Risk Awareness for Vietnamese’s Life Insurance on Financial Protection: The Case Study of Daklak Province, Vietnam
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The title and content of the paper is interesting, but the study needs considerable improvement. First of all, it is very confusing that the authors did not use the format expected from MDPI, so it is not even possible to see the actual size of the paper, which should definitely be converted to the format used. The literature review and introduction of the study is very short, this should definitely be improved. Without a proper grounding in the literature there is no basis for the topic, no basis for comparison of the results. According to my opinion, too many hypotheses have been formulated by the authors. In terms of number, this is already too many for a dissertation! I would ask that this be reduced, or sorted into sub-hypotheses! In the results section, there are too many tables for me, but very little interpretation and explanation. Here too, the balance between tables and explanations should be corrected. In addition to including the above in the paper, I recommend only publishing the paper!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer/Advancer,
Thank you for your comments. I confirm that I revised point-by-point with all the comments and add more information for the revised manuscript of original research article entitled “Risk Awareness for Vietnamese’s Life Insurance on Financial Protection: The Case Study of Daklak Province, Vietnam” by Tran Thi Lan. The revised manuscript now has 7172 words (including abstract, 10 tables (add one more table 1), 2 figures, titles, Declarations, and references). I feel pleasure to thank you for your time and effort, as well as your excellent suggestions for refining the readability and impact of the manuscript. I like to express our deep thanks to your comments and suggestions again. You certainly have served to improve the quality of this paper. I hope the response is satisfactory. The detail responses to reviewers are as following.
Reviwer 1
- The title and content of the paper is interesting, but the study needs considerable improvement. First of all, it is very confusing that the authors did not use the format expected from MDPI, so it is not even possible to see the actual size of the paper, which should definitely be converted to the format used.
Reply: The author converted to the format of MDPI in the revived version.
- The literature review and introduction of the study is very short, this should definitely be improved. Without a proper grounding in the literature there is no basis for the topic, no basis for comparison of the results.
Reply: The author has referenced 9 more references and added them in the references section. The added references were highlighted in red color in this revised manuscript. The author also compared the result of this research to the references on page 13.
- According to my opinion, too many hypotheses have been formulated by the authors. In terms of number, this is already too many for a dissertation! I would ask that this be reduced, or sorted into sub-hypotheses!
Reply: I sorted the hypothesis into two groups Subjective factors and Objective factors illustrated on pages 3 and page 5.
- In the results section, there are too many tables for me, but very little interpretation and explanation. Here too, the balance between tables and explanations should be corrected.
Reply: The tables illustrated the research results so I would like to keep the tables as they are. However, I added more explanations at each table.
In addition to including the above in the paper, I recommend only publishing the paper!
One more time, I would like to pay my deep thanks for your very careful review, and valuable comments for the enhancement of the quality of the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Review report for ijfs-1845580
Article: “Risk Awareness for Vietnamese’s Life Insurance on Financial Protection: The Case Study of Daklak Province, Vietnam”
This article aims to identify the risk awareness through factors that influence the intention to buy people's life insurance in Daklak province of Vietnam and provide implications for life insurance companies.
To this end, the authors used a questionnaire in Buon Ma Thuot city, the largest city in the Central Highlands, located in the center of the province and the city in the center of the Central Highlands of Vietnam. Applying the ordered logit model.
The topic is interesting and the article can contribute to the literature and practitioners.
However, it still needs some improvements. I leave some comments below:
- the abstract must be redone. Authors should start by indicating: the purpose of the article; data source and methodology used; indication of the main results.
- the authors chose to prepare an Introduction in which they placed some literature review, however, given the type of work that the authors developed, and insofar as they present us with working hypotheses, I think that the authors should prepare a review section of literature. This will allow authors to improve their presentation of results when comparing with the referred literature.
- given the above, the authors need to rewrite the Introduction.
- authors need to include more bibliographic references and update them.
- the working hypotheses that are presented in section 2 regarding the methodology must be presented in the new literature review section to be prepared by the authors. These must be framed with the literature that supports them.
- all equations must be presented in the methodology section, therefore the equation appearing on page 18 must go together with the remaining equations on page 8. Authors must number all equations.
- Authors should review the way they indicate the sources of figures and tables. As it stands it is not correct.
- section 3 must not begin with a table, authors must prepare an introductory paragraph.
- section 3 concerning the presentation and discussion of the results needs to be revised. All results need to be presented and properly discussed. Authors need to compare their results with those in the literature in order to position their work. In this section there is a subsection entitled “Discussion” which does not make any sense because only the descriptive statistics of a variable are discussed.
The presentation and discussion of the results must follow the order in which the variables are presented in the tables.
- on page 21, line 3, to which the authors refer when they put: “…All the left B values were positive….”
- likewise, the conclusion section needs revision. Authors should start by recalling the objective of the work, the data source and methodologies used. After that, indicate the main results. Authors should also include contributions to the literature and practitioners of their results. They should conclude with an indication of limitations and future directions for research work.
- in the authors' contributions, the author must put his name in full and not with the initials.
Good luck with the article as they continue to improve it.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewer/Advancer,
Thank you for your comments. I confirm that I revised point-by-point with all the comments and add more information for the revised manuscript of original research article entitled “Risk Awareness for Vietnamese’s Life Insurance on Financial Protection: The Case Study of Daklak Province, Vietnam” by Tran Thi Lan. The revised manuscript now has 7172 words (including abstract, 10 tables (add one more table 1), 2 figures, titles, Declarations, and references). I feel pleasure to thank you for your time and effort, as well as your excellent suggestions for refining the readability and impact of the manuscript. I like to express our deep thanks to your comments and suggestions again. You certainly have served to improve the quality of this paper. I hope the response is satisfactory. The detail responses to reviewers are as following.
Reviwer 2
- The abstract must be redone. Authors should start by indicating: the purpose of the article; data source and methodology used; indication of the main results.
Reply: The author added more information including purpose of the article; data source and methodology used; indication of the main results at the abstract section (page 1). All the revised information was highlight in red color words.
- The authors chose to prepare an Introduction in which they placed some literature review, however, given the type of work that the authors developed, and insofar as they present us with working hypotheses, I think that the authors should prepare a review section of literature. This will allow authors to improve their presentation of results when comparing with the referred literature.
Reply: The author added more reference and added one more section (section 2 - literature review). The author also compared the result of this research to the references on page 13.
- Given the above, the authors need to rewrite the Introduction.
Reply:The author rewrote the introduction on page 1&2.
- authors need to include more bibliographic references and update them.
Reply: The author has referenced 9 more references and added in the references section. The added references were highlighted in red color in this revision manuscript. The author also compared the result of this research to the references on page 13.
- The working hypotheses that are presented in section 2 regarding the methodology must be presented in the new literature review section to be prepared by the authors. These must be framed with the literature that supports them.
Reply: the author prepare literature review section in section 2 and the research model in the methodology (section 3) was already supported by section 2.
- All equations must be presented in the methodology section, therefore the equation appearing on page 18 must go together with the remaining equations on page 8. Authors must number all equations.
Reply: the author already edited the equation and numbered them.
- Authors should review the way they indicate the sources of figures and tables. As it stands it is not correct.
Reply: The author revised and edited all the sources of figures and table.
- Section 3 must not begin with a table, authors must prepare an introductory paragraph.
Reply: the author added the introductory paragraph before the table.
- Section 3 concerning the presentation and discussion of the results needs be revised. All results need to be presented and properly discussed. Authors need to compare their results with those in the literature in order to position their work. In this section there is a subsection entitled “Discussion” which does not make any sense because only the descriptive statistics of a variable are discussed.
The presentation and discussion of the results must follow the order in which the variables are presented in the tables.
Reply: The author revised the discussion section based on the results.
10, On page 21, line 3, to which the authors refer when they put: “…All the left B values were positive….”
Reply: The author revised on page 13 now (because the manuscript was converted to MDPI format, so the page number now reduced).
11, Likewise, the conclusion section needs revision. Authors should start by recalling the objective of the work, the data source and methodologies used. After that, indicate the main results. Authors should also include contributions to the literature and practitioners of their results. They should conclude with an indication of limitations and future directions for research work.
Reply:The author revised the conclusion section following the comments of reviewer 2.
12, In the authors' contributions, the author must put his name in full and not with the initials.
Reply: The author edited.
Good luck with the article as they continue to improve it
One more time, I would like to pay my deep thanks for your very careful review, and valuable comments for enhancement of the quality of the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has apparently been revised by the authors, but I still do not feel it is of an appropriate standard for publication in a journal. I do not feel that there is a sufficient depth of literature base, which is reflected in the scope and number of papers. The results section of the study still seems superficial to me, and I would also suggest that it be made more readable and expanded.
Author Response
Cover letter
(For the revised manuscript – round 2 – minor revision)
Dr. Tran Thi Lan
Faculty of Economics, Tay Nguyen University, 63000 Vietnam
19 September 2022
Dear Editor and Reviewer1/Advancer,
Thank you for your comments in round 2 – minor revision. I confirm that I revised point-by-point with all the comments and add more information for the revised manuscript of original research article entitled “Risk Awareness for Vietnamese’s Life Insurance on Financial Protection: The Case Study of Daklak Province, Vietnam” by Tran Thi Lan. The revised manuscript now has 7822 words (including abstract, 10 tables, 2 figures, titles, Declarations, and references). I feel pleasure to thank you for your time and effort, as well as your excellent suggestions for refining the readability and impact of the manuscript. I like to express our deep thanks to your comments and suggestions again. You certainly have served to improve the quality of this paper. I hope the response is satisfactory. The detail responses to reviewers are as following.
Reviwer 1 comments
The paper has apparently been revised by the authors, but I still do not feel it is of an appropriate standard for publication in a journal. I do not feel that there is a sufficient depth of literature base, which is reflected in the scope and number of papers. The results section of the study still seems superficial to me, and I would also suggest that it be made more readable and expanded.
Reply: As regards the literature review, the author has followed the content of the article to refer to the necessary documents. in this minor revised manuscript, some citation and references were added (green colour words - page 2. Similarly, in term of the research results the author closely followed the research content and methods to give the most optimal results.
One more time, I would like to pay my deep thanks for your very careful review, and valuable comments for enhancement of the quality of the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Review report for ijfs-1845580 R1
Article: “Risk Awareness for Vietnamese’s Life Insurance on Financial Protection: The Case Study of Daklak Province, Vietnam”
I begin by thanking the authors for taking my suggestions for improvement into consideration.
The article has improved considerably, but there are still small aspects that I think could be improved. To know:
- when I mentioned that the abstract needed to be improved and then I indicated the 3 main aspects that should be contained therein, it was in the sense that the authors only focus the text of the abstract on these aspects. I think the abstract is too long and the first 3 lines don't need to be there. In this sense, I refer again to the authors who must adjust the abstract and, in particular, reduce its size.
- continues to feel that the discussion of results could be improved. There is still no comparison with the results of the works cited in the literature review.
- the conclusion still needs to be improved. No contributions to the literature, practitioners and policymakers are presented. The limitations of the article and the development of future research avenues are also not well presented.
Good luck with the article as they continue to improve it.
Author Response
Cover letter
(For the revised manuscript – round 2 – minor revision)
Dr. Tran Thi Lan
Faculty of Economics, Tay Nguyen University, 63000 Vietnam
19 September 2022
Dear Editor and Reviewer/Advancer,
Thank you for your comments in round 2 – minor revision. I confirm that I revised point-by-point with all the comments and add more information for the revised manuscript of original research article entitled “Risk Awareness for Vietnamese’s Life Insurance on Financial Protection: The Case Study of Daklak Province, Vietnam” by Tran Thi Lan. The revised manuscript now has 7822 words (including abstract, 10 tables, 2 figures, titles, Declarations, and references). I feel pleasure to thank you for your time and effort, as well as your excellent suggestions for refining the readability and impact of the manuscript. I like to express our deep thanks to your comments and suggestions again. You certainly have served to improve the quality of this paper. I hope the response is satisfactory. The detail responses to reviewers are as following.
Reviewer 2 comments
I begin by thanking the authors for taking my suggestions for improvement into consideration.
The article has improved considerably, but there are still small aspects that I think could be improved. To know:
- When I mentioned that the abstract needed to be improved and then I indicated the 3 main aspects that should be contained therein, it was in the sense that the authors only focus the text of the abstract on these aspects. I think the abstract is too long and the first 3 lines don't need to be there. In this sense, I refer again to the authors who must adjust the abstract and, in particular, reduce its size.
Reply: The first three line in the abstract was deleted
- Continues to feel that the discussion of results could be improved. There is still no comparison with the results of the works cited in the literature review.
Reply: the author added the comparison between the results and the literature review in the discussion (page 14) with green color words.
- The conclusion still needs to be improved. No contributions to the literature, practitioners and policymakers are presented. The limitations of the article and the development of future research avenues are also not well presented.
Reply: the author edited the conclusion (page 15) with green color words
Good luck with the article as they continue to improve it.
One more time, I would like to pay my deep thanks for your very careful review, and valuable comments for enhancement of the quality of the manuscript.
