The Impact of Equity Information as An Important Factor in Assessing Business Performance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made research on a really interesting and attractive topic. Interesting and attractive due to its approach of investigating equity information as an important factor in assessing business performance and due to the geographical focusing on Czechia. Researching coherences, context, and tendencies in post-socialist countries is always exciting (and challenging).

The research is designed very well, the authors used advanced methods for evaluating the data. The econometric toolset is fine, the dataset used too.

The paper is of interest to Information journal, I recommend the publication after improving/fixing the followings:

• The paragraph on sustainability issues (page 2) and the related figure (Figure 1.) is unclear for me, I am not sure why this part is included in the text; the article is a good piece without this topic anyway.
• A separated literature review section would be welcomed; not the literature is reviewed within the introduction.
• I detected some misspellings in the text, please double check.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

thank you for reading the post and relevant comments.

We have removed the section on sustainability together with Figure 1, as this is a broad topic that would require separate elaboration and is not directly related to research.

We have modified the introduction, respectively we have separated the introductory part from the literature review, so that there is no literature in the introduction.

We rechecked the text and had the grammar and spelling errors in the text checked and corrected.

The attached Word contains highlighted changes from the original version.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

It would be good if you could reference some more recent literature related to your topic. Please polish it from English language point of view. 

Some minor improvements in the introduction would be appreciated.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

thank you for reading the post and relevant comments.

We have incorporated newer literary sources  into the article in the sections Liteture Review and Discussion (specifically 8 from 2020).

We had the paper checked for the use of English.

We supplemented, improved and also divided the introductory part into an introduction and an overview of the literature.

The attached file contains the highlighted changes from the original version

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, 

Thank you for your manuscript, it is fascinating, but I have several comments:

The abstract sounds good, but in my opinion, it should be more precise, laconic, without any data.

Introduction part looks like a literature review, not as the introduction, please rewrite and separate these two parts.

The methodological part looks - useful; please comment below Table 2.

The conclusion has to be more transparent, and please highlight the main results. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

thank you for reading the post and relevant comments.

We have modified, clarified and supplemented the abstract, from which we deleted the numerical data, with the exception of the interface of the monitored period.

We divided the introductory part into two parts - the Introduction and a Literature review.

We reworked the introduction. We added a comment under table no. 2.

In conclusion, we supplemented and highlighted the main results.

The attached file contains the highlighted changes from the original version. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx