The Impact of Green Finance on the Sustainability Performance of the Banking Sector in Palestine: The Moderating Role of Female Presence

Reviewer-1

Comment #

Replay

Minor editing of the English language required

done after finishing development based on reviewers’ comments

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? (Can be improved)

The introduction is totally redeveloped with relevant references

Is the research design appropriate? (Can be improved)

The research approach  ( introduction m theoretical framework, literature review , hypothesis development, and tall parts of the study was rearranged and redeveloped, and improved 

Are the methods adequately described? (Can be improved)

The methodology was redeveloped and improved

Are the results clearly presented? Must be improved

Redeveloped

Are the conclusions supported by the results?? Must be improved

Redeveloped with support from results

Firstly, the title and abstract must clarify that the sustainability performances are estimated by means of a questionnaire, and not directly measured.

Thank you, for this comment, Certainly, the abstract was developed and explicitly highlighted the data collection was performed by a questionnaire approach.

Second, the questionnaire must be presented, possibly in a specific appendix.

We'll include the questionnaire variables and their latent attributes

 in a dedicated appendix for a clear presentation. Thank you for the suggestion

Third, the literature review must be more connected, reporting the evolution of the main literature streams, not just a list of papers, with some comments for each one.

The literature review underwent restructuring for improved connectivity, presenting the progression of key streams coherently- from

Finally, the conclusions must be extended and discussed with the previous papers

Extended with support from results

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is ok, but substantial editing is needed, both on the text (e.g., lines 24 and 27) and on the references, which, by the way, are not listed in alphabetic order.

Appreciate your feedback. I Perform substantial editing on the text (lines 24 and 27) and ensure references are alphabetically ordered. Thank you.

ReV-2:

Comment #

Replay

Extensive editing of the English language is required.

Will be done after finishing development based on reviewers’ comments

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? / Must be improved

Thank you for your insight. I enhanced the introduction with a comprehensive background and relevant references to improve its quality.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research? Can be improved

Appreciate your observation. We'll review cited references for relevance and enhance their alignment with the research. Thank you.

Is the research design appropriate? / Must be improved

Thank you for your input. We'll address the research design to ensure its appropriateness and effectiveness in the study

Are the methods adequately described? / Must be improved

Yes, well reviewed and developed

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes, the results are clearly presented

Are the conclusions supported by the results? / Must be improved

Certainly, the conclusions are intricately substantiated by the empirical findings. and link with previous studies' results

1.  The motivation provided in the Introduction section lacks sufficient depth and conviction. Enhancing the motivation will help readers better understand the significance and context of the study.

Thank you for your thoughtful input. We'll work on strengthening the introduction to amplify the study's significance and context.

2.  The subsection titled "Sustainability Performance" (lines 111-129) presents a vague and unclear discussion of the literature, giving readers the impression that the paper lacks a focused exploration of sustainability performance. Clarity and coherence in this section are important.

Appreciate your feedback. We'll enhance clarity and coherence in the "Sustainability Performance" section to ensure a focused and engaging exploration of the literature. Thank you

3.  .      Line 172 seems to suggest a subsection, but it is presented in plain text, causing confusion regarding its status. Furthermore, the subsequent bullet-point list (lines 172-195) lacks contextual explanation, making it challenging for readers to grasp the significance of the concepts presented.

Thank you for your perceptive feedback. I  clarify the status of line 172 and provide contextual explanations for the subsequent bullet-point list (lines 172-195) to enhance reader understanding.

4.  The manuscript's organization poses a concern. The authors introduce a "Literature Review" section (line 210) after having already included literature review elements earlier. The paper's structure needs reorganization to ensure logical progression and thematic cohesion.

Your observation is valued. We'll restructure the paper for better flow, ensuring a logical progression and thematic cohesion by refining the "Literature Review" section (line 210) placement. Thank you for your input.

5.      The distinction between short-term and long-term financial sustainability, mentioned in the literature review, remains unclear. The authors should elucidate this difference to provide a comprehensive understanding for readers.

I appreciate your thoughtful feedback. To ensure clarity, I further elaborate on the differentiation between short-term and long-term financial sustainability in the literature review, enhancing reader comprehension of these concepts. Thank you for highlighting this

6.      A standard practice in scholarly research is to integrate hypothesis development within the literature review. The paper, however, first presents a standalone literature review and then formulates hypotheses. Integrating hypothesis development within the literature review will enhance the focus and coherence of the entire section.

Your input is valued. I enhance the paper by integrating hypothesis development within the literature review, enhancing focus and coherence throughout the section. Thank you for your constructive suggestion

7.      Reference is made to "Appendix A" in line 462, but no such appendix is included in the paper. All references, citations, and appendices should be appropriately incorporated.

Appreciate your keen observation. Sure that all references, citations, and appendices, including 'Appendix A', are properly integrated to provide a complete and well-structured paper. Thank you for pointing this out

8.      The definitions and derivation of variables in Table 2 lack explanation, making it difficult for readers to understand their significance in the context of the study. Clear definitions are essential to facilitate reader comprehension.

Your feedback is valuable. I enhance the explanations of variable definitions and derivations in Table 2 to ensure readers can grasp their significance within the study's context. Clarity is crucial, and we appreciate your input.

9.      The estimations section mentions social, economic, and environmental factors but presents only one coefficient estimate. The authors must elaborate on the construction of these variables, their interpretation, and the methodology for deriving them. Additionally, the construction of dependent variables requires a more comprehensive explanation.

Well modified

In conclusion, the manuscript requires substantial revisions to address the aforementioned issues.

Done

10.   The references within the text are not properly cited according to the journal's guidelines, which impairs the paper's credibility and undermines the scholarly foundation of the research. This issue is evident in instances such as line 24 and line 27, as well as other occurrences throughout the manuscript. It is crucial to adhere to the journal's citation guidelines to enhance the paper's academic rigor.

Thank you for your meticulous review. Adhering to the journal's citation guidelines is paramount for scholarly integrity. I  rectify instances like lines 24 and 27 to bolster the paper's credibility and uphold its scholarly foundation. Your attention to detail is greatly appreciated.

11.   The manuscript contains numerous grammatical errors and sentence structure problems that hinder comprehension. These issues must be thoroughly addressed to ensure clear communication of the research findings

Your constructive feedback is valued. With proofreading, We diligently address grammatical errors and sentence structure problems to ensure the research findings are communicated clearly and effectively. Thank you for highlighting this, and we appreciate your commitment to clarity.

ReV-3:

Comment #

Replay

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? / Can be improved

I  enhance the introduction to ensure it offers a comprehensive background and includes all pertinent references. Your feedback is valuable in refining our work."

Are all the cited references relevant to the research? / / Can be improved

Appreciate your observation. I  thoroughly review cited references for relevance to the research, ensuring their alignment and improving the overall quality of the paper. Thank you for your valuable feedback.

Is the research design appropriate? / Can be improved

Done

Are the methods adequately described? / Can be improved

Done

Are the results clearly presented?

Done

Are the conclusions supported by the results? / Can be improved

Done

1.     Review the journal's guidelines, especially regarding citation methods.

Thank you for the suggestion. I carefully review the journal's guidelines, paying special attention to proper citation methods to ensure our paper adheres to the highest standards. Your guidance is appreciated.

2.     Perform a general review of the paper as there are numerous spelling errors. For instance, in the conclusions, the sentence was not started with a capital letter: "Conclusion: the study reveals that economic and environmental drivers have a significant positive impact on financial and environmental sustainability performance in Palestinian banks."

Your attention to detail is valuable. I conduct a thorough review of the paper to rectify any spelling errors, ensuring the manuscript's clarity and professionalism. Thank you for bringing this to our notice.