On the Sustainable Economic Growth in Sub-Saharan Africa: Do Remittances, Human Capital Flight, and Brain Drain Matter?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- The abstract is well written but the motivation of the study is lacking in the abstract, authors should identify or just mention the reason why they are studying the specific topic in chosen regions. They can do this with a sentence from the beginning of the abstract. Also, the keywords need to be separated with semi column and not comma. Also, check all the abbreviated words like ARDL and ECM and Write the full form before using the abbreviations.
- Theory is missing behind the empirical model.
- The discussion of the findings looks scanty without comparison with previous studies. Authors are advised to discuss their findings extensively with comparison with findings from previous studies.
- The section 6 of the study is too large, need improvement, remove extra explanation which is already described in previous sections.
Author Response
Authors are highly thankful to the reviewer for his objective comments and suggestions for improvements to be made to the manuscript.
Therefore, authors hope that you find the revised paper in the level of publication in sustainability.
Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of the paper:
On the Sustainable Economic Growth in Sub Saharan Africa: Do Remittances, Human Capital Flight and Brain Drain Matter?
The research is led by push-pull, altruism, and social network theories to investigate the sus-tainable economic growth in SSA: Do remittances, human capital flight and brain drain matter?
The following are general comments that should be applied before considering publication:
1. The design and structure of the paper needs improvement. The introduction of the paper is too long.
2. In the introduction there are data that are presented after a literature review, I recommend restructuring the methodology in such a way that the literature review process is explained and the final part of the introduction is presented as the first section of the results.
3. At the end of the introduction leave your study objectives very clear and delimited, in such a way that they respond to the research question.
4. The methodological process should respond to the established objectives.
5. The presentation of the results should be consistent with the objectives and the correct methodological process.
6. Methodology could be clearer and more orderly.
7. In materials and methods I would add a location map of the study area, i.e. the African study area.
8. The conclusions should be clear, in such a way that one paragraph responds to each objective.
9. Do not subtitle the conclusions.
Author Response
Authors are highly thankful to the reviewer for his objective comments and suggestions for improvements to be made to the manuscript.
Therefore, authors hope that you find the revised paper in the level of publication in sustainability.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper can be accepted as is, with minor grammatical corrections. It is recommended that a native English speaker conduct a minor revision. Besides this, references should be in alphabetical order and authors should highlight in the conclusion part, scientific contribution compared to previous research results. I wish the authors all the best.
Author Response
Authors are highly thankful to the reviewer for his objective comments and suggestions for improvements to be made to the manuscript.
Therefore, authors hope that you find the revised paper in the level of publication in sustainability.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have done a good job. but the quality of the figure needs to improve
Author Response
Please see the attachment of the second response to reviewer two as below.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
