The Theory of Exploitation as a Support for Management Accounting in an Enterprise

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I congratulate the author(s) for the work done. It seems to me a relevant, interesting and very necessary work. I think it should be published and it is really relevant for the scientific community. However, for its better visibility and readability, I make some constructive recommendations, with the best academic spirit.

The title is interesting and catchy, and it is well written because it is representative of what is in the article. I think the full stop at the end is not necessary.

In the Introduction and in the Conclusions, it would be necessary to defend more clearly and directly why a useful methodology is being offered to the scientific community, why it is innovative or how a methodology that already existed has been updated, and how this methodology can be replicated by other researchers.

There are some quotes from reports that are outdated because they were published long before this text. It would be good to cite reports closer in time or to explain if more reports have not been made.

The Results section is very good, as the exposition and argumentation are very well exposed and spun. It is the best part of the text.

It would be good, at the end, to include the limitations encountered and the prospects proposed for the research community.

All acronyms should have their first letter capitalized, at least the first time they appear (in the abstract and throughout the text).

A harmonious distribution of paragraphs should be sought, that all have a similar length, 6-7 lines, without very long paragraphs. This will make the text more readable and understandable even if it is already well written.

It is necessary to review the citation rules, to adjust the references to the journal rules, and perhaps include 2-3 current references, from 2022, on the same subject.

Please check the typos, as there are double blanks between some words.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your valuable comments, which will surely help to improve both the form and content of the article. Below are the answers to your comments:

I congratulate the author(s) for the work done. It seems to me a relevant, interesting and very necessary work. I think it should be published and it is really relevant for the scientific community. However, for its better visibility and readability, I make some constructive recommendations, with the best academic spirit.

Thanks a lot.

The title is interesting and catchy, and it is well written because it is representative of what is in the article. I think the full stop at the end is not necessary.

Full stop deleted.

In the Introduction and in the Conclusions, it would be necessary to defend more clearly and directly why a useful methodology is being offered to the scientific community, why it is innovative or how a methodology that already existed has been updated, and how this methodology can be replicated by other researchers.

I have changed both of these chapters and I hope you will be satisfied with the changes.

There are some quotes from reports that are outdated because they were published long before this text. It would be good to cite reports closer in time or to explain if more reports have not been made.

I have added 3 publications, from 2021-2022. I have the impression that apart from updating the literature, there is also the effect of expanding the content of the article.

The Results section is very good, as the exposition and argumentation are very well exposed and spun. It is the best part of the text.

Thanks a lot.

It would be good, at the end, to include the limitations encountered and the prospects proposed for the research community.

Done.

All acronyms should have their first letter capitalized, at least the first time they appear (in the abstract and throughout the text).

Done.

A harmonious distribution of paragraphs should be sought, that all have a similar length, 6-7 lines, without very long paragraphs. This will make the text more readable and understandable even if it is already well written.

I did my best.

It is necessary to review the citation rules, to adjust the references to the journal rules, and perhaps include 2-3 current references, from 2022, on the same subject.

Done

Please check the typos, as there are double blanks between some words.

Done, corrected.

Thank you again for your thorough analysis. It may not always be nice to the authors, but it is always an added value.

Reviewer 2 Report

Changes that must be made before publication:-

Abstract

The abstract is confusing and difficult to understand, and the abstract's English language should be carefully revised. The abstract should summarize the following background, aim, method, results, conclusion, and recommendation (no more than one sentence of each element).

You only listed three keywords. As you may know, keywords to help researchers and scholars interested in our research area find our research papers. Therefore, we maximize this chance by using the recommended keywords limit (most journals ask for six keywords). Furthermore, it would be best if you used them wisely. This includes using keywords not written in the titles (the database has already indexed the title; therefore, you do not need to repeat the exact keywords used in the title

Introduction

The authors did not refer adequately to the purpose of the research, and the article's structure is not presented. How many sections do you have? What is the content presented in each section? In short, how is the article organized? What is the purpose of the article? The main objectives of this paper must be thoroughly specified, and the authors must discuss more deeply the applied Methodology. The introduction section must include the structure of this work. A solid and complete text makes all information clearer to the readers.

Why you included Table and figure in introduction?

Discussion and conclusion

The paper fails to communicate the research contribution in the field. Some work is needed in this regard. This also applies to the research's practical implications, limitation.

Lack limitations and future study recommendations, and are needed to identify the research limitation correctly.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your valuable comments, which will surely help to improve both the form and content of the article. Below are the answers to your comments:

Abstract

The abstract is confusing and difficult to understand, and the abstract's English language should be carefully revised. The abstract should summarize the following background, aim, method, results, conclusion, and recommendation (no more than one sentence of each element).

 I changed the abstract and I would like to especially thank you for this comment. After some time spent writing an article, the authors begin to use mental abbreviations, which are unfortunately only clear to them.

You only listed three keywords. As you may know, keywords to help researchers and scholars interested in our research area find our research papers. Therefore, we maximize this chance by using the recommended keywords limit (most journals ask for six keywords). Furthermore, it would be best if you used them wisely. This includes using keywords not written in the titles (the database has already indexed the title; therefore, you do not need to repeat the exact keywords used in the title

 I have changed key words

Introduction

The authors did not refer adequately to the purpose of the research, and the article's structure is not presented. How many sections do you have? What is the content presented in each section? In short, how is the article organized? What is the purpose of the article? The main objectives of this paper must be thoroughly specified, and the authors must discuss more deeply the applied Methodology. The introduction section must include the structure of this work. A solid and complete text makes all information clearer to the readers.

Why you included Table and figure in introduction?

 I changed the structure of the article so that the "Introduction" was a real introduction to the article, which contains the main goals, theses, intentions of the authors and the structure of the publication.

Discussion and conclusion

The paper fails to communicate the research contribution in the field. Some work is needed in this regard. This also applies to the research's practical implications, limitation.

 Lack limitations and future study recommendations, and are needed to identify the research limitation correctly.

I have made changes, I hope you will find it satisfactory.

Thank you again for your thorough analysis. It may not always be nice to the authors, but it is always an added value.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article deals with a very interesting subject and shows an innovative approach to the issue of exploitation analyzed through the prism of enterprise management. The literature review provides a good background for the research, indicating the scientific need in the analyzed area and the research gap. The presented analysis is understandable and substantively explained. The structure is correct.

Nevertheless, I have a few critical remarks that must be corrected:

1. References are not prepared as required and need to be corrected

2. Lines 55-65 are incomprehensible notation - it is better to include it in the table

3. Figures and tables are not prepared in accordance with the requirements - they should be corrected and attention should be paid to the quality of the figures as well as the captions of figures and tables

4. There are non-English words in Figure 6

5. There is a problem with the subscript (kg, ku, ko, kp) throughout the article, it should be standardized

6. Formula 1 - various brackets

7. Double spaces in the text, e.g. line 38

8. Line 514-515 Author Contributions - is not prepared in accordance with the requirements of the journal

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your valuable comments, which will surely help to improve both the form and content of the article. Below are the answers to your comments:

. References are not prepared as required and need to be corrected

2. Lines 55-65 are incomprehensible notation - it is better to include it in the table
3. Figures and tables are not prepared in accordance with the requirements - they should be corrected and attention should be paid to the quality of the figures as well as the captions of figures and tables
4. There are non-English words in Figure 6
5. There is a problem with the subscript (kg, ku, ko, kp) throughout the article, it should be standardized
6. Formula 1 - various brackets
7. Double spaces in the text, e.g. line 38
8. Line 514-515 Author Contributions - is not prepared in accordance with the requirements of the journal

All issues 1-7 checked and corrected.

Thank you again for your thorough analysis. It may not always be nice to the authors, but it is always an added value.

Reviewer 4 Report

Connecting processes to management accounting is not a novel idea and has been practiced (with positive and negative results) in Avtivity Based Costing (ABC).  The authors should make reference to this - even though their approach differs from conventional ABC.  But they also apply the time-factor which is an essential resource in management. Their methodology, though, circumvents the "counting of minutes" and rather delivers indicators of time usage.  The results are convincing - however, it would make sense to add another example to their taxi-service case. Thus, the paper would exhibit a wider applicability of the concept.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your valuable comments, which will surely help to improve both the form and content of the article. Below are the answers to your comments:

Connecting processes to management accounting is not a novel idea and has been practiced (with positive and negative results) in Avtivity Based Costing (ABC).  The authors should make reference to this - even though their approach differs from conventional ABC.  But they also apply the time-factor which is an essential resource in management. Their methodology, though, circumvents the "counting of minutes" and rather delivers indicators of time usage.  The results are convincing - however, it would make sense to add another example to their taxi-service case. Thus, the paper would exhibit a wider applicability of the concept.

we supplemented the article with references to the ABC and Lean methods and some others. Thank you very much for your attention to extending the examples with these methods. I have to say that I considered it but found that I have no economic competence, I am a mechanical engineer. On the other hand, it will definitely be worth doing in another article, co-written by an economist

Thank you again for your thorough analysis. It may not always be nice to the authors, but it is always an added value.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

See attached file please

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf