Family Business and Transaction Exposure
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I consider the topic of the presented paper to be interesting, I also consider the area of research to which the topic belongs to be up to date.
The abstract of the paper is formulated appropriately, but I would recommend the authors to mention in the abstract the methodological approaches of the study.
The presentation of the issue is consistent and clear, the authors base the issue on a wide range of cited sources. The resources are, in my view, highly relevant.
From the point of view of the methodological side of the presented study, I evaluate the author's effort to personally contact the selected sample extremely positively, although this approach is not quite standard for scientific research with regard to the object of research. However, taking into account the nature of the market, as well as the authors' sincere statement regarding the applicability of electronic questionnaire data collection, I accept this approach.
From the point of view of the presented results, the paper meets the declared goals, in the analysis as such I do not find any serious shortcomings. However, I would like to see (as an independent appendix) an attached dataset as well as a template of the questionnaire on which they were based when recording data from personal interviews. From the point of view of technical comments, I would recommend the authors to unify the type of graphs for the whole paper.
The summary is formulated clearly and sufficiently, but in my opinion, in the quantum of data, the issue of family business disappears in the context od the discussion, which make a discussion part subsequently only partially addressed with the title and topic of the article.
Despite the questionable application potential of the paper, I recommend publishing the paper after incorporating the comments.
Author Response
please see the attachement
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of the paper titled: “The Mediating Impact of a Family Business on the Response to Transaction Exposure in the Gulf: A Survey of Kuwaiti Non-Financial Firms”:
- Authors in the introductory paragraph could write, maybe in the footnote, to what currencies precisely the KD is currently pegged to, also giving percentages if such information is presented by the Central Bank of Kuwait in the time of the review process.
- As oil is usually traded in USD and it constitutes for 95% of Kuwait’s exports, it is likely that the basket didn’t change dramatically. Maybe, knowing the differences in the exchange rate before and after the basket was introduced would help readers to understand the significance of this change in the currency policy of the central bank
- Some charts like figure 4 are not necessary,
- Authors could precisely address the – numbered – figures in the text
- Usually, one do not introduce 2 variables into a regression when the correlation between them is higher than ca. 0.5. The author could also present the value of VIF.
- I would advise for the sake of compliance with past papers and also as a robustness test to also introduce a regression with a binary dependent variable with the use of logit regression.
- Some of the tables can be easily shifted to the appendix (tables 3-5)
Author Response
Please, see attachment file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Kindly find attached
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please, see the attachment file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The topic in this paper is interesting although not new (in overall terms).
The introduction provides a good motivation for the remaining of the study. The empirical analysis is well conducted and provides useful conclusions.
My overall opinion about this paper is positive. However, I have two key concerns:
(i) I really feel the lack of a literature review (richer than the short discussion on the introduction). The paper should include a (short) section providing such review.
(ii) the paper should include a final section containing a reflection on the main results and providing further discussion about the main implications for policy action and future academic research.
Author Response
Please, see the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have very much improved on the previous submissionAuthor Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much.
Reviewer 4 Report
The new version of the paper answers my previous concerns. Thus, in my opinion, the paper could be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thanks a lot,
