Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

-

Author Response

Thanks for providing valuable inputs. Thanks for appreciating our efforts.

Proof read and edited the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Based on the authors’ responses and the revised manuscript, I propose some questions and suggestions as follows:

1.     This study adopts the 2^nd differenced variables to estimate the model since variables are stationary at 2^nd difference. However, what are the economic meanings for estimating the relationship between variables at 2^nd difference?

Author Response

Thanks for providing valuable inputs. We have tried to incorporate changes in manuscript to address economic meanings for estimating the relationship between variables.  In methodology part pg. no 2. As well as in conclusion and discussion section.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

I appreciate the documentation effort made in order to delve into the current state of knowledge in the research field addressed.

I also appreciate the applied part of the article proposal, so I consider the empirical testing successful.

Therefore, I recommend the publication of this article proposal.

Author Response

Thanks for appreciating our efforts and giving your valuable time to review this manuscript.

Thank you for encouraging and motivating for further study.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

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

This paper investigates the determinants of financial inclusion in BRICS by using panel data methods. To the contents and results of this paper, I propose some questions and suggestions as follows:

1.      The contribution of this study is weak since this study do not provide the new insight.

2.      The motivation is very unclear. Why does this study focus on BRICS economies? What are the influence mechanism of the determinants used in this study on financial inclusion?

3.      As to Section 1.2 Theoretical Underpinning, this study does not expound the theoretical foundation of this research. And, the Figure 1 does not clearly show what this study want to do.

4.      There are too many research hypotheses, they need to be simplified. And, this study need to provide and strengthen the theoretical and empirical reasons for these hypotheses.

5.      If the variables in levels are not stationary, then the fixed- and random-effect models cannot be used.

6.      What is the intuitive reason for the results? This study needs to provide more explanations for their results since it is not enough at present.

7.      The policy related implications are very limited. This study needs to provide more specific and operational suggestions.

8.      This study should define the abbreviations when they first appear.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting paper and I enjoyed reading it. However, there are essential weaknesses that need to be addressed.

 

1) The introductory/opening section should communicate a little clearer the literature gaps, as well as the study's aims & objectives in order to facilitate the flow of the study.

 

2) Overall there are good arguments and well researched points made in this paper, but I feel that author needs to take ´Review of ligterature´ (p. 3-5) to a further level.  

 

I strongly recommend that you include the following 4 references focused on the target journal and on the paper’s topics:

 

Cheng, L., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Do able managers take more risks? Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(2), 100182. https://https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100182

 

Hao, Z., Zhang, X., & Wei, J. (2022). Research on the effect of enterprise financial flexibility on sustainable innovation. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(2), 100184. https://https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100184

 

Ye, Y., Chen, S., & Li, C. (2022). Financial technology as a driver of poverty alleviation in China: Evidence from an innovative regression approach. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(1), 100164. https://https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100164

 

Zheng, C. (2022). An innovative MS-VAR model with integrated financial knowledge for measuring the impact of stock market bubbles on financial security. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(3), 100207. https://https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100207

 

3) The research is well-developed.

 

4) At the end of the ´Conclusion and Discussion´ section (p. 13-14), the author should include clear statements as to where research should now go.

 

5) Carefully check the references, so as to make sure they are all complete and follow the Guidelines to Authors.

 

6) Finally, when you submit the corrected version, please do check thoroughly, in order to avoid grammar, syntax or structure/presentation flaws.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to read the paper.