Determinants of Qualified Audit Opinion: Empirical Study of Portuguese Private Sector Hospitals
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an interesting article, I have made comments on the manuscript and suggest that the authors address them. The literature review is sound except it is confusing at times as they jump from public to private entities and also the english is not very clear. It is not clear how many private hospitals are in the country, how many had a qualified opinion, the type of qualification and how does this affect the patients. Qualified opinions have an impact on investors, creditors, perhaps the government if they provide funding.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
I think the authors should have a professional editor go over their paper. The English expression needs to be addressed.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted file.
Comments 1: I have made comments on the manuscript and suggest that the authors address them.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have, accordingly, revised and modified the manuscript as your suggestions and reply to all your comments. We attach the document pdf.
Comments 2: The literature review is sound except it is confusing at times as they jump from public to private entities.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have, accordingly, revised the entire document to eliminate that confusing and improve the literature review with more relevant studies.
Comments 3: It is not clear how many private hospitals are in the country, how many had a qualified opinion, the type of qualification and how does this affect the patients.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have, accordingly, added the following paragraph:
“Of these, 67 audit reports are qualified and distributed as follows: 31 in 2019, 19 in 2020, and 17 in 2021.”
page 10, last paragraph, and lines 453 and 454.
We don´t know the type of qualification because we didn´t analyze this information in the audit reports.
|
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
|
Point 1: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research. The authors should have a professional editor go over their paper. The English expression needs to be addressed |
|
Response 1: We decided to request your English Language Editing Services. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper studies the determinants of the auditor's qualified opinion in 71 Portuguese private hospitals, from 2019 to 2021. The study is based on ORBIS and SABI databases and annual reports. Seven research hypotheses were formulated based on a statistical model tested using logistic regression models.
Overall, the study is well-structured, and the model is well-defined and correctly analyzed.
However, the literature review is weak and the contribution should be improved.
In more detail, I recommend:
- Although a hospital is a company, I suggest referring directly to the hospitals and not to companies.
- The contribution cannot only be to contribute to a very scarce qualified opinion of the auditors in the health sector (as mentioned in the abstract, although it expands a little on the conclusions). It should go further. A qualified audit opinion is important for the stakeholder's confidence, for the transparency of financial information, for the reputation and image of hospitals, and contributes to continuous improvement and more informed decision-making.
- The abstract should specifically mention the number of hospitals studied, as this lends credibility to the work. It should also mention how the data were obtained.
- Consider reviewing the phrase "contrary to what is observed in other sectors of activity” in the abstract. No other sectors were studied/observed in your study.
- The methodology should state when the study was carried out. Why does it only cover the years up to 2021? It seems dated.
- Sections 2.1. Regulatory Framework and 2.2. Concept of Qualified Opinion and Modified Opinion are not literature reviews and I believe they do not add much to the work. At most, they should be linked in section 2.3. Determinants of Audit Opinion: Empirical Studies.
- The work focuses too much on Portugal (see that section 2.1 begins by presenting the Portuguese context). You should explain why it is important to study the Portuguese context.
-The literature review should be more well-founded. It should not only explain the relationship between the variables (positive or negative) but also explain what each of the studies consisted of.
-To make the literature review more robust, it can include the development of the hypotheses (3.1. Hypotheses Development).
-The study relies too much on the master's thesis and articles presented at conferences which are of low scientific value. So, consider removing them. There are several articles indexed in SCOPUS and WOS that enrich and enhance the work.
Good luck with your publication in the JRFM.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted file.
|
|
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for considering my recommendation.
The paper has been improved.
