How do Internal Control Environments Connect to Sustainable Development to Curb Fraud in Brazil?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have read the revised manuscript. Well done. Congratulation to the authors.

Author Response

Attached, you will find the up-to-date file of the Manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor,

I have attached the file that contains the response to the concerns of Reviewer 2

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The previous version of the paper under review has been improved on the basis of the provided comments and suggestions and specifically by addressing the three issues in the former report. So, in my view, the current version of the manuscript can be considered for publication.

Author Response

Attached, you will find the current file of the Manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Well done. Some places still do not read like English. Make it simple and straightforward (and gramatical error free). congrats.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I read this paper and found it very interesting. However, some major issues need to be resolved before its publication. Please revise your paper according to the suggestions given below.

1. The entire document should be written in the third person plural or singular perspective. Please avoid the use of "we" or "our".
2. The gaps identified in the paper do not seem to be significant. Therefore, readers will question the contributions from both theoretical and practical perspectives and the novelty of the findings.
3. Theorization is average. Kindly improve with more recent articles. Build a strong background the theory before you start analyzing and reporting.
4. The discussion section of the paper lacks in contextualization. It will be better to discuss your findings further with the help of recently published papers.
5. The contribution of this study in terms of policy implications is also weak that need to be strengthen. Authors need to provide policy recommendations in accordance with the results..

Good luck with the revision.

Reviewer 2 Report

Doesn't read like English, making it super hard to understand. 

Very limited contribution.

Reviewer 3 Report

This article aims to assess the way in which internal controls help curb fraud in Brazil. The authors claim that its findings link to the sustainable development goals, particularly SDG 16.  The article features an original qualitative survey with 20 people involved in auditing and accounting. 

The article provides some interesting insights – particularly in the literature review. However, there are a number of problems with this manuscript that suggest it is not currently publishable. 

The introduction notes that the key argument is: “our argument is the relationship between internal control environment and sustainable development must be firmly tightened to have efficiency in the mechanisms to combat fraud”.  This argument is not strong, nor is it proven by the analysis.  Rather the analysis provides some broad sweeping statements that summarise the respondents’ interviews without going into much detail.  The reader is left asking ‘how many people exactly said this or that’, and ‘how do the quotes prove the authors' assertions’?  Much more of the data needs to be presented to provide the reader with a coherent argument.  The link between the findings and the numerous indicators and sub goals of SDG 16 need to be made more explicit.

The literature review sets out a framework for assessing the impact of internal controls on fraud, and this is very interesting. and shows some promise  However, the authors then introduce ‘post-modern’ theorists in the methodology and draw on some of their (underexplained) insights in the finding section.  This really muddies the waters and narrative of the article.  In other words, the literature is not adequately explained and incorporated into the findings. We are left wondering how the post-modern scholarship fits into the broader scholarly framework (on page 12 for example, the concept of habitus is introduced without prior explanation about what this is or how it fits into the literature).

In many sections is also not clear how these insights directly relate to Brazil. Are those interviewed from Brazil?  Findings that relate to Brazil in particular are overshadowed by generalisations that could apply anywhere. In another version (perhaps for another publication), there needs to be a section highlighting the context (which I am assuming is Brazil) of fraud which this research is situated.

Although the writing is generally good, there are a number of instances where the authors do not make themselves clear or the phrasing is awkward. The authors need to re-read this to make sure that what they are saying makes sense.  To give one example, on page 14 the authors write: “Having an eye on what goes on with other monitoring tools that are not merely operations may turn the controls to be effective”. I couldn’t work out what this means.

I didn’t understand the figures (from figure 2 onwards) presented and they need to be much more clearly explained if they are to be incorporated. 

In short, I do think that this manuscript shows promise. But I think much more could be done with the material. And I think that it should be significantly reworked for another journal.  

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper under review appears interesting and could be considered for publication. However, some issues should be considered/amended before definitive acceptance:

- Even when the quality of English writing is good, at least a slight review by an English native/expert is advisable to check punctual grammar aspects or expressions throughout the text.

- Regarding the theoretical/conceptual framework, and even when a number of bibliographical sources are quoted to support statements, the real fact is that only a few of such references are dated in the more recent five-years period or, specifically, the most recent three-years period. If possible, consideration and inclusion of updated additional sources would add value to the paper.

- As results are based on a qualitative study including 20 interviews, maybe authors should highlight the prospective nature of the research that was carried out, specifically when presenting their conclusions (as the generalization of such conclusions is only possible at a very limited level).