- The definition of the number of periods analyzed and the number of units considered is missing;
- Preliminary tests are missing
- The sections relating to descriptive statistics and correlation are completely absent;
- The Breusch Pagan and Hausman tests that would justify the adoption of a fixed-effects model are missing
- The results presented are incomplete
- The results are unclear and not very exhaustive, especially as regards the testing of hypotheses. - Finally, the conclusions are also small and offer no significant contributions in terms of implications.
- Good luck
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for the very useful comments.
We tried to adjust our manuscript according to all suggested comments.
Have a nice day
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper covers an interesting and important issue of the corporate financial performance in relation to the country sustainability, proposing a novel methodology for its evaluation. The overall quality of the paper is high as it is based on sound methodology and the results were interpreted correctly. There are, though, some minor issues that should be improved.
- The aim of the study should be stated more clearly both in the abstract and introduction - in its current form it seems rather general.
- Author should carefully explain the contribution of the paper and the reasons why it could be of interest for readers.
- Results of the analysis should be compared to the results of the previous studies.
- The last section misses some important elements, e.g.:
- limitations of the analysis,
- directions for future research,
- broader implications of the study.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for the very useful comments.
We tried to adjust our manuscript according to all suggested comments.
Have a nice day
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, the overall design of the work has improved. However, some required elements have not been developed. In order to improve the readability of a scientific paper it is necessary to insert, after the literature background, a section in which the research hypotheses on the basis of the existing literature must be described. At the same time after the model description, the measurement of the variables must be illustrated.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for the useful comments again. We improved our manuscript with your insights. We will wait for your decision.
Have a nice day
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
