M&A Open Innovation, and Its Obstacle: A Case Study on GCC Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper investigated the impact of the Shariah corporate governance on the cross-border M&As in Gulf countries.
The followings need to be supplemented.

-Literature review on the motivation for M&A is very insufficient.
-There is no systematic methodology presented in the paper.
-There is not enough, logical explanation for the analysis results.
-Titles of all figures are not provided.
-In the text, there is no specification and explanation for each figure.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

The paper is interesting and intriguing but I think that it must be revised due to the next reasons:

1. I suggest to review the text as follows:

Row 35 - the word “volume” must be replaced with a synonym

Row 41 - English language review

Row 115 - the cultural (space)

Row 116 - [8] - include the author’s names or use Researchers, not just the citation number

Row 126 - [9] - include the author(s)’s names or use Researchers, not just the citation number

Fig 4 - it’s hard to read it, make the text bigger

Row 164 - different citation style, include [….]

Row 232 - the choice ….. - include the paper(s). Your statement is based on previous researches, include the papers.

Row 271 - different citation style

Row 372 - revise the sentence: “ As this …”

2. The structure of the paper is not appropriate. I suggest to include in the Introduction - thesis, hypothesis, aims, focus of the research, tasks, structure of the paper, methods, etc.
3. Include a table summarizing the interviews participants - for instance - gender, position in the company, company name, region/state, time for the interview, personal interview/video chat/phone call, revenue of the company, etc. or other indicators on your choice.
4. Section 3 - Results - I recommend to transfer it in separate paragraphs, apply more interesting and intriguing style to structure the information, include figures, graphs, summarizing the results, give percentage or other quantitative indicator.
5. 4.1. please check “0074”
6. The paper does not include quantitative data and I think that the qualitative method (semi-structured interview) could be presented with different statistical methods, to be more intriguing and clear for the reader.
7. The paper does not include statistical methods but they are necessary for the final statements. I think that 40 people is too small group of respondents.

From my point of view, the arguments must be based upon responses and different statistical methods (use triangulation for instance).

Last but not least, the paper is interesting but I think that my suggestions will help to improve it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

rows 35-36 - I would recommend to cite data source more detailed as its not clear from which source those data came

row 116 - please rewrite/check the sentence starting after [8]

row 164 - until now one form of citations was used (number method)...here for the first time is a second method (Othman, R., & Ameer, R. (2015)) was used - I would suggest to use one method of citation in the whole text and more accurate or in detail

rows 226-251 - looks like research is taken from other sources and isn´t the outcome of this paper

row 356 - check the title of sub-chapter

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper investigated the impact of the Shariah corporate governance on the cross-border M&As in Gulf countries.

The following still needs to be supplemented though the authors tried to supplement the paper adequately

 

-Literature review on the motivation for M&A is very insufficient.

-There is no analytical methodology presented in the paper.

-There is not enough logical explanation for the analysis results.

Author Response

1. English errors are revised and sententces are restructured to ensure the soundness of language usage.
2. Introduction and suggested sections are revised as advised with new citations and logical arguments to support the study and findings.
3. Literature review in the motivation aspect of M&As is revised with well related arguments and true motives behind the cross border mergers and accquisitions by international organizations. Latest articles are also cited in context of support for the revisions. Hope you will be satisfied with the effort.
4. Very sorry for the concern of analytical methodology as this whole study was based on qualitative analysis and theoretical approach, no detialed reports and records were examined, the whole study based upon the questionaires and responses from the sample population. It is assured that in the next researxh article directly related to this topic we are doing detailed statistical analysis and will for sure develop analytical methodologies with comprehensive logical explanations with prediction models. 
5. Conclusions are restructred and minor changes are done in order to make them more logical and efficient in explaining the achieved objectives.

Hope you are satisfied with the responses and changes made to the articel. Thank you for your valueable suggestions and reviewes. They all comprehensively improvised the quality of research study.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

The paper is much better. The scientific soundness and interesting presentation will be appreciated by reader's interest. Good luck!

Author Response

1. English language and style are reviewed and mistakes have been revised properly with correct strucutre of sentences.
2. The paper is revised and scientific backgrounds of study are improved in literature.

Thank you for your valueable review for the study.

Reviewer 3 Report

happy to see that recommendations from reviewers improved the paper

 

Author Response

1. English language style and minor spell checks are revised and sentences are now properly restrucutred. 

Thankyou for your valueable reviews and suggestions that made this research study more engaging and well strucutred.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

I have the same opinion as the previous review. 

Author Response

Sorry for the concern of analytical methodology as this whole study was based on qualitative analysis and theoretical approach, no detialed reports and records were examined, the whole study based upon the questionaires and responses from the sample population. It is assured that in the next researxh article directly related to this topic we are doing detailed statistical analysis and will for sure develop analytical methodologies with comprehensive logical explanations with prediction models.

Please accept my apologies, due to certain limitations i am unable to satisfy your requirements in the study. It is assured that surely your suggestions of analytical grounds will be worked upon in detail in our coming research article.

Thank you.