Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research topic is highly timely and relevant, especially given the increasing household debt in Sweden, which serves as a concrete and socially significant backdrop. The study’s social implications are thus clearly articulated.

Moreover, the exploration of the relationship between financial literacy, coping strategies, and consumer financial behavior—along with the analysis of gender differences—makes this study an engaging and valuable contribution to the literature.

However, the introduction could benefit from a clearer articulation of why Sweden deserves particular attention in this context. A more explicit discussion of the theoretical and policy background regarding Sweden’s unique financial landscape would provide greater insight for readers.

The use of a cross-sectional survey design and a relatively large sample size (N = 2,057) strengthens the credibility and reliability of the study. Nonetheless, it would enhance the methodological rigor of the paper if more details were provided on the reliability and validity of the survey instruments, as well as how the key variables were operationalized.

Overall, the paper maintains a coherent structure, with a logical flow from research objectives to methodology, results, and discussion. The attempt to link research findings to policy recommendations in the conclusion is commendable; however, the impact of these recommendations would be stronger with more concrete and actionable suggestions.

Finally, a more in-depth discussion of the study’s limitations is encouraged. Addressing potential weaknesses or constraints would contribute to the transparency and academic rigor of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is sloppy. It appears that the authors did not carefully revise the manuscript and just wanted to get done with this. For example, the abstract's final sentence is this: Keywords: keyword 22
1; keyword 2; keyword 3 (List three to ten pertinent keywords specific to the article yet 23
reasonably common within the subject discipline.)

The introduction is interesting but distracting. The way the manuscript is written, it is very difficult to figure out what the outcome of interest is. Can you draw a diagram showing the relationship among the variables you have? Do you have any theoretical/conceptual basis to draw the connections? 

Think about your core research question and all the variables that are involved in the research question. Then write the introduction in a way that discusses the possible role of each variable in determining your outcome of interest, why this investigation matters, where the gaps in the literature are, and how your studies fills in that gap and contributes to the literature. The current version of the introduction doesn't do any of these.

There is too much statistical details that distracts the reader from understanding the core ideas presented in the paper. Keep only the most important statistical things in the main section and put the rest in the appendix. 

Quality of writing needs to be improved. For example, Line 482: "Upon completion of the statistical analysis, the results have indicated some significant results," seems awkward. This issue is persistent throughout the manuscript. 

Overall, the manuscript has potential. But the presentation makes it a difficult reading. The authors should spend more time trying to think clearly about their contribution. In particular, what is the treatment, what is the outcome, what are the confounding and mediator variables. Once you convince yourself about the relationships, then try to explain them in a clear and concise way to your reader. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the revisions to the manuscript.