Next Article in Journal
Industrial Life-Cycle and the Development of the Russian Tourism Industry
Next Article in Special Issue
Technology Acceptance in e-Governance: A Case of a Finance Organization
Previous Article in Journal
Editorial for the Special Issue on Commercial Banking
Previous Article in Special Issue
Estimating Bargaining Power in Real Estate Pricing Models: Conceptual and Empirical Issues
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

What Role Does the Housing Market Play for the Macroeconomic Transmission Mechanism?

J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020, 13(6), 112; https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13060112
by Mats Wilhelmsson
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020, 13(6), 112; https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13060112
Submission received: 29 April 2020 / Revised: 25 May 2020 / Accepted: 26 May 2020 / Published: 1 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Real Estate Economics and Finance)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

  1. The article is not prepared for publication in editorial terms. 2. The summary does not contain information on what methods were used for the study.
3. The Introduction section contains too much textbook content, general statements, conclusions, without literature support.
4. The introduction section does not present an introduction to the research problem.
5. The actual purpose of the research is given only on page 4. It should be earlier.
6. The actual research is on page 9. Various economic theories are described to page 8. I think it should be shortened.
7. The article does not bring new content to learning, confirms existing relationships.
8. In the discussion section - no indicative methodological limitations or weaknesses of the adopted assumptions.
9. Possible areas of use of the conducted research were not indicated.
10. Lack of attached source data based on which models were built.
11. Graphic design very poor in editorial terms

Author Response

Thank you for your time and reviews. Here are my replies:

  1. Editorial– I am not sure how it is not prepared for publication in editorial terms. Pls indicate what you want me to do.
  2. Abstract - The method used is included in the abstract. A structured VAR model is used. See yellow in the text.
  3. Too much textbook. - Added a textbook reference. See yellow in the text.
  4. No introduction to the research problem. - The first and second paragraph is the introduction to the research question. See yellow in the text.
  5. - The main purpose is stated in the instruction on page 2. See yellow in the text.
  6. Research starts on page 9. - I have shortened the first part by one page. The empirical investigation starts on page 8.
  7. No new content – the contribution is stated in the contribution. See yellow in the text.
  8. – added a paragraph about limitations in the methodology section. See yellow in the text.
  9. Possible areas to use the research – in the introduction is a paragraph about how the data can be used.
  10. Data sources – Data sources are mentioned on page 10. See yellow in the text.
  11. Graphic design poor – Standard Stata graphics. Pls indicate what you want me to do.

Reviewer 2 Report

Following points to be considered

 - Please tweak the title for clarity  - would add 'macroeconomics' or 'monetary policy' before transmission

 - Abstract  - detail that it is quarterly data

 - Check Page 2 second para  - is it a band range around 2% unsure?

 - Page 3 third para  - should this para be in the conclusion ?

 - General point - please check for grammar,   see example - Page 8 3rd para. Wadud etc

                        - would be good to see acknowledgement of software application somewhere in the text - Stata?

 - Not keen on Conclusion para's starting with questions, please rework.

Author Response

I have changed the title. See yellow in the text.

Inserted quarterly data See yellow in text.

Included “(with a tolerance interval of +/– 1 percentage point)” See yellow in text.

Moved the resulting paragraph in section 1 to the conclusion section. See yellow in the text.

Checked grammar.

Included that I have used Stata 15.1 See yellow in text.

Deleted questions in the Conclusion section.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Figure 2 consists of 8 graphs. I believe that everyone should be marked separately with a, b, ... and a detailed description should be given below.
Similarly, the author should mark the individual parts of figures 4, 5, 6 and 9.
Figure 7, 8 - abbreviations are used below the graph, but they are nowhere explained.

Author Response

Figure 2 consists of 8 graphs. I believe that everyone should be marked separately with a, b, ... and a detailed description should be given below.

I agree, that has now been done. I have also indicated in the text the figures

 

 

Similarly, the author should mark the individual parts of figures 4, 5, 6 and 9.

I agree, that has now been done. I have also indicated in the text the figures

 

 

Figure 7, 8 - abbreviations are used below the graph, but they are nowhere explained.

They are explained in multiple places in the paper. Especially in section 5.1

Back to TopTop