The Effect of Economic Policy Uncertainty on Foreign Direct Investment in the Era of Global Value Chain: Evidence from the Asian Countries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

-          Usually keywords don't take (over) sequences from the title (eg. Economic policy uncertainty)   - please replace them in the way to reflect the article ideas and not just be redundant

-          Not all sources are correctly cited (eg. souce [67] refer to sources that are not found in the article’s text) - please allign all of them very carefully accordingly. Besides this, [2] and [67] are self-references, please?

-          In order not to abound with abbreviations and explanations in abstract and article’s body, I recommend placing the explanation of all / each character(s) or abbreviation(s) (e.g. for each parameter, variable, attribute of and so on – and define each formula like  equation, lema, theorem, proof of theorem and so on), including Table 1. in appendix, at the end of the article (or include all of them in Table 1). The article must be easy to understand, both for specialists and for those less familiar with the subject. Please check the consistency and accuracy of each of them

-          Please specify the source of each figure / table (e.g. “Author's own processing” or other expressions / sources, if the case) between square or round brackets after the name of the table. Beside this, no all figures are the same quality – please fix this problem. Besides this, please improve each figure / table (which is not “self- processing, like fig.1 and fig. 2) with your own contribution.

-          Would be really appreciated (actually is a request) if you wil (can) formulate (even one) Objectiv/s of the study with (minimum) two Hypotheses (e.g. Hypothessis 1, 2, 3… - introduced perhaps at the end of Introduction chapter or at the beginning of Material and Method chapter) in the way to be validated by the research in Results and Discussion chapter (with clear reference to hypotheses1 & 2 & (so on) of the objective/s of the research). This would prove that there is a line of argumentation - that starts from (minimum) one hypothesis and reaches a conclusion (proven with the help of the study).

-          I recommend that the “concrete” proposals with “practical” applicability and if possible ... “measurable” be more clearly individualized (in a separate subsection at Results and Discussion’s (sub)chapter). Actually, it would be interesting if the study would present some aspects more clearly related to the practical application of the study (even examples) and its results (where could be applied, how could be applied and so on). Thus, please detail further the interpretation of the data analysis performed and its implications by reference to the scope of the research (partialy done in Conclusions and Policy Recommendation chapter).

-          Please mentione (after Conclusions and Policy Recommendation chapter) more clear (the subjective and) limiting nature of the study (the limits of the research and the way in which these limits will be addressed in the future – if will be) and argue opinion regarding a possible modification of the investigation indicators (partialy done in the article’s body) also to reflecte and to have a holistic view on the topic

Author Response

Comment 1 Usually keywords don't take (over) sequences from the title (eg. Economic policy uncertainty) - please replace them in the way to reflect the article ideas and not just be redundant

Response 1:, Thank you for your valuable comments, according to idea of paper we modified the key words. Please check track changes of manuscript

Comment 2 Not all sources are correctly cited (eg. source [67] refer to sources that are not found in the article’s text) - please align all of them very carefully accordingly. Besides this, [2] and [67] are self-references, please? - Not all sources are correctly cited (eg. source [67] refer to sources that are not found in the article’s text) - please align all of them very carefully accordingly. Besides this, [2] and [67] are self-references, please?

Response 2:, Thank you for your comment, the referecnes are allign very carefully and corrected all incorrect refereces according to the MDPI formate. Please check track changes of manuscript
- Comment 3: In order not to abound with abbreviations and explanations in abstract and article’s body, I recommend placing the explanation of all / each character(s) or abbreviation(s) (e.g. for each parameter, variable, attribute of and so on – and define each formula like equation, lema, theorem, proof of theorem and so on), including Table 1. in appendix, at the end of the article (or include all of them in Table 1). The article must be easy to understand, both for specialists and for those less familiar with the subject. Please check the consistency and accuracy of each of them

Response 3: Thank you so much for your comments, all the abbreviations are placed at the end of paper which are used in paper. The tables are placing in the tax according to the sequence of paper. Please check track changes of manuscript

Comment 4: Please specify the source of each figure / table (e.g. “Author's own processing” or other expressions / sources, if the case) between square or round brackets after the name of the table. Beside this, no all figures are the same quality – please fix this problem. Besides this, please improve each figure / table (which is not “self- processing, like fig.1 and fig. 2) with your own contribution.

Response 4:, All sources are placed below the figure in undated manuscript. Please check track changes of manuscript

Comment 5: Would be really appreciated (actually is a request) if you will (can) formulate (even one) Objectives/s of the study with (minimum) two Hypotheses (e.g., Hypothesis 1, 2, 3… - introduced perhaps at the end of Introduction chapter or at the beginning of Material and Method chapter) in the way to be validated by the research in Results and Discussion chapter (with clear reference to hypotheses1 & 2 & (so on) of the objective/s of the research). This would prove that there is a line of argumentation - that starts from (minimum) one hypothesis and reaches a conclusion (proven with the help of the study).

Response 5: Thank you very much for your valuable comments, the hypothesis are placed at the end of literature review section. Please check track changes of manuscript

Comment 6: I recommend that the “concrete” proposals with “practical” applicability and if possible ... “measurable” be more clearly individualized (in a separate subsection at Results and Discussion’s (sub) chapter). Actually, it would be interesting if the study would present some aspects more clearly related to the practical application of the study (even examples) and its results (where could be applied, how could be applied and so on). Thus, please detail further the interpretation of the data analysis performed and its implications by reference to the scope of the research (partialy done in Conclusions and Policy Recommendation chapter).

Response 6:, Thank you for valuable comment, in updated manuscript the particle application of study is added in second last section. Please check track changes of manuscript

Comment 7: Please mentione (after Conclusions and Policy Recommendation chapter) more clear (the subjective and) limiting nature of the study (the limits of the research and the way in which these limits will be addressed in the future – if will be) and
argue opinion regarding a possible modification of the investigation indicators (partialy done in the article’s body) also to reflecte and to have a holistic view on the topic

Response 7:, The valuable comment is added in last section, limitation and future direction are discussed Please check track changes of manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

First of all, I would like to mention the fact that I have read an interesting paper ("The Effect of Economic Policy Uncertainty on Foreign Direct Investment in the era of Global value chain: Evidence from the Asian Countries").

However, I would like to make the following observations/ recommendations and questions to the author:

- contribution should be more clarified. The authors should further underline what the paper contribution is, what is new in this paper? Why should it be published? What is the literature gap covered by this paper? What is the associated interest of this contribution? Has anyone previously suggested the need and interest in developing this specific contribution?

- the "3. Survey of Literature" developed in the manuscript should serve to synthesize the state of the art in the topic addressed, to describe the main specific contributions made to date, what is the gap that the work tries to fill, how the previous contributions relate to the contribution that is intended to be made in this paper and so on - please "highlight these <elements>";

- I partially agree with the "4. Materials and Methods" paper section but it's reasonably designed;

- References section must be improved and updated. 

Author Response

Reviewers Suggestions:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper is related to an interesting topic, namely The Effect of Economic Policy Uncertainty on Foreign Direct Investment in the era of Global value chain: Evidence from the Asian Countries
However, the manuscript needs to be further developed in order to meet the expected academic

Comment 1: First of all, I would like to mention the fact that I have read an interesting paper ("The Effect of Economic Policy Uncertainty on Foreign Direct Investment in the era of Global value chain: Evidence from the Asian Countries"). However, I would like to make the following observations/ recommendations and questions to the author: - contribution should be more clarified. The authors should further underline what the paper contribution is, what is new in this paper? Why should it be published? What is the literature gap covered by this paper? What is the associated interest of this contribution? Has anyone previously suggested the need and interest in developing this specific contribution?

Response 1:Thank you for your valuable comment, the motivation to study, contribution of study, policy relevancy and literature gap of study is discussed in more detailed in second last paragraph of section one. Please check track changes of manuscript

Comment 2: the "3. Survey of Literature" developed in the manuscript should serve to synthesize the state of the art in the topic addressed, to describe the main specific contributions made to date, what is the gap that the work tries to fill, how the previous contributions relate to the contribution that is intended to be made in this paper and so on - please "highlight these <elements>";

Response 2:Thank you for your suggestion, the detailed research gap and contribution discussed in third paragraph of introduction section. Please check track changes of manuscript

Comment 3: I partially agree with the "4. Materials and Methods" paper section but it's reasonably designed; - References section must be improved and updated.

Response 3: Thank you for your kind suggestion, the references section is improved and updated. Please check track changes of manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I am glad to review this interesting article. Nevertheless, the following issues need to be addressed.

First of all, I can not understand your theoretical contribution. Several relevant articles have already been published, and even the idea of the Global Value Chain is not well explored and added value to the extant literature.

Secondly, many "very" similar studies are overlooked! Please add a few paragraphs to discuss those studies.

Thirdly, it is mentioned that "Since the 1990s, the inflow and outflow of foreign direct investment have increased dramatically worldwide, particularly in developing countries". Yet, you need to add more recent data to reveal that this issue is still a challenge to be addressed. Who believes so? and why?

The model you have proposed in this article has already been used in several studies. What is specific about THIS study? or how you can make it more interesting? Please explain and revise accordingly.

Furthermore, Machine Learning techniques can access the quality of the model. I strongly suggest that you take advantage of those models.

Finally, please explain the limitations and show how you have considered them. Also, please highlight the implications and directions for future research.

Best of luck!

Author Response

Reviewers Suggestions:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper is related to an interesting topic, namely The Effect of Economic Policy Uncertainty on Foreign Direct Investment in the era of Global value chain: Evidence from the Asian Countries
However, the manuscript needs to be further developed in order to meet the expected academic

Comment 1: First of all, I would like to mention the fact that I have read an interesting paper ("The Effect of Economic Policy Uncertainty on Foreign Direct Investment in the era of Global value chain: Evidence from the Asian Countries"). However, I would like to make the following observations/ recommendations and questions to the author: - contribution should be more clarified. The authors should further underline what the paper contribution is, what is new in this paper? Why should it be published? What is the literature gap covered by this paper? What is the associated interest of this contribution? Has anyone previously suggested the need and interest in developing this specific contribution?

Response 1:Thank you for your valuable comment, the motivation to study, contribution of study, policy relevancy and literature gap of study is discussed in more detailed in second last paragraph of section one. Please check track changes of manuscript

Comment 2: First of all, I cannot understand your theoretical contribution. Several relevant articles have already been published, and even the idea of the Global Value Chain is not well explored and added value to the extant literature.

Response 2: Thank you for kind suggestion, the literature is extended in updated manuscript. Please check track changes of manuscript

Comment 3: Secondly, many "very" similar studies are overlooked! Please add a few paragraphs to discuss those studies.

Response 3:Thank you for your kind and valuable suggestion, we incorporated your valuable comments and discussed the some more relevant studies in literature and introduction section. Please check track changes of manuscript

Comment 4: Thirdly, it is mentioned that "Since the 1990s, the inflow and outflow of foreign direct investment have increased dramatically worldwide, particularly in developing countries". Yet, you need to add more recent data to reveal that this issue is still a challenge to be addressed. Who believes so? and why?

Response 4: Thank you for your kind suggestion, based on the data availability and policy papers, we refers some studies (World bank policy paper) in updated manuscript. Please check track changes of manuscript

Comment 5: The model you have proposed in this article has already been used in several studies. What is specific about THIS study? or how you can make it more interesting? Please explain and revise accordingly.

Response 5:Thank you for you suggestion, we discussed some studies in second paragraph of introduction section. In case of Asian countries some important variables are missing to study their role i.e., role of financial development in domestic and global uncertainty, therefore all these factors are discussed in more detailed in updated manuscript.

Comment 6: Furthermore, Machine Learning techniques can access the quality of the model. I strongly suggest that you take advantage of those models.

Response 6: Thank you for your valuable comments. At this stage, the Machine learning techniques is somehow problematic to use in current study. Therefore, we put this comment as a limitation of our study. Please check track changes of manuscript

Comment 7: Finally, please explain the limitations and show how you have considered them. Also, please highlight the implications and directions for future research.

Response 7: Thank you for your kind suggestion, the limitations and implication of study are updated in conclusion section of the study. Please check track changes of manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I'm glad to review the revised version. This version is improved significantly. My main concern is to clarify your theoretical contribution and distinguish your research from other similar studies.

Best of luck!

Author Response

Respected Reviewer

'' Please Find the attachment below '' 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf