Analyst Following, Environmental Disclosure and Cost of Equity: Research Based on Industry Classification
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
As it stands the paper will need significant improvements before it is ready for publication. The introduction should offer information on “what”, “why”, “how” and “so what”. The author(s) do seem to address some of these questions, but in a manner which is difficult to understand. See below relevant articles on content, theory and evidence to draw from and inform your study with.
1. Introduction: please be specific about the contributions of the paper. In particular, draw on both the theoretical and empirical literature, as well as the country corporate context to motivate the paper. Currently, its focus is not too clear.
2. Structure - the structure of your paper can be improved. Please re-structure as follows: (i) Introduction; (ii) Background; (iii) Theoretical literature review; (iv) Empirical literature review and hypotheses development; (v) Research design; (vi) Empirical results and discussion; and (vii) Summary and conclusion. Please again refer to the papers below for guidance on how to better structure your paper.
3. Background - please outline clearly background issues relating to the topic in the Chinese context. Highlight specific features in China that renders it interesting to situate your study on.
4. Theoretical literature review - please identify and engage in explicit discussions of your theoretical framework in a separate section.
5. Empirical literature review and hypotheses development: for each hypotheses, please first outline the theoretical link between the variables. Second, outline the prior empirical findings. Third, present any contextual insights and finally, set up your hypotheses.
6. Empirical results - please present them as follows. For each hypotheses, state what the findings are. Second, indicate whether the relevant hypothesis is supported or not. Third, compare and contrast the findings with those of prior theoretical and empirical studies. Fourth, highlight any implications of your study.
7. Summary and Conclusion - please rewrite that by expanding discussions relating to findings, contributions, implications and limitations of your study.
Otherwise, I wish the author(s) well with this research.
Ntim, C.G. & Soobaroyen, T. 2013. Black Economic Empowerment Disclosures by South African Listed Corporations: The Influence of Ownership and Board Characteristics. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(1), 121-138.
Ntim, C.G., Soobaroyen, T. & Broad. M. J. 2017. Governance structures, voluntary disclosures and public accountability. The case of UK higher education institutions. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(1), pages 65-118.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: As it stands the paper will need significant improvements before it is ready for publication. The introduction should offer information on “what”, “why”, “how” and “so what”. The author(s) do seem to address some of these questions, but in a manner which is difficult to understand. See below relevant articles on content, theory and evidence to draw from and inform your study with.
1. Introduction: please be specific about the contributions of the paper. In particular, draw on both the theoretical and empirical literature, as well as the country corporate context to motivate the paper. Currently, its focus is not too clear.
Response 1: We have revised the introduction and made it more clear. We focus on “what”, “why”, “how” and “so what” to revise our introduction. It can be seen in the manuscript.
Point 2: Structure - the structure of your paper can be improved. Please re-structure as follows: (i) Introduction; (ii) Background; (iii) Theoretical literature review; (iv) Empirical literature review and hypotheses development; (v) Research design; (vi) Empirical results and discussion; and (vii) Summary and conclusion. Please again refer to the papers below for guidance on how to better structure your paper.
Response 2: Following the reviewers and concerning our paper, we refer two papers of Ntim and Soobaroyen, (2013) and Ntim et al.(2017) and re-structure the manuscript as follows: 1. Introduction; 2. Background of environmental disclosure in China; 3. Literature review; 4. Hypotheses development; 5. Empirical designs; 6. Summary and conclusion.
Point 3: Background - please outline clearly background issues relating to the topic in the Chinese context. Highlight specific features in China that renders it interesting to situate your study on.
Response 3: We add “Background of environmental disclosure in China” section into the paper. In this section, we describe the contents and significance of the Measures for the Disclosure of Environment Information（Measure）. Measure gives us an institutional background and a time point to value the change of environmental disclosure, so it is very important to show the Chinese setting in our paper.
Point 4: Theoretical literature review - please identify and engage in explicit discussions of your theoretical framework in a separate section.
Response 4: We add the “Literature review” into the paper, including research on “information disclosure and cost of equity” and “analyst following and information disclosure”.
Point 5: Empirical literature review and hypotheses development: for each hypotheses, please first outline the theoretical link between the variables. Second, outline the prior empirical findings. Third, present any contextual insights and finally, set up your hypotheses.
Response 5: We revise hypotheses development, according to the reviewers’ advice.
Point 6: Empirical results - please present them as follows. For each hypotheses, state what the findings are. Second, indicate whether the relevant hypothesis is supported or not. Third, compare and contrast the findings with those of prior theoretical and empirical studies. Fourth, highlight any implications of your study.
Response 6: Following the reviewers’ advice, we revise the section of empirical results accordingly.
Point 7: Summary and Conclusion - please rewrite that by expanding discussions relating to findings, contributions, implications and limitations of your study.
Otherwise, I wish the author(s) well with this research.
Ntim, C.G. & Soobaroyen, T. 2013. Black Economic Empowerment Disclosures by South African Listed Corporations: The Influence of Ownership and Board Characteristics. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(1), 121-138.
Ntim, C.G., Soobaroyen, T. & Broad. M. J. 2017. Governance structures, voluntary disclosures and public accountability. The case of UK higher education institutions. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(1), pages 65-118.
Response 7: Following the reviewers’ advice, we revise “Summary and conclusion” and add the limitation of our study in into the section of “Summary and conclusion”.
Reviewer 2 Report
In the paper entitled Analyst Following, Environmental Disclosure and Cost of Equity: Research Based on Industry Classification the authors explore the effect of the analyst following on the cost of capital. The study uses a quantitative methodology. The manuscript is divided in the following sections: introduction, theoretical analysis and research hypothesis, method, results and conclusions.
The abstract should also include a sentence about the method. The introduction includes all the items required by the Instructions for Authors.
The literature review is well written, but I suggest the use of a higher number of sources from topical articles.
Some of the tables could be moved to appendix as they are very large (for instance, table 1).
The results should be further discussed. Limitations and future research directions should also be presented in a separate discussion section or in the results.
The conclusions are underdeveloped and not correlated with the literature.
The article includes a small number of references.
The manuscript does not present the limitations of the study. The implications for research, practice and/or society should also be discussed.
There are some English issues as well. For instance in the abstract: “This paper finds that environmental disclosure a mediating effect”.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: In the paper entitled Analyst Following, Environmental Disclosure and Cost of Equity: Research Based on Industry Classification the authors explore the effect of the analyst following on the cost of capital. The study uses a quantitative methodology. The manuscript is divided in the following sections: introduction, theoretical analysis and research hypothesis, method, results and conclusions.
The abstract should also include a sentence about the method. The introduction includes all the items required by the Instructions for Authors.
Response 1: Following the Instructions for Authors, we revise the abstract accordingly and we add a sentence about the method of OLS and 2SLS.
Point 2: The literature review is well written, but I suggest the use of a higher number of sources from topical articles.
Response 2: We add 13 topical articles to the paper and review them in the paper.
Point 3: Some of the tables could be moved to appendix as they are very large (for instance, table 1).
Response 3: Following the reviewer’s advice, we move table1, table11 and table12 to the appendix section.
Point 4: The results should be further discussed. Limitations and future research directions should also be presented in a separate discussion section or in the results.
Response 4: We discuss the results, and add “limitations and future research directions” to the section of “Summary and conclusion”.
Point 5: The conclusions are underdeveloped and not correlated with the literature.
Response 5: We revise the conclusion and suggestion following the reviewer’s advice.
Point 6: The article includes a small number of references.
Response 6: We add 13 topical articles to the references.
Point 7: The manuscript does not present the limitations of the study. The implications for research, practice and/or society should also be discussed.
Response 7: We add “limitations and future research directions” to the section of “Summary and Conclusion”.
Point 8: There are some English issues as well. For instance in the abstract: “This paper finds that environmental disclosure a mediating effect”.
Response 8: We have correct this sentence and check the whole paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
The subject of this study is quite strange. Maybe this is linked with originality of this paper however more strong basis and references are necessary to form background for such study. Methodology is not clearly presented. The description of results lacks critical analysis. Some tables are not clearly described but there are many tables and many results in this paper. Authors should make attempt to present more clearly the results of paper, comparison with other studies and implications of these results. How these results can be applied in practice.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: The subject of this study is quite strange. Maybe this is linked with originality of this paper however more strong basis and references are necessary to form background for such study. Methodology is not clearly presented.
Response 1: We introduce the methods in abstract and main body.
Point 2: The description of results lacks critical analysis.
Response 2: We add more critical analysis in results’ description.
Point 3: Some tables are not clearly described but there are many tables and many results in this paper.
Response 3: We try describing all tables clearly and move 3 tables into the appendix.
Point 4: Authors should make attempt to present more clearly the results of paper, comparison with other studies and implications of these results. How these results can be applied in practice.
Response 4: Following the reviewer’s advice, we try make the results to look clear. We also show the comparison with other studies and implications of our results and the application of our results.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed my concerns adequately.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have corrected their manuscript and have addressed all issues identified by reviewers. The paper has been significantly improved and can be published in current form.
