Banking Sector Profitability: Does Household Income Matter?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Banking Sector Profitability: Does Household Income Matter?

Line 12: Do not use abbreviations in the abstract; SDGs

It is important to explain at least one or two key policy implications in the abstract derived from the findings.

Line 43-45: Thus, the stable development of the banking sector is a necessary, though not the only, condition in achieving a balance between economic growth, social and environmental development.

How does Banking sector development contribute to environmental development? Please explain concisely.

The need to explain the choice of methods applied in the study.

The Discussion section is too short and should be enhanced, the authors can incorporate the following papers.

https://doi.org/10.1108/EFCC-03-2020-0002

https://doi.org/10.1080/17538963.2021.1882064

The authors must write a conclusion section based on the findings, further, the policy implications are required. Limitations and future research directions must be accompanied in the conclusion section.  

Author Response

The authors express their deep gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for the friendly professional comments and valuable recommendations that made it possible to improve the obtained scientific results.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article concerns an important, from the perspective of the Journal's issue, research area concerning the factors influencing profitability of banking activity in the light of SDGs concept.  The research presented in the article can be regarded as complementary to the previous scientific output in this area. However, I suggest introducing changes that will improve the quality of the text sent for review, in particular:

1) In the abstract, I suggest developing the abbreviation SDG when using it for the first time (line 12).

2) Different font sizes appear in the abstract.

3) There is a distinct lack of in-depth research on the determinants of bank profitability, with a particular focus on the results to date in Russian banking. Against the background of such studies it would also be easier for the authors to explain the selection of control variables in the model (e.g. Brent oil price).

4) The correlation matrix (table 2, page 6) should either be rebuilt to take up less space (e.g. it is not necessary to present correlation coefficients to 4 decimal places, unnecessary spaces appear inside variable names) or should be moved to the appendix.

5) For easier perception of the text it is also worth considering the introduction of abbreviated variable names.

6) The results of the study are presented correctly, but the conclusion definitely lacks reference to the results obtained to date in the literature.

Author Response

The authors express their deep gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for the friendly professional comments and valuable recommendations that made it possible to improve the obtained scientific results.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is interesting and contains the most essential elements expected from this type of publication. I recommend it for publication. The article highlights risk management to the extent necessary to achieve balance. Identify the regions that have the greatest impact (both positive and negative) on the regressor of the Income_nom model, the model includes differentiated income indicators by regions using the OLS method according to the dependent variable Income_nom.  Personally, I do not agree or understand the ratio of deposits and other funds attracted from natural persons to liabilities, % at the levels proposed in the table on page 5 of 16. This needs more elaboration and explanation if a reader like me were to fully agree. At present, I am keeping my distance - although I recognize the author's right to his own conclusion.

Author Response

The authors express their deep gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for the friendly professional comments and valuable recommendations that made it possible to improve the obtained scientific results.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

The study explores an interesting topic to many researchers. I would suggest the following comments to the authors in order to improve and develop the article:
- The article draws on 42 literatures which, in my opinion, need more elaboration. 
- The introduction of the article should be improved. The introduction should be much shorter, focus on establishing the topic, keep the readers' attention. 
- This should be followed by a discussion of the literature (literature review), where I would suggest a broad presentation of the literature, the basic concepts, the situation and the importance of the topic.
- The methodology section should not contain any literature, except where it is absolutely necessary for its understanding.
- What reference is this? [9, 25-26]?
- Are the one and a half page tables in the text absolutely necessary?
- On the whole, I find the tables too many, which is obviously the point of the research, but the explanatory text is very few in proportion, that should definitely be improved.
- The discussion section is very short, in relation to the length of the writing and the results section also. This should definitely be improved. 

I hope, that my comments have contributed to improving the paper. I wish you good work!

Author Response

The authors express their deep gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for the friendly professional comments and valuable recommendations that made it possible to improve the obtained scientific results.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors address all the comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

The changes were made correctly. I recommend publication in its current form.

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for the improvement, there are still some required changes, but the paper is now acceptable (eg. structure).