Voluntary and Mandatory Integrated Reporting Conformity with the International Integrated Reporting Council Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We believe that the article should more clearly specify its purpose, since it is not entirely clear why the authors conducted this study.

In our opinion, the last paragraph of the introduction (lines 78-89) should be removed and replaced with a certain generalization regarding the relevance of the issues investigated in the article. Since it is generally unclear to the reader of the article where such conclusions came from, as a result of the study of which enterprises, which reports, based on the use of which models, etc.

The Literature Review section is written very chaotically, without proper structuring and aggregation of the conclusions and views of scientists related to the problem under study. The last paragraph of this section (lines 193-205) is generally presented in a narrative style about the specifics of integrated reporting, and not in the form of a description of the results of individual works and their similarities or contradictions with generally accepted opinions of scientists, the provisions of individual theories, etc. In addition, at the end of the section there is no generalization regarding the conducted literature analysis, which in our opinion must be added, and to establish the existence of a problem or gap in research, which the authors of this article will try to address.

The description of the model and the variables used in it is very limited. In particular, the mechanism for determining the points for the Conformity indicator, if partial compliance was found, is not completely clear. We recommend expanding.
All elements of the models presented in lines 279-295, in particular, the coefficients and indices used for all regressors, require more detailed justification.

The Results and Discussion section presents the obtained results very well, but there is no discussion at all about the conclusions and achievements of other scientists who deal with this issue. In particular, it is not disclosed at all how the results obtained in the article contradict or confirm the existing conclusions. This section does not contain any references to the works of the authors who were analyzed in the review of the journal. As a result, this does not allow us to fully understand what the contribution of the authors of this article is in solving existing problems, as well as what the uniqueness of the obtained results is. There is a complete lack of connection between the sections of the article. We recommend having a discussion with scientists in this section of the article.

We also recommend confirming some of the most significant components of the conclusions with empirical data obtained in the article.

Author Response

.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please refer to the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The objective of the study is not specifically stated. It should be written in the abstract, the introduction, and in the conclusions.

Even though there are many references included in the paper, most of them are quite old. The reference list should be updated. The references should refer to the type of companies included in this study. For instance, the financial institutions were excluded, but there are references dealing with this type of companies.

A figure can be added to show the sample.

The explanations of the results are very brief. They can be improved.

In the end of the paper it is required to explicitly link back to the literature review. It is necessary to compare and contrast the findings with those that already exist in the literature. What is different? What is the same? How does the study add to better explanations of previously identified phenomena? How does it for example solve existing contradictions in findings of other studies? Or, how does it explain previously unexplainable findings?

I believe that more effort should be put in suggesting the theoretical contribution that the study offers and discussing the limitations and future directions for research.

Author Response

.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for allowing me to review this interesting article.

I see five initial sections that need to be revised:

1. Add 5-7 most recent citations. Literature at the moment is old.
2. The intro section should be refined, while at the moment you have mostly regulative inserted, which is for the international reader not so relevant and is also odd to read.
3. The data part is not understandable. make it more readable and comprehensive.
4. In the title, there should not be any abbreviations.
5. Table 4 is the central result part, but the description is poor. make it better, or add a discussion section.

Some other issues should be solved:

1. I am missing motivation and aims in the intro section. Also, specific objectives are missing.
2. Why is the data from 2018-2021 and not to 2023 or 2024?
3. Lines 71-90 are more for a discussion section, the intro
4. What are the meanings of the symbols in the equations? Write below them
5. Where are hypotheses, and how do you answer them in a discussion section? So why is this study needed and what are you answering?
6. Line 2028, population. Is this the population?
7. Make decimals on two, not mixed
8. What does Table 3 bring to the results? Why do you need this? Write below the table 3. Clear.
9. Figure 1, really needed?
10. Limitations, delimitations and further research proposals are written where?
11. Check Table 4 once again; there are some missresults.

 

I wish you good luck with the extensive revision.

Author Response

.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please refer to the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors significantly improved the paper. I consider that it can be published in the present form.

Author Response

Thank you for the comments and contributions for paper's improvement.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
Thank you for your revised manuscript. The paper is well-revised. I still believe that some of the most recent citations and the introduction section could be refined.

Author Response

Thank you for the comments and contributions for paper's improvement.