Does the Way Variables Are Calculated Change the Conclusions to Be Drawn? A Study Applied to the Ratio ROI (Return on Investment)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article entitled "Does the way variables are calculated change the conclusions to be drawn?" A study applied to the ratio ROI (Return on Investment)" is quite interesting because of the topic it describes, which has not been sufficiently covered in professional literature so far. However, the text needs to be further improved in accordance with the following comments.
There is no hypothesis or hypotheses set in any chapter, so it is necessary to add it to one of the chapters (maybe in chapter 3).
In the third chapter (3. Data, variables, main statistics, and correlations), it should be better explained how the initial sample of 107,442 Portuguese companies was reduced to a total of 2,805 companies.
In table 2, one more column (the last one) should be added, which contains the source: the literature from which the individual Description Variables formula was taken.
In the fifth chapter (5. Discussion), the proof or rejection of the hypothesis/hypotheses should be justified.
In the last chapter (6. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations), it is necessary to additionally describe the limitations of the research.
Author Response
Please see the document we have attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the document we have attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments 1. I did not see the significance of the study. The authors need to mention statistical data and some theoretical background. 2. From the literature review, what are the research gaps in the author's study for this research article? 3. The method implemented by the authors is very simple, and the results do not display the robustness of model estimation. Therefore, the authors need to improve this method by using Machine Learning instead of OLS estimator. Alternatively, the authors could consider using the mixed effect model instead of fixed panel OLS. 4. The policy recommendations are not clear and tangible. The author needs to provide more detailed recommendations for the public sector and private sector, more specific.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo comments
Author Response
Please see the document we have attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo comments
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo comments
