Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments from previous review were not addressed sufficiently.

- Paper´s aim from scientific point of view is missing

- The introduction misses the important parts: state of the art (short), knowledge gap, aim of the paper, a brief summary of the results/implications

- The research hypothesis is not stated correctly

- The variable mitigation measures and the way of its considering and involvement in research was not explained.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend moderate editing of English language especially in economic terminology.

Author Response

See, attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

When I analysed this article for the first time in 08.11.2023 I added that the topic is interesting, but it has some weaknesses.

From the total of requested points, that time, the authors still not improved some points such as:

1.In the Abstract the authors must add the research question and the results, using data or percentage.

2.Literature review is too reduced, the authors would of been used more sources, and especially from 2022-2023. Now, are imposed a few new sources from 2024!! (the authors added only three sources)

3.There are no research hypothesis, which should of been fulfilled or not in the discussion section and in the Conclusion, using some other sources.

4. The Implications for stakeholders must be developed and explained better.

Thus, having these in view, the article is proposed for publication but with major improvements.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

see, attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The small changes requested by me in the previous review have been addressed in a reasonable manner.

Author Response

see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have one formal comment: please correct the titles of figures and tables. Names of tables anf figures shouldn´t be conencted with further text explaining them.

Author Response

Please, see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article was improved according to the proposed measures.

Only two measures ware not fulfilled; first, the authors should develop a sub-section in the Discussion section called, as I added before, The Implications for the involved stakeholders and explained better, and the second is to add in Conclusions if the research hypothesis were fulfilled or not.

Thus, the article is accepted after minor revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please, see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments

The structure of the paper follows a structure of a scientific paper. However, the relationship of the paper with the sustainability is unclear, the suitability within the scope of the journal is disputable.

My comments for improvement of the paper are as follows:

1.      Paper´s aim: state it clearly from the scientific point of view in abstract and introduction.

2.      Please construct the introduction in the following manner: a brief introduction to the topic, state of the art (short), knowledge gap, aim of the paper, a brief summary of the results/implications, the remainder of the paper. Second, in the introduction please better underline the novelty of the paper and the importance to solve chosen topic.

3.      The research hypotheses or propositions were not stated..

4.      Material and methods: the present study used traditional approaches.

Explain variable: mitigation measures,

Number of mitigation measures is not very relevant – measures in countries with a different intensity, spread or length had different impact on economy; only similar or same measures can be considered and compared.

5.      Discussion of results with other works is missing - it should be added.

6.      Conclusions - add information:

-          Highlight the contribution of the paper to development of scientific knowledge

-          Give limitation of the study/research presented in the paper

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing is required.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is interesting, but it has some weaknesses.

In the Abstract the authors must add the novelty of the study, the research question and the results obtained from the study calculations, using data or percentage.

In the Introduction, at the final part, the authors must add an analysis of each described chapter of the paper.

Literature review is too reduced, the authors would of been used more sources, and especially from 2022-2023.

There are no research hypothesis, which shoulf of been fulfilled or not in the discussion section and in the Conclusion, using some other sources.

The study is only reminding some factors with impact on world economy, but these effects should of been calculated, and a comparison to be built to perceive a difference between your analysed country and the others. Maybe a comparison between OECD and non OECD countries. A modelling approcah, besides clusters approach should be used to indicate future objective and measures.

Implications for each country, or area or regional should of been developed. The Discussion section is suffering, so, having these lack of methods, approaches based on modelling, the article is rejected from publication.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is interesting and a cluster analysis is a very visual and attractive multivariate technique to present the results. The analysis is very detailed and several iterations of cluster analysis are carried out, but no tables are provided with the data behind the generated graphs.

Nor are the characteristics explained that identify each of the two clusters generated, beyond the continent to which the countries belong. What differences are there between both groups in the pandemic and economic parameters?