Susceptibility of Stock Market Returns to International Economic Policy: Evidence from Effective Transfer Entropy of Africa with the Implication for Open Innovation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author,
I am sending comments in the attachment.

Best regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, I find the work you have done to be relevant but it needs to be much improved in order to be made publishable. I will summarize my suggestions below.

 

Abstract, title and references

The aim is clear, and it's clear what the study found and how they did it. The title is informative and relevant.

As for the references, they must be more relevant and recent in order to give more scientific relevance to the research.

Introduction/Background

I suggest that we emphasise more what the scientific community already knows about this subject. Through this change it will be possible to highlight the research question by justifying it by what is already known on the subject.

Methods

as far as the section of the methodology is concerned, the selection process of the subjects is clear, and the variables are defined and measured appropriately using a valid and reliable study method

Results

The data shall be presented in an appropriate form and the tables and figures shall be relevant and clearly presented.

I think that the categories are grouped in an appropriate format, but I suggest reviewing the textual part in order to better explain the tables without making it repetitive but adding some concepts.

Discussion and Conclusions

In this version of the paper the discussion section is to be created, so I suggest to the authors to include this chapter making sure that the results are discussed from several points of view and contextualized without being over-interpreted. In addition, the conclusion section should be more thorough making sure that this section meets the objectives of the study and is supported by references or results.

 

Overall

The study design was adequate to meet the purpose, but I suggest major revisions with the aim of pointing out what this study has added to what is already known on this subject

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract, title and references

I confirm that as for the first version, the objective is clear, and it is clear what the study found and how they did it. The title is informative and relevant.

Now the references are more relevant and recent to give more scientific relevance to the research.

 

Introduction/background

Compared to the first version, I have seen that you have taken on board the suggestions to emphasize more what the scientific community already knows about this topic, so this section has been greatly improved.

 

Methods

I confirm that as with the first version, the methodology, the subject selection process is clear, and the variables are defined and measured appropriately using a valid and reliable study method.

 

Results

Compared to the first version at present, the data are presented in an appropriate form and the tables and figures must be relevant and clearly presented.

I confirm that as for the first version, the categories are grouped in an appropriate format, and in addition the textual part explains the tables better without making them repetitive but adding some concepts.

 

Discussion and conclusions

I saw that you have updated with the suggestions that have been given and therefore now the results are discussed from different points of view and contextualized without being over-interpreted. In addition, the section of the conclusions is more in-depth.

 

Overall

The version of this article has been significantly improved and can be published; the design of the studio has been adapted for the purpose.

Author Response

No action Required

Thank you