Insight into the Critical Success Factors of Performance-Based Budgeting Implementation in the Public Sector for Sustainable Development in the COVID-19 Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research paper Insight into the critical success factors of Performance-based Budgeting implementation among public sector towards sustainable development in the Covid-19 pandemic provides a comprehensive assesment of the topic.

 

All the sections are quite detailed  Methods are well applied, and some suggestions are given that need to be followed to improve the paper. If those are followed acceptance could be recommended.

 

The full variable names are mentioned  in the abstract, and then in the other parts of the paper mostly abbrevations are used. It is very difficult to follow the paper and read it as the person should go back to the beginning to check the full name. Especially for readers that skim the paper. Thus, you should use full version of the variables more frequently.

 

The sections such as paper scop and methodolofical approach in the introduction could be made shorter and divided between introduction and literature review. I dont see any need to introduce subsections in the introduction part.

 

The paper uses SEM, but i do not find any visual representation of the hypothesized model, and structural model. Furthermore some mistakes in writing such as testifying the model are found.

 

Allso some p values are 0, how is that possible?

 

Some major contributors to sustainability during COVID times have not been included in the review, such as 

 

Impact of entrepreneurial leadership and bricolage on job security and sustainable economic performance: an empirical study of Croatian companies during COVID-19 pandemic

 

COVID-19 Pandemic Implications for Corporate Sustainability and Society: A Literature Review

 

Covid-19 Related Stressors and Performance: The Case of Lebanese Employees During the Pandemic

Finally the paper could be made more concise and seems as it requires more editing to reduce insignificant sentences such as  > Surprisingly, there has been a vast majority of researchers and practitioners employ- 96

ing cross-sectional data to investigate the determinants of PBB implementation intention. , especially as there are no references in the end.

 

Author Response

Reviewer point #1: Using full version of the variables more frequently.

Author response #1: We wholeheartedly agreed with the abovementioned perspective of the reviewer as these have been the paramount issues in all research. Consequently, the full version of the variables was employed more frequently. In addition, the notion of perceived appropriateness was added to illustrated the variable employed in the proposed model.

Reviewer point #2: The sections such as paper scope and methodological approach in the introduction could be made shorter and divided between introduction and literature review. There was no need to introduce subsections in the introduction part

Author response #2: We wholeheartedly agreed with the abovementioned perspective of the reviewer as these have been the paramount issues in all research. Consequently, the subsections in the introduction part were deleted and rewritten in a shorter manner.

Reviewer point #3: Adding visual representation of the hypothesized model and modifying some mistakes in writing

Author response #3: We wholeheartedly agreed with the abovementioned perspective of the reviewer as these have been the paramount issues in all research. Consequently, several diagrams of Structural Model extracted from AMOS software version 26.0 were added in the current paper.

Reviewer point #4: Also some p values are 0, how is that possible?

Author response #4: We wholeheartedly agreed with the abovementioned perspective of the reviewer as these have been the paramount issues in all research. These results analyses were entirely rested on the statistical data captured from the accountants in public sector organizations during the period from 2020 to 2022 and were conducted with the support of AMOS software version 26.0.

Reviewer point #5: Some major contributors to sustainability during COVID times have not been included in the review

Author response #5: We wholeheartedly agreed with the abovementioned perspective of the reviewer as these have been the paramount issues in all research. Consequently, all of the recommended academic works were added in the current paper.

Reviewer point #6: There are no references in the end of the sentence “Surprisingly, there has been a vast majority of researchers and practitioners employing cross-sectional data to investigate the determinants of PBB implementation intention”

Author response #6: We wholeheartedly agreed with the abovementioned perspective of the reviewer as these have been the paramount issues in all research. Consequently, the references for this sentence were added.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article " Insight into the critical success factors of Performance-based Budgeting implementation among public sector towards sustainable development in the Covid-19 pandemic" deserved the best appreciation and attention from the reviewer.

This study provides an interesting insight into a current and pertinent subject.

The application of the norms of a scientific articleshouldbe reviewed to be published in the journal Sustainability as well as bibliographic citations and references.

In the introduction there should be a reinforcement:

What is the purpose of the study? 

What is the relevance of the study?

What brought us the study again?

What or what are the contributions?

There should be a strengthening of the research issue

There should be better clarification in the section with the methodology

It needs a deeper discussion, crossing the results obtained with those in other studies.

 

I hope I was helpful.

 

Author Response

Reviewer point #1: In the introduction there should be a reinforcement: What is the purpose of the study?  What is the relevance of the study? What brought us the study again? What or what are the contributions? There should be a strengthening of the research issue.

Author response #1: We wholeheartedly agreed with the abovementioned perspective of the reviewer as these have been the paramount issues in all research. Consequently, the introduction was rewritten in the way that purpose of the study was clarified with explicit research objectives and research questions. In response to the questions “What is the relevance of the study?” and “What brought us the study again?”, several academic notes were added to illuminate the relevance of the study and the several explanations on the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic still kept on spreading and there was no sign of stopping. The perspectives of each individual would be likely change over the time. Taken together, this type of research was still in need of carrying on investigating. Moreover, the contributions on the theoretical and practical facets were highlighted. In doing so, the research issue was strengthened.

Reviewer point #2: There should be better clarification in the section with the methodology.

Author response #2: We wholeheartedly agreed with the abovementioned perspective of the reviewer as these have been the paramount issues in all research. Consequently, the methodology was modified with the full version of the variables employed in the proposed model and the Statistical Analysis and Calculations was added several information to illuminate each stage of analysis and calculations conducted in the current study.

Reviewer point #3: It needs a deeper discussion, crossing the results obtained with those in other studies.

Author response #3: We wholeheartedly agreed with the abovementioned perspective of the reviewer as these have been the paramount issues in all research. Consequently, a deeper discussion was exhibited in the current study. However, we had to put accent on the fact that the current research could act as the pioneer of this subject. In this regard, there were two variable which were first proposed in this type of model which were perceived appropriateness and performance expectancy. Thus, it would be hardly to compare the results analyses of these two variables with the same prior studies. Instead, we just made a comparison with the relatively similar studies that focused on the impact of these two variables on the behavioral intention to adopt the other issues. In the meanwhile, although the rest of variables in the proposed model were supported by previous studies, we could hardly seek for new ones as you requested. One plausible reason for this argument was due to the lack of academic works on this type of subject. Keeping this in our minds, we tried our bests during the period from 2020 to 2022 to capture the empirical data to complete this study and we still hope our work could become a cornerstone for follow-up studies and the valuable references for practitioners and policy-makers in all over the world.  

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, 

The study is very intresting, novel, and of good quality. I just recommend adding a conclusion and simply as well. It's a little difficult to understand.

Author Response

Reviewer point #1: adding a conclusion.

Author response #1: We wholeheartedly agreed with the abovementioned perspective of the reviewer as these have been the paramount issues in all research. Consequently, the conclusion was added in this study.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations