Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is on an interesting topic. However, I needed more background on the method (backed up by literature) to make this more convincing. I’m also concerned about generalizing this work.

From the theoretical and practical point of view, all the elements and the models used so far were thoroughly introduced. Research part - good. Particularly good descriptions, all legible and clear. Supplemented with great graphics.

You should discuss limitations.

Author Response

We have added the background of the research methods, for which we have cited the works that developed the methodologies and authors who have used the same methodology in recent research. In addition, we add the limitations of the research in the last section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

 

Thank you for your research. It was an interesting reading for me.

Regarding the improvements that could be realized in the paper, I recommend the following aspects:

ü  Reorganize the abstract.

ü “The literature shows that the relationship between human capital, foreign direct investment, and globalization fluctuates concerning the economic and productive structure of the countries” – please indicate the source.

ü  Specify the software used to realize Figure 1-Figure 10.

ü  You discuss Figure 2 in the text, but after the descriptions of Figure 2 you have Table 1. Please, address this aspect.

ü  Specify the software used to process your data.

ü  Please add more practical implications of your obtained results.

 

 

Author Response

Response to reviewer 2:

 

ü Reorganize the abstract.

The abstract was reorganized.

ü “The literature shows that the relationship between human capital, foreign direct investment, and globalization fluctuates concerning the economic and productive structure of the countries” – please indicate the source.

We have added a citation for this phrase that was omitted from the first version.

ü Specify the software used to realize Figure 1-Figure 10.

We have specified the program used to make Figures 1-10.

ü You discuss Figure 2 in the text, but after the descriptions of Figure 2 you have Table 1. Please, address this aspect.

We have arranged Table 1 and Figure 2 to be consistent with the analysis.

ü Specify the software used to process your data.

We have specified the program used to perform the econometric estimates.

ü Please add more practical implications of your obtained results.

We have added more practical implications from the econometric results obtained.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The most serious problem with this paper is that it seems like a fishing expedition:  Seems as if you got a data set, processed it with a good data analysis technique like GLS, and make comments on the resulting relationships found between the constructs.

 

You need to have defined a theoretical model, defined specific hypothesis to be tested, explained the reason for each hypothesis either based on the existing literature or strong logic.  Then you use your statistical analysis software to test the hypotheses you proposed before. 

 

The most important part for a successful publication will be, based on the results, what recommendations can you make to benefit the managers involved with the issues addressed by your study. You should also have a smaller section addressing study limitations and recommendations about what future research studies can do on the issues involved, and for researchers to improve research design, measurement, validity, etc.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The most serious problem with this paper is that it seems like a fishing expedition:  Seems as if you got a data set, processed it with a good data analysis technique like GLS, and make comments on the resulting relationships found between the constructs.

Some modifications have been made to the original document based on the comments of the five reviewers. In addition, we modified some parts of the article so that the methodological process used entirely adapts to the recently published standard research process. Revised text appears in blue.

• You need to have defined a theoretical model, defined specific hypothesis to be tested, explained the reason for each hypothesis either based on the existing literature or strong logic.  Then you use your statistical analysis software to test the hypotheses you proposed before. 

We clarify the existing literature that we have used as a basis to raise the hypothesis. Then, we explain the arguments supporting the proposed hypothesis, and both the methodology and the results aim to verify the hypothesis. Modified text appears in blue.

• The most important part for a successful publication will be, based on the results, what recommendations can you make to benefit the managers involved with the issues addressed by your study. You should also have a smaller section addressing study limitations and recommendations about what future research studies can do on the issues involved, and for researchers to improve research design, measurement, validity, etc.

Based on the reviewers' recommendations, we have added a better recommendation for policymakers to promote FDI inflows that benefit FDI recipients. In addition, we add the limitations of the article and highlight future research that can be derived from our research. Modified text appears in blue.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1. in Introduction, the causal relationship between foreign direct investment in human capital and globalization is not sufficiently disclosed.

2. in Literature review, insufficiently identified problematic aspects of literature analysis. It is recommended in the analysis to show the advantages of the designated author or the shortcomings that you plan to improve in your work in the future.

3. in The data and statistical sources, very well presented section, excellent visualization, structured tables

4. in  Results and discussion, the authors successfully employ a set of threshold regressions based on the idea that FDI levels will be significant and permanent as long as FDI transmits 

knowledge to recipient countries from a substantial level of FDI. The results show a threshold effect in the electoral democracy index and foreign direct investment at the global level and high- and upper-middle-income countries. 

 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In Introduction, the causal relationship between foreign direct investment in human capital and globalization is not sufficiently disclosed.

In the introductory section, an extensive search of scientific documents was carried out and in a paragraph several research antecedents were added that justified the causal relationship between foreign direct investment in human capital and globalization.

2. In Literature review, insufficiently identified problematic aspects of literature analysis. It is recommended in the analysis to show the advantages of the designated author or the shortcomings that you plan to improve in your work in the future.

To respond to this observation, the most significant aspects of each study were highlighted, demonstrating that each author's idea that is raised is an effective scientific contribution, which provides new useful elements for the purposes of our research.

3. In The data and statistical sources, very well-presented section, excellent visualization, structured tables.

No changes requested.

4. In Results and discussion, the authors successfully employ a set of threshold regressions based on the idea that FDI levels will be significant and permanent as long as FDI transmits knowledge to recipient countries from a substantial level of FDI. The results show a threshold effect in the electoral democracy index and foreign direct investment at the global level and high- and upper-middle-income countries. 

No changes requested.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

I find the paper interesting and relevant. Nevertheless, I need a much better review of the concept of human capital. So can you please provide a literature review of the concept of human capital so that your argument in the paper will be much sharper. What is human capital in the sense that you use it? What are the limits of this concept? What is the most important literature that is important in relation to the concept of human capital? 

Author Response

Thank a lot for your valuable comment.

In the data section, we add a paragraph on human capital, indicating that our research uses the human capital index for econometric estimates. We indicate the limitations of the human capital index and explain its importance and why we use this variable instead of other measures of this variable.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for considering my suggestions.

There are no other comments.

Best regards,

Author Response

The reviewer does not request new changes.

Reviewer 3 Report

Unfortunately, my comments to the authors in the first review of the paper seem to have barely received any attention.  To avoid the original problems specified in my first review of the paper, your literature review should not just be one section where everything is discussed together.  Your awareness of and the building up from the existing knowledge should be shown in the Introduction section as you motivate your study, in another section formally describing your theoretical model in terms of describing the main constructs involved, your proposed hypotheses accompanied by their justification based on the relevant literature and/or by logic, including how you measured each construct and the sources of the measures.  You have done only a very cursory job defining your study theoretically and methodologically.  That is below par.

 

Also, at the end of your report, please take seriously the importance of explaining why your study is a contribution to knowledge; and how administrators can use your results to improve their understanding of the issues and improve their related policies.

 

Without improving these two essential areas I can not recommend this report for publication.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Unfortunately, my comments to the authors in the first review of the paper seem to have barely received any attention.  To avoid the original problems specified in my first review of the paper, your literature review should not just be one section where everything is discussed together.  Your awareness of and the building up from the existing knowledge should be shown in the Introduction section as you motivate your study, in another section formally describing your theoretical model in terms of describing the main constructs involved, your proposed hypotheses accompanied by their justification based on the relevant literature and/or by logic, including how you measured each construct and the sources of the measures.  You have done only a very cursory job defining your study theoretically and methodologically.  That is below par.

 

 Reply to reviewer:

Thanks for the comment, which was helpful to improve the final version of the article.

In Table 1, we detail the statistical sources and the unit of measurement of all the variables. Then, we raise the hypotheses in the introduction and argue the central relationship based on previous evidence and logic in an argumentative way. Changes are noted in blue text.

 

 

Also, at the end of your report, please take seriously the importance of explaining why your study is a contribution to knowledge; and how administrators can use your results to improve their understanding of the issues and improve their related policies. Without improving these two essential areas I can not recommend this report for publication.

 

Reply to reviewer:

Thanks for the comment, which was helpful to improve the final version of the article.

The Conclusion and Policy Implications section was divided into two sections. This fact allowed us to separate the investigation's conclusions on the one hand, and we explained the relevance of our study in the contribution to knowledge. On the other hand, in the Policy Implications, a small paragraph was included indicating how administrators can use our findings to improve the understanding of the research problem and what policies can be derived from the lessons learned in the research. Changes are noted in blue text.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The author(s) made substantial improvements, enough for publication.