Modeling a Financial Controlling System for Managing Transfer Pricing Operations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the paper proposes an integrated managerial accounting model for managing transfer pricing, with a focus on tax compliance and balancing stakeholder interests. 

Authors may consider the following suggestions:
- the abstract could be more systematized so as to clearly highlight the general idea and emphasize the original contribution and the main results obtained from the research;
- inclusion of the research hypothesis and clear highlighting of the objectives, as well as a justification of the research (why a new model is required);
- In the literature review section, existing gaps could be highlighted in one or two sentences;
- In the methodology section, information about the empirical validation of the model (with whom were the results compared?) could be included and the algorithms used could be described more clearly;
- In the results and discussion section, clarifications regarding the comparison of the results obtained with other existing models or traditional methods could be included;
- The conclusions are too general (could be more pragmatic) and could be completed with the model's limitations and future research directions.

Author Response

We sincerely thank all the esteemed reviewers for their efforts, valuable recommendations, and constructive suggestions. We have agreed with and incorporated many of the comments that will enhance our work without compromising its core identity—a detailed list is provided in the table below. Other suggestions, which we also find insightful, will be considered in our future research, as the current time frame, length, structure, concept, and hypothesis of the article do not allow for their full integration.
With best regards,

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review report for the manuscript:

Modeling of a financial controlling system for managing transfer pricing operations

The title of this paper is very promising and it suggests that the paper aims to propose a model of financial controlling system for managing transfer pricing operations. However, the main disadvantage of this research is that any real agricultural production database has been used in this study. I understand that the presented simple examples are in fact only not- real case studies (?) Therefore, it seems that the scientific contribution of this study to the topic “Sustainable Agriculture” is a minor one.

I have some other major and minor comments summarized hereafter.

1. The Abstract is too long while the Introduction is too short.
2. The structure of the Abstract section is not proper and it should be improved. It does not contain the information about the obtained results and the contribution of this manuscript.

According to the MDPI Article Template – concerns Abstract:

‘A single paragraph of about 200 words maximum. For research articles, abstracts should give a pertinent overview of the work. We strongly encourage authors to use the following style of structured abstracts, but without headings: (1) Background: place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; (2) Methods: describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied; (3) Results: summarize the article's main findings; (4) Conclusions: indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The abstract should be an objective representation of the article, it must not contain results which are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions.’

3. In Introduction, the Authors should better emphasize the main scientific contribution of their study, since it is not clear now. What is really new and important in this paper?
4. Moreover, in Introduction the Authors should add the information about the structure of the paper. Such information would be useful for potential readers.
5. Section 3 is too general and non-informative now. In section 3 (Materials and Methods), the Authors should present in detail the methods that have been used in the study. There are some models and equations in this paper, and these models and equations should be presented and described in section 3 (as Methods).
6. Section 4 (Results and Discussion) should present and discuss the empirical findings in the context of the existing literature. As mentioned above, the main problem is that any real agricultural production data have been used in this research.
7. I have not found any information about the software that has been used in this research.
8. The English language needs editing.
9. Moreover, the whole manuscript needs editing since there are a lot of typos.
10. To sum up, the paper should be substantially improved.

Author Response

We sincerely thank all the esteemed reviewers for their efforts, valuable recommendations, and constructive suggestions. We have agreed with and incorporated many of the comments that will enhance our work without compromising its core identity—a detailed list is provided in the table below. Other suggestions, which we also find insightful, will be considered in our future research, as the current time frame, length, structure, concept, and hypothesis of the article do not allow for their full integration.

With best regards,

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is highly relevant in terms of company valuation. Transfer prices are very important in this area in terms of their setting. This setting must respect the requirements of company managers, as well as requirements arising from the external environment (tax policy, legislation...). It is clear that the article is based on well-conducted international research.

One stylistic recommendation: Table 2 is divided into two pages, it is recommended to attach the first row of the table so that it is visible on the second page.

Thank you very much.

Author Response

We sincerely thank all the esteemed reviewers for their efforts, valuable recommendations, and constructive suggestions. We have agreed with and incorporated many of the comments that will enhance our work without compromising its core identity—a detailed list is provided in the table below. Other suggestions, which we also find insightful, will be considered in our future research, as the current time frame, length, structure, concept, and hypothesis of the article do not allow for their full integration.

With best regards,

The authors.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The abstract should be shortened twice more focusing on the novelty and main results (to max 200 words).
2. The introduction should follow the Instructions for authors. It is the compilations (difficult to understand where the statements of the authors, where - of other scholars). Please, briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited to disclose the research gap. The Introduction has to be longer.
3. The authors should start Literature Review from the current state of research globally.
4. The authors should prepare the Literature Review in a way to disclose the research gap and novelty.
5. The authors should use the snowball principle for Literature Review.
6. Material and Methods: What methods for such kind of research were applied by other scholars? What are the main advantages and disadvantages of these methods? Which methods and why choose the authors of the article?
7. Materials and methods should be described with sufficient detail to allow others to replicate and build on published results. New methods and protocols should be described in detail while well-established methods can be briefly described and appropriately cited. Give the name and version of any software used and make clear whether computer code used is available.
8. The authors should present the theoretical background of the information in the Figure 1.
9. The reviewer does not see the two main pillars of the developed model – adherence to tax compliance principles and balancing stakeholder interests.
10. The empirical research is not understandable from the perspective of tax compliance principles and stakeholder interest balancing.

Author Response

We sincerely thank all the esteemed reviewers for their efforts, valuable recommendations, and constructive suggestions. We have agreed with and incorporated many of the comments that will enhance our work without compromising its core identity—a detailed list is provided in the table below. Other suggestions, which we also find insightful, will be considered in our future research, as the current time frame, length, structure, concept, and hypothesis of the article do not allow for their full integration.

With best regards,

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded to the comments made. The paper can be accepted in this form.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been improved.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The "Materials and Methods" section should be described in sufficient detail to allow others to reproduce and build upon the published results. New methods and protocols should be described thoroughly, while well-known methods can be presented briefly with appropriate references. The name and version of any software used must be specified, along with a clear statement regarding the availability of the computer code.