A Global Analysis of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Capital Structure in the Consumer Goods Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.The abstract section needs to be rewritten; in the beginning of the abstract, the significance of this study needs to be introduced, and in the last part of the abstract, the policy recommendations proposed in this paper need to be introduced.

2.The theoretical analysis part of this paper needs to be further strengthened, and the theoretical logic between them needs to be further explained.

3. Before conducting empirical analysis, some tests are necessary and the author needs to make some supplements.

4. Robustness analysis is required in this paper.

Author Response

Response Letter to Referees’ Comments on

“A GLOBAL ANALYSIS OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND CAPITAL STRUCTURE IN THE CONSUMER GOODS SECTOR”

Manuscript Number: jrfm-2651936

 

First of all, we would like to thank the anonymous referees and the Editor of the journal for their careful reading of our paper and useful comments. We are very grateful for the suggestions, as they have helped improve the worth of our paper considerably. We have tried to respond to them and incorporate them as best as we could. Outlined below are the referees’ concerns in the order presented, and our response to each of the referees’ comments/suggestions. It should be noted that most of the comments we took were positive and have revised the paper accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND CAPITAL STRUCTURE IN  CONSUMER GOOD SECTOR; INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE

 

1.          In this article related to JFRM ? The title should be proper addressed “;” this is not proper for a title

2.          To be legible, the whole text must be completely edited with the help of a native English editor to polish your writing to prevent redundancies, grammatical errors and punctuation problems.

3.          There are some issues that need clarification. Motivation of the Paper? In the introduction I do not understand and see clearly the contribution of the paper. I think the paper, at the present form, partially fails to formulate a research problem, which is of interest. What is the research gap? We have partial answers on what we know now about the topic and what we do not know. The author should more in detail and in a more systematic way present answer on these questions, but also what we need to know. Why is this important, for research, for practice? Implication part is missing.

4.           Kindly add theoretical and practical implication in introduction. Introduction should be upgraded. First, I suggest supporting more key sentences with proper literature (and to clearly theoretically positioning your paper). Second, connect more the key paragraphs (a clear red thread should be created). Third, the introduction is critical and I suggest the following key points within this section (Positioning, Gap, Purpose, Central argument, Organizing, Contribution, So what?)

5.          The literature review is necessary for you to clarify the “contribution” of your study. Each reference mentioned should be discussed; otherwise, it is not helpful just to list them or in tables.  For instance, (Achmad et al., 2023; Lestari et al., 40 2022; Maria et al., 2022; Riadi, Hadjaat, et al., 2022; Riadi, Heksarini, et al., 2022; Ulfah et al., 41 2022; Yudaruddin, 2023a, 2023b; Zainurossalamia et al., 2022

6.          Please avoid reference overkill/run-on, i.e. do not use more than 3 references per sentence. If you need to use more, make sure you state the key relevant idea of each reference, as indicated previously.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

"results" 

Author Response

Response Letter to Referees’ Comments on

“A GLOBAL ANALYSIS OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND CAPITAL STRUCTURE IN THE CONSUMER GOODS SECTOR”

Manuscript Number: jrfm-2651936

 

First of all, we would like to thank the anonymous referees and the Editor of the journal for their careful reading of our paper and useful comments. We are very grateful for the suggestions, as they have helped improve the worth of our paper considerably. We have tried to respond to them and incorporate them as best as we could. Outlined below are the referees’ concerns in the order presented, and our response to each of the referees’ comments/suggestions. It should be noted that most of the comments we took were positive and have revised the paper accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Dear authors,

Greetings!

Thank you very much for your efforts in preparing this manuscript. However, few comments can enhance the quality of this manuscript.

1- The abstract is well prepared. Only, authors should not use "we find", you can present the research finding by using for example "The findings show". Also, adding recommendation to the abstract if any can add value to research.

2- Introduction: in the introduction, authors should clearly highlight the research problem. The introduction should show us how your study will add value to the literature. accordingly, how your study will differ from the previous studies.

3- under "2.2. COVID-19 and Capital Structure" you started with: “these studies" which studies you mean? you should mention for some specific studies, then you can refer to.

4-   Add sources for all tables and figures.

5- In table 2, authors can clearly separate the dependent variables from those independent. You can add subtitles. Check the other tables also. 

6- In the results section, authors can support their results with the similar results of some previous studies. This will enhance your story and thus increase the quality of your research.

All the best,

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language is appropriate. Minor editing could be emplemented. 

Author Response

Response Letter to Referees’ Comments on

“A GLOBAL ANALYSIS OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND CAPITAL STRUCTURE IN THE CONSUMER GOODS SECTOR”

Manuscript Number: jrfm-2651936

 

First of all, we would like to thank the anonymous referees and the Editor of the journal for their careful reading of our paper and useful comments. We are very grateful for the suggestions, as they have helped improve the worth of our paper considerably. We have tried to respond to them and incorporate them as best as we could. Outlined below are the referees’ concerns in the order presented, and our response to each of the referees’ comments/suggestions. It should be noted that most of the comments we took were positive and have revised the paper accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made revisions to the paper based on the review comments, and I believe it can be accepted by the journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accepted