Accelerating Cultural Dimensions at International Companies in the Evidence of Internationalisation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for providing this opportunity to review your manuscript titled "Accelerating cultural dimensions at international companies in the evidence of internationalisation" You have conducted an interesting study on accelerating cultural dimensions at international companies. In the following, I will provide some comments that are intended to help you improve the manuscript.
(1) You have prepared an interesting manuscript. However, there are several redundancies in your text. Therefore, I recommend tightening up the writing significantly to be more comprehensive and concise, simultaneously. For example, the introduction section lacks logical reasoning, i.e., the section only presents the thoughts of authors, while several strong sentences without any reference are stated, which leads to ambiguity and unreliable arguments. I suggest you strengthen your logic presented in the introduction section by providing the necessary reference (latest).
(2) The introduction section failed to raise an interesting research question and/or problem area; examination of which can significantly contribute to theory and practice. Though the paper mentioned Theories of internationalisation, however, paper overlooked to report which specific theory and how can the identified gap can be explained based on the underpinning theory. This matter needs serious attention.
(3) The paper aims to explore cultural dimensions at international companies. However, I am unable to find a relevant literature review (also relating to my prior comment, as the introduction was unable to raise important research questions based on the logical research gap). I am unable to understand the current review of literature, each paragraph and section has its own directions, that is, need alignment between the concepts and text.
By presenting logical reasoning and a strong storyline in the introduction section (i.e, main focal point of the study, prior findings, research gap/question, importance/significance of the research gap based on some existing theory), would able readers to understand the review of literature, methods, results, discussion (theoretical contributions, managerial implication, limitations and future directions), and conclusion. I think you need to align each preceding section with the prior section. At the present, all sections have their own direction.
Discussion should be based on the results and how the paper findings are contributing to the theory and practice. You need to explicate each individual findings. However, the current discussion seemed just like the rephased form of literature.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please check the file attach with action according to your comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Interesting paper, but lack of good grammar, style and clarity make it difficult to enjoy.
The paper deals with an important topic and the results are worth consideration.
My first suggestion is to review the writing, for style, clarity and good grammar.
But before the grammar (that can be the last point), I would suggest other points to improve together with clarity.
First, the paper lacks citations of authors such as Hofstede (several references) and Minkov 2010 that are mentioned in the introduction.
Second, the methodological aspects and how the results were obtained need more elaboration.
The presentation of the results too.
The discussion of the results is lacking. I recommend the following.
The results of the 7 positives and the 4 negatives should be included in the discussion section.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer, please check the file attach with action according to your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Good Job, I agree with your improved version of the manuscript. Good wishes!!!
Author Response
Thank you for all the very valuable comments. They were very helpful to us, correcting the article to the right level.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been much improved. I would suggest a complete review of the English, there are still some grammar errors. i have spotted some. The text is read needs more revision, it seems to me.
There is another suggestion, a general reading to improve the easiness of the flow for the sake of the reader.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Hello dear reviewer,
We revised the paper according to your comments. The English language was checked with the Grammarly tool and improved.We also incorporated comments on concrete sentences into the updated text version.
Thank you a lot for your kind support and comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
