The Influence of Sustainable Risk Management on the Implementation of Risk-Based Internal Auditing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article being reviewed provides an organized examination of how risk management plays a role in implementing risk-based auditing in public organizations in Saudi Arabia. The abstract effectively summarizes the study by outlining its goals, methods, and key insights. However, it could be improved by stating the contributions of this research to the existing literature. While it hints at the novelty of the study a stronger focus on its insights would enhance the abstract's impact.

In the introduction, the authors effectively discuss the roles of risk management and internal auditing in today's environments, especially within Saudi Arabia's public sector. The contextualization within Saudi Arabia is well executed highlighting the study's relevance. However, the introduction could be more concise as some parts feel repetitive in emphasizing risk management and auditings importance. A streamlined approach would sharpen this section's clarity and focus. Additionally improving the transition from discussions on risk management to Saudi Arabia’s specific context would create a connection between global and local perspectives.

The literature review is comprehensive. Shows a grasp of relevant theoretical frameworks with particular emphasis, on agency theory.

The research effectively explores the topic of risk-based auditing. Logically establishes the study's hypotheses. However, there is room, for improvement in terms of focus. Some parts of the literature review seem repetitive. Could be streamlined to avoid redundancy. Additionally, while the literature review mentions gaps in existing research a detailed analysis of these gaps would help readers grasp the perspective of this study and its impact on the field.

The results are presented clearly and systematically utilizing tools like SmartPLS appropriately. The findings are well elaborated and connected back to the research questions and hypotheses. Nonetheless, a deeper interpretation of these results could enhance understanding. While statistical significance is well addressed exploring implications for public organizations and comparing them with findings from other contexts could provide more valuable insights.

In the discussion section, the authors effectively link their findings to existing literature and study hypotheses emphasizing contributions to theory and practice. However, a critical approach, in discussing these aspects would be beneficial.

The strengths of the study are highlighted, it should also acknowledge any limitations, in the results and delve into reasons for outcomes. This approach would offer a view and bolster the paper's overall argument.

Although the conclusion effectively recaps the findings and their implications underlining the study's significance in bridging gaps in existing literature it could benefit from a forward-thinking approach. Proposing areas for research and delving deeper into potential policy ramifications would enrich the conclusion transforming it from a mere summary to a catalyst for further exploration within the field.

On the whole, the article is well crafted. Contributes to our knowledge of risk management and internal auditing within public organizations. However, by addressing concerns such as redundancy calling for analysis and presenting a clearer discussion, on generalization, the paper could be further enhanced to have a greater impact.

 

Author Response

Response 6: Thank you for your insightful feedback. In response, I have revised the discussion section to adopt a more critical approach when linking the findings to existing literature and the study's hypotheses. This revision enhances the analysis of the contributions to theory and practice, providing a more rigorous and nuanced discussion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript verifies the impact of the role of internal auditors, training in risk management, and management support on risk management, and the impact of risk management on the risk-based internal auditing implementation.

However, there are still some deficiencies in this manuscript which need to be further improved.

 

1.     In the introduction section, the main problems this paper is trying to solve is not well stated.

2.     There is a literature review in the introduction, and there is also a literature review in 2. It is suggested to combine the literature review, and further highlight research motivations and contributions. The part “HYPOTHESE” is a separate section.

3.     Some abbreviations should be stated in table（Line 342）, such as RAI, MS，……

4.     Title is the influence of sustainable risk management, but the text does not explain what it is.

5.     From the perspective of theoretical model and research results, does the research work of this manuscript break through the existing research(Lois et al., 2021)? If so, the manuscript is not clear.

6.     In Section 6, the conclusion of the paper is not clear enough. Conclusions should be drawn first, and then other content such as implications should be presented.

7.     Line 338 “table 1”，line342 “table”, the number is wrong.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please check English: there are some minor mistakes.

Author Response

Response 8: Thank you for pointing out the need to check the English language in the manuscript. I have thoroughly reviewed the paper and corrected the minor mistakes to ensure clarity and accuracy. I appreciate your attention to detail and have made the necessary revisions to enhance the overall quality of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It appears that the authors have considered the issues raised and have made changes to the discussion section in response to them. They aim to take a critical stance in connecting the results to previous studies and the study's hypotheses to strengthen the analysis. This revised version enhances how the study contributes to both theory and practice by providing detailed insights into the discussion. While the revised discussion takes a more critical approach, there is still room to further engage with the literature by explicitly exploring any contradictions or tensions in existing research, which could enhance the originality of your work. Additionally, it would be helpful to expand on the practical implications of your findings, offering more concrete insights for policymaking or management practices. The discussion on limitations could also be extended to improve transparency, with suggestions for future research. Lastly, ensuring a clear and logical flow in the development of hypotheses would make the connections between theory and findings more accessible to readers.

Author Response

Comments 1: It appears that the authors have considered the issues raised and have made changes to the discussion section in response to them. They aim to take a critical stance in connecting the results to previous studies and the study's hypotheses to strengthen the analysis. This revised version enhances how the study contributes to both theory and practice by providing detailed insights into the discussion. While the revised discussion takes a more critical approach, there is still room to further engage with the literature by explicitly exploring any contradictions or tensions in existing research, which could enhance the originality of your work. Additionally, it would be helpful to expand on the practical implications of your findings, offering more concrete insights for policymaking or management practices. The discussion on limitations could also be extended to improve transparency, with suggestions for future research. Lastly, ensuring a clear and logical flow in the development of hypotheses would make the connections between theory and findings more accessible to readers.

Response 1: Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. I have carefully addressed the points raised by explicitly engaging with the literature to explore any contradictions or tensions, which has enhanced the originality of the work. These revisions are highlighted in the paper. Additionally, I have expanded the discussion on practical implications, offering more concrete insights for both policymaking and management practices, as suggested. The discussion on limitations has also been extended to improve transparency, and suggestions for future research have been included to address the reviewer's concerns. I believe these changes strengthen the manuscript and its contribution to both theory and practice.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the paper according to the revised suggestions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No suggestion.

Author Response

Comments 1: The authors have revised the paper according to the revised suggestions.

Response 1: Thank you for your review and acknowledgment of the revisions made to the paper.