The Mediating Effect of the Internal Control System on the Relationship between the Accounting Information System and Employee Performance in Jordan Islamic Banks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled "The mediating effect of the Internal Control Systems on the relationship between the Accounting Information System and Employee Performance in Jordan Islamic Banks". Although the manuscript is interesting in some respects, I don’t think it is well prepared for submission. There are a number of significant aspects that should be improved.

 

1. Writing should be extensively improved as there are many obvious issues relating to grammars, sentence structures, and interpretations.

For example, “In order to examine the AIS included (IQ, AQ, and SQ) on EP in Jordanian banks, and also, to examine the mediating effect of the ICS on the relationship between AIS and  EP.” (section 10.2). This is an incomplete sentence.

Another example, “Additionally, additional study should be done in the future on the effects of AIS on Islamic Banks' performance in Jordan. … Additionally, by projecting…” (section 18). Why repetitively use “additional”?

In Line 79, the sentence includes only one word “methodology”. 

There are many such problems or mistakes throughout the manuscript. 

 

2. Section 2 “literature review”. There is no content in this section. Only the section title stands alone there. 

 

3. In the “introduction’ section, I found this paragraph

The Materials and Methods should be described with sufficient details to allow others to replicate and build on the published results. Please note that the publication of your manuscript implicates that you must make all materials, data, computer code, and protocols associated with the publication available to readers. Please disclose at the submission stage any restrictions on the availability of materials or information. New methods and protocols should be described in detail while well-established methods can be briefly described and appropriately cited. 

 

It looks like “information for authors or submission” and I cannot find any relevance to the study.

 

4. In the section 10.2 Sampling technique. No content relates to sampling technique. It is all about the functions of accounting information systems. It should be allocated to introduction.

 

5. The authors use 33 codes (a1,.. a5,…, e8) to represent measurements items. But what are these items?  The authors should explain the measurements in a concrete term. Perhaps the manuscript is required to include the questionaries to achieve clarification here.   

 

6. The authors use the same code SQ to denote the two variables, “system quality” and “service quality”. I suggest they should “SQ1” and “SQ2” here.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer
Thank you for reviewing the manuscript.
You can find corrections in the attached file.
Regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to review the paper.

I somewhat enjoyed reading the article entitled “The Mediating Effect of the Internal Control Systems on the Relationship between the Accounting Information System and Employee Performance in Jordan Islamic Banks”. I applaud for authors’ efforts. However, I have some considerations, and I offer the following comments, hoping these will help the authors to improve their research.

The abstract would benefit from brief practical implications and should be reduced to keep the main points, as well as the originality of the current paper.

Consistent English language proofing needs to be performed. and the last paragraph should introduce the paper to the readers.

The structure of the paper has to be improved to show subheadings i.e. 1, 2, 2.1, 2,2, 3, 3.1, 3.2 rather than sequential 1, 2, 3, and so on.

The aim of the paper should be included in the introduction section rather than in its own section.

Section 1 Please revisit the introduction to include, the research aim, rationale, and theoretical framework which should be short paragraphs that convey the points intend to highlight. More emphasis on the most significant research papers in the research area that need to be relevant for explaining the keywords from the objective would be advantageous to the reader.

Section 2 Theory presents some interesting ideas; however, it would be better if supported with a more recent literature review.

Section 3 Methodology: why not focus on Jordan Islamic Banks? What about non-Islamic banks? Can this be the generalised results in other emerging economies, Justify it, please

Section 4 Results can be extended and explained further as well as tables are often not explained enough.

Section 5 discussion is very short and should bring in more of the key literature review results to draw conclusions, as well as to include in more detail practical implications.  

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer
Thank you for reviewing the manuscript.
You can find corrections in the attached file.
Regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.      Delete the following statements from the introduction: 2. Methodology 

The Materials and Methods should be described with sufficient details to allow   oth-ers to replicate and build on the published results. Please note that the publication of your  manuscript implicates that you must make all materials, data, computer code, and proto-cols associated with the publication available to readers. Please disclose at the submission stage any restrictions on the availability of materials or information. New methods and protocols should be described in detail while well-established methods can be briefly de-scribed and appropriately cited.

Research manuscripts reporting large datasets that are deposited in a publicly avail-able database should specify where the data have been deposited and provide the relevant accession numbers. If the accession numbers have not yet been obtained at the time of submission, please state that they will be provided during review. They must be provided prior to publication. 

Interventionary studies involving animals or humans, and other studies that require ethical approval, must list the authority that provided approval and the corresponding ethical approval code.

 

2.      Part 2. A Literature review does not contain text.

 

3.      In this paper, System Quality and Service Quality must have different abbreviations, never the same SQ. This especially applies to hypotheses: The AIS components' include IQ, SQ, and SQ impact on EP in Jordanian Islamic Banks. Three sub-hypotheses 1.3., 2.3. and 4.3. must be modified:

·         H0.1.3: SQ has no effect on EP.

·         H0.3.3: SQ has no effect on ICS. - H0.3.3. is the 2.3 in text.

·         H0.4.3: SQ has not mediated the effect of AIS on EP.

Further explanations of the same (Aims of the Study, Methodology, Measurement Criteria, Hypotheses Test, Discussion, Implications and Limitations, and Future Research).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer
Thank you for reviewing the manuscript.
You can find corrections in the attached file.
Regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The research presentation has been much improved. But it still needs editing works for language.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for reviewing the manuscript again.

The manuscript language has been reviewed by an expert.

You will find the manuscript in its final form.

Regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been improved significantly in both form and content. I would only recommend consistent English review and moving sections 10, & 11 to be included into section 12 conclusion.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for reviewing the manuscript again.

The manuscript language has been reviewed by an expert.

You will find the manuscript in its final form.

Part 10 and Part 11 were transferred to Part 12 according to the attached manuscript.

Regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf