Net Transmitter of Stock Market Volatility and Safe Haven for Portfolio Investors in the Asian Dragons

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.       Literature Review is very short, and author(s) need to include an extensive review of current literature on this topic.

2.       The topic is very important and worth investigation. Therefore, I applaud for it.

3.       Garch models have been developed fine.

4.       Author(s) needs to expand the results and interpretation and have deeper insight. It is very short and should be developed correctly.

5.       Conclusion section is short and not adequate.

6.       Overall, I see this research a worthy investigation for these group of nations in Asia and recommending more deeper work on it before journal makes publication decision.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The author attempts to invistgate return and volatility spillover effects on Asian Dragons. 

Although the topic is worthy of investigation, this paper might be considered after bellowing significant revisions:

 Originality:

The paper needs to be extended theoretically and reformed literally discussion (mainly around the tested hypotheses) in order to come up with certain policy conclusions. In this vein, the author(s) need to clearly address the following questions

 

The motivation behind the purposed analysis. Why is it important to investigate the relationship between the considered variables? Does it have relevant policy implications? Does it help policymakers to better allocate their decisions? The same question reported in the paper, but it is no clear, and I was not able to find an answer hereinafter

Relationship to Literature

what is actually the valued added of the paper with respect to the other examples that have used the same methodology? Which peculiar feature should convince the reader to believe this paper with respect to the other, inconclusive, tests? The set of countries? The methodology (which is not new) Some innovation in the econometric procedure (which is not the case)? The conclusions and, therefore, the policy implications?

 

For the literature reviewed in this paper, updated articles need to be included.

 Results:

The results are not clearly presented. Moreover, the conclusions should adequately tie together with other elements of the paper.

 Overall:

The study has potential to contribute to the existing literature; however, publishing in a high-quality journal needs more clarified works. Therefore, the prevailing manuscript has needed some more revision.    

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is improved compared to the first version. I do confirm that the author(s) address almost all the comments, thanks for the effort. 

The paper can be accepted in its current version.