What Remains Unsolved in Sub-African Environmental Exposure Information Disclosure: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the paper is current and interesting. However, when looking at the topic, it seems that the author(s) should have carried out a more in-depth analysis, both theoretical (epistemological approach to research) and empirical. In general, the paper is too brief. The weakest point of the paper is its central part, which requires radical substantive corrections. In the paper the following should be corrected: (1) the introduction does not precisely define the research gap based on a literature query conducted on the basis of internationally recognized and prestigious databases such as Scopus or Web of Science Core Collection. The introduction lacks a clearly stated purpose, i.e., the article aims at... (2) in terms of the literature review, the text of the paper lacks a clearly defined key that would allow for a correct literature search. What keywords were chosen to make the right choice of literature? Was the selection made on the basis of abstracts or an analysis of the content of entire papers? These questions should be answered in the text of the paper. The author(s) should have drawn on more literature; (3) in the central part of the paper, a bit more in-depth scientific discussion should be made. ln general, the central part of the paper appears to be too brief. (4) the final part of the paper (conclusion) should contain basic conclusions drawn from the considerations presented earlier. In particular, the conclusions should thoroughly and clearly answer the question about the contribution of the research results presented in the paper to science. This part of the paper may contain subsections, i.e., research input, implications for practice, research limitations and future directions of research; (5) the paper should be proofread by a certified English translator. Nevertheless, applying all the corrections indicated in this review will allow the paper to be published in this journal. Overall, the review is positive. I emphasize once again that the paper may be published in this journal, provided that the comments contained in the review are taken into account and that the approval of the editor-in-chief is obtained.

Author Response

thank you so much

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting review paper on an important topic. However, in its present form the paper suffers from a lack of systematicity, and therefore it may be hard to follow. This is partly because there is no clear theoretical background, e.g. key concepts are not defined, and the links between e.g. harmful emissions, their environmental impacts, such as environmental exposure are not dealt with. More information of the review methodology is needed (the PubMed query is mentioned in the abstract only) and a more structured presentation of the results would be appreciated by the readers.

A major revision focusing on the above mentioned aspects would improve the paper.

Author Response

thank you so much please check the attachments

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, very interesting paper. Please see below my comments:

1. Firstly, the paper requires an in-depth proof reading made by an expert

2. The concluding remarks are too short. You should consider the opportunity to integrate your conclusions with more implications (policy, managerial and theoretical)

3. The methodological approach is too vague. You must extend your paper with a brief statement about your methodological approach.

4. the abstract is not prepared in according to the MDPI's guidelines

5. The figure quality is too low. Please replace it. 

6. I think that you should include more references abotu the realtionship between sustainable development and finance. These are some useful papers:

Cosma, S. e Rimo, G. (2022), Model risk in banking studies: a bibliometric analysis. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363470261_Model_risk_in_banking_studies_a_bibliometric_analysis

Baboukardos, D., Seretis, E., Slack, R., Tsalavoutas, Y., & Tsoligkas, F. (2022). Companies’ readiness to adopt IFRS S2 climate-related disclosures.

Author Response

Thank you so much, please check the attachments 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has improved significantly from the first version. The authors have taken my comments sufficiently into account.