The Value of Integrity: Empowering SMEs with Ethical Marketing Communication

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a good paper, except that the findings should further provide insights related to the hypotheses developed earlier in the paper. The conclusion needs to be revised and expanded to answer the hypotheses.

The quality of English is fairly good, and the content is OK, but the conclusion is abrupt and needs to be revised.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments:

Point 1: It is a good paper, except that the findings should further provide insights related to the hypotheses developed earlier in the paper. The conclusion needs to be revised and expanded to answer the hypotheses.

Response 1:  We appreciate your positive assessment of the paper and acknowledge your suggestion regarding the need to further provide insights related to the hypotheses developed earlier in the study. We have revised and expanded the conclusion section of the paper to address the hypotheses. Thank you. 

Point 2: The quality of English is fairly good, and the content is OK, but the conclusion is abrupt and needs to be revised.

Response 2: Thank you for providing feedback on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your insightful comments and suggestions. Based on your feedback, we have extensively revised the conclusion section to address the academic implications, managerial implications, policy implications, and have included a section on limitations and further research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Moderate level of English editing is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is well written and has relevance for publication.

2.3.2. Accuracy of scientific data

Insert authors who support hypothesis 2.

The paragraph starts with quotes “, which you assume is a direct quote.

Insert the source in the first paragraph of page 6, which precedes hypothesis 3.

Insert the source in the last paragraph of page 6, which precedes hypothesis 4.

2.4. conceptual framework

The first three paragraphs of the subtitle do not contain the references used.

2.5. Methods

Was the questionnaire adapted from a previous study? Explain whether the questionnaire was validated, either through a pre-test or statistical software. What was the period of application of the questionnaire? How many points do you use a Likert scale? What is the population and what is the sample?

How were the companies participating in the research defined?

Detail the statistical methods used to analyze the results.

Analysis of the results: You could insert descriptive statistics.

I missed the construct (questions used in the research).

4.0. Discussion

Triangulate your results with other studies already carried out. They were compared with other studies, but in a very timid way.

Return to the purpose of the study.

Resume Research Hypotheses.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has been restructured. The authors complied with the suggestions for improvement in the previous evaluation.

With the changes, the paper meets the requirements for publication.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate your invaluable feedback.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revised manuscript. I appreciate the authors' efforts in addressing all of my comments and concerns. However, at this stage, still there are few important issues that need to be resolved before publication.

1)     Firstly, regarding my previous comment on Figure 1, I have noticed that the authors have removed the figure (conceptual framework) in the revised version. I would like to suggest that the authors make the necessary corrections to the figure and include it again as a separate figure representing the conceptual framework under Section 2.4.

2)     In Section 4, the subheading for the measurement model is incorrectly represented as 3.1, and it needs to be corrected to 4.1. Additionally, there is no subheading for the structural model, which is a crucial component of the results. Therefore, the authors are requested to include the results of the structural model under the subsection 4.2.

3)     Lastly, the authors have mentioned that they have revised the conclusion section based on my previous comments. However, upon reviewing the revised manuscript, I did not find any evidence of such revision. I kindly request the authors to refer to my previous comment and make the necessary revisions to the conclusion section accordingly (It is important for authors to include necessary elements in the conclusion, such as restating the research topic, summarizing the main points, stating the significance of the results, and concluding their thoughts. Following this, authors can present implications as a separate subheading).

Author Response

Response to comment 1: We appreciate your comment, and we have made changes accordingly.

 

Response to comment 2: Thank you for bringing these issues to our attention. We have addressed the concerns raised in your comment. 

 

Response to Comment 3: We appreciate your comment, and we have made changes accordingly. We appreciate your valuable input in improving the clarity and accuracy of our work.

Round 4

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revised manuscript. I appreciate that authors have incorporated all my comments.