The Impact of Financial Shock, Behavior, and Knowledge on the Financial Fragility of Single Youth
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1) Why authors choose the 40-year-old single urban youth. It will be better to justify the age and why the only urban area was chosen
2) What is the hypothesis of the paper?
3) The authors have to avoid such symbols as RM9,073, 48 RM2,105 or explain them (line 46-48)
4) The part “Literature Review” have to describe existing scientific approaches for investigating the financial fragility and the methods of its assessment. How does the author's approach differ from it, what kind of new determinants were analysed?
5) How does the questionnaire look?
6) The findings from this study could encourage further study and some managerial solutions. The authors should consider it in conclusions.
7) It would be better to add the discussion part.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Responses to comments and suggestions are attached for attention and consideration.
Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In my opinion, the reviewed paper represents a satisfactory content level and focuses on a topical and important issue. The choice and application of the research methods are also unquestionable. I would only suggest:
- defining the research gap and formulating research hypotheses or hypotheses based on a literature review;
- adding a paragraph describing the practical and regulatory impact of the results achieved on the defined stakeholder groups;
- formulating suggestions for solutions to reduce the financial fragility of single youth;
- complete the literature review with references to sources highlighting the cultural premises and cultural differences in certain behaviors of young people. In this context, further discussion should be held on the extent to which the results achieved can be generalized, i. e. to what extent similar results can be expected for other companies.
- indicate the limitations of the analysis carried out.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Responses to comments and suggestions are attached for attention and consideration.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
No comments
The authors have improved the manuscript
