Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer’s Comment.

The Referee’s comments on the study titled ‘’ Exploring the Impact of Air Transport on Economic Growth: 2 New Evidence from Australia”, are as follow:  

1. There is a missing link between the chosen methodology and what was actually implemented. According to the authors, this study is supposed to be a nonlinear analysis, but there is a contradiction in the actual method adopted. There is error in equation 3 where only one explanatory variable is expressed in asymmetric standard instead of all the explanatory variables. All the variables are supposed to be decomposed into positive and negative patterns to display the asymmetric method of this study. Hence, the authors are to rewrite the equations 3,4,5 and 7 to reflect the positive and negative shocks of all the explanatory variables.

2. The Tables 6 and 7 exposes the incomplete nature of the asymmetric estimation in this study, hence, only Air was decomposed into positive and negative outputs. There is a need for estimation of both models that are reflected in Tables 6 and 7 to have positive and negative shocks reflected in all the variables.

3.  The positive and negative shock in air transportation has a positive effect on economic growth in Australia. This indicates that a 1% increase in positive shock in air transportation increases GDP by 0.158% while a 1 % increase in negative shock in air transport increases GDP by 0.382%.....This interpretation is also wrong! The negative shock in Air transport does not portray positive change on economic growth, rather, it portrays a negative change on economic growth. This can be confirmed from the result of dynamic multiplier effect, where the two black lines are trending in two opposing manner,     

4. There is a need for total overhaul and proofreading of this study. There are a lot of grammatical and typographical errors.

5. The result and discussions, and conclusions are scanty. Authors need to expand more on the discussion and the conclusion of this study.

6. The literature review is so slim and needed to expand.

Author Response

Dear Editor/Reviewer,

We are grateful to the respected editor/reviewer for allowing us to revise and resubmit the paper. We think the comments are useful for the further development of the paper. We have tried our level best to address all the comments of the reviewers in our revised manuscript. We believe our joint effort will enrich the paper in terms of quality. Thanks a lot, to the editor and the reviewers for your support, cooperation, and valuable suggestions in the work. The Comments/Suggestions and our Responses/Actions are noted below for your consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study explored the impact of air transport on economic growth in Australia especially after the covid-19 scenario. 

The article is comprehensively synthesize the literature and contributes to the field. The authors used NARDL approach with relevant reliability and validity checks. In my opinion, article is well written and can be published as it is.   

Author Response

Dear Editor/Reviewer,

We are grateful to the respected editor/reviewer for giving us an opportunity to revise and resubmit the paper. We think the comments are useful for the further development of the paper. We have tried our level best to address all the comments of the reviewers in our revised manuscript. We believe our joint effort will enrich the paper in terms of quality. Thanks a lot, to the editor and the reviewers for your support, cooperation, and valuable suggestions in the work. The Comments/Suggestions and our Responses/Actions are noted below for your consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a very current paper which provides an up-to-date justification for the positive correlation between GDP and air transport demand. Well done.

Author Response

Dear Editor/Reviewer,

We are grateful to the respected editor/reviewer for giving us an opportunity to revise and resubmit the paper. We think the comments are useful for the further development of the paper. We have tried our level best to address all the comments of the reviewers in our revised manuscript. We believe our joint effort will enrich the paper in terms of quality. Thanks a lot, to the editor and the reviewers for your support, cooperation, and valuable suggestions in the work. The Comments/Suggestions and our Responses/Actions are noted below for your consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors did not correct the errors highlighted in my first comment, rather, they went ahead to cite another work. I still maintain my ground on wrong application of the chosen methodology. That someone succeeded in publishing something wrong doesnt make right.  

Author Response

Please find the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf