White List: An Administrative Tool to Contrast Crime

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

I feel that your paper is significantly underdeveloped and require better and more thorough consideration before being publishable.

Please note:

1 – English is poor and should be extensively edited by a professional. I struggled to be able to understand the content of what the authors were trying to convey. Also, the paper is verbose and there is an excessive use of footnotes;

2 – It lacks proper scientific formatting. Introduction is rather a literature review. There are no explanations for your research methodology and the conclusions are significantly flawed because a theoretical standing and research hypotheses are not properly considered and presented.

3 – Apart from some statistical analysis of data about white list firms and crime measures, which would be appropriate for a policy report, your contribution is very limited. The analysis about WL versus non WL mixes conclusions from different sectors (with different business models and financial strategies) and it just reflects that WL are smaller (probably more PA dependent) and self select themselves to be part of this list given their dependency from public contracts. A better methodology should reflect this self selection bias, such as propensity score matches.

Kind regards

Author Response

We would like to express our gratitude for your effort; we think that you and the anonymous reviewers have provided a valuable contribution to the development of this paper. 
We have made a number of changes to the paper to address the reviewers’ comments. The main changes and improvements are in order:
1)    General aspects: In line with the comments of both Reviewers, the manuscript has been corrected in its English form. Following comments by Reviewer 2 and 3, we have completely rewritten the introduction, the conclusions and also we reorganize the abstract explaining the topic of the paper, objectives of the paper and methodology. Furthermore, following the comments of Reviewer 1 we dropped all the notes and made the paper less verbose. The parts of the notes necessary to understand the subject have been inserted in the body of the text. 
2)    Empirical analysis: 
Thanks very much to Reviewer 1 and 2 for their valuable suggestions. Unfortunately, it is currently impossible to proceed with an extension of the work, because the goal of this paper is to contextualize legality tool named “White List” in the Italian business system. To analyzes the causal relationship between certification of legality and business performance need a more in-depth econometric work, which will be the subject of future developments.
3)    Discussion and conclusion: In line with comments from Reviewer 2, we have rewritten our conclusions and we state the main findings of the research, the contribution of the article, the limitations of the research, and future studies.

We have done our best to address all the issues raised by reviewers, and we hope that the paper is in a better shape right now. We thank you and the reviewers for your support in this process and we hope to continue this fruitful review process. We did not answer point by point to the Reviewers, because many observations, especially in the part that required a greater empirical study with the use of more appropriate econometric techniques, was not possible at the moment. Hope you could understand.

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract:

• I suggest reorganize the abstract. It is necessary to explain the topic of the paper, objectives of the paper, methodology, and main findings.
• I suggest including the implications of the findings and the main literature contribution of the manuscript. Moreover, add the importance to study this field.

Introduction:

• The authors need to introduce (1) the main findings of the research and (2) the main implications (theoretical and practical) of the results.

Literature review and development of hypothesis:

• Authors might include theory and empirical studies (findings) that prove the relationship (positive or negative) between variables.
• Authors need to discuss the previous studies and their difference from their manuscripts.
• Authors might include the hypothesis for the study.

Empirical design:

• I suggest reviewing the structure and modification in (1) research methodology (methodology, definition of variables, formulas, models) and (2) data (source of data and period).

Results:

• Authors need to analyze their findings and their implications in financial, economic, and social context.
• Include the similarities/differences between authors’ results with prior findings.

Conclusion:

• State the main findings of the research, the contribution of the article, the limitations of the research, and future studies.

Author Response

We would like to express our gratitude for your effort; we think that you and the anonymous reviewers have provided a valuable contribution to the development of this paper. 
We have made a number of changes to the paper to address the reviewers’ comments. The main changes and improvements are in order:
1)    General aspects: In line with the comments of both Reviewers, the manuscript has been corrected in its English form. Following comments by Reviewer 2 and 3, we have completely rewritten the introduction, the conclusions and also we reorganize the abstract explaining the topic of the paper, objectives of the paper and methodology. Furthermore, following the comments of Reviewer 1 we dropped all the notes and made the paper less verbose. The parts of the notes necessary to understand the subject have been inserted in the body of the text. 
2)    Empirical analysis: 
Thanks very much to Reviewer 1 and 2 for their valuable suggestions. Unfortunately, it is currently impossible to proceed with an extension of the work, because the goal of this paper is to contextualize legality tool named “White List” in the Italian business system. To analyzes the causal relationship between certification of legality and business performance need a more in-depth econometric work, which will be the subject of future developments.
3)    Discussion and conclusion: In line with comments from Reviewer 2, we have rewritten our conclusions and we state the main findings of the research, the contribution of the article, the limitations of the research, and future studies.

We have done our best to address all the issues raised by reviewers, and we hope that the paper is in a better shape right now. We thank you and the reviewers for your support in this process and we hope to continue this fruitful review process. We did not answer point by point to the Reviewers, because many observations, especially in the part that required a greater empirical study with the use of more appropriate econometric techniques, was not possible at the moment. Hope you could understand.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read this interesting article.  Please consider following observations.

Please rewrite the introduction part and focus more on significance and innovation of the study and background problem that has urged you to do this study.

Augment your literature review with recent researches published. 

Author Response

We would like to express our gratitude for your effort; we think that you and the anonymous reviewers have provided a valuable contribution to the development of this paper. 
We have made a number of changes to the paper to address the reviewers’ comments. The main changes and improvements are in order:
1)    General aspects: In line with the comments of both Reviewers, the manuscript has been corrected in its English form. Following comments by Reviewer 2 and 3, we have completely rewritten the introduction, the conclusions and also we reorganize the abstract explaining the topic of the paper, objectives of the paper and methodology. Furthermore, following the comments of Reviewer 1 we dropped all the notes and made the paper less verbose. The parts of the notes necessary to understand the subject have been inserted in the body of the text. 
2)    Empirical analysis: 
Thanks very much to Reviewer 1 and 2 for their valuable suggestions. Unfortunately, it is currently impossible to proceed with an extension of the work, because the goal of this paper is to contextualize legality tool named “White List” in the Italian business system. To analyzes the causal relationship between certification of legality and business performance need a more in-depth econometric work, which will be the subject of future developments.
3)    Discussion and conclusion: In line with comments from Reviewer 2, we have rewritten our conclusions and we state the main findings of the research, the contribution of the article, the limitations of the research, and future studies.

We have done our best to address all the issues raised by reviewers, and we hope that the paper is in a better shape right now. We thank you and the reviewers for your support in this process and we hope to continue this fruitful review process. We did not answer point by point to the Reviewers, because many observations, especially in the part that required a greater empirical study with the use of more appropriate econometric techniques, was not possible at the moment. Hope you could understand.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors 

The paper has significantly improved. 

I believe you still need to format according to the journal.

Congratulations

Reviewer 2 Report

Good job.