Determinants of Remuneration Committee Chairman’s Pay: Evidence from the UK

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is suggested to better specify the conclusions and findings mentioned in the abstract.

It is suggested to add some references in some paragraphs that are highlighted in yellow.

 It is suggested to add some introductory text between the titles and subtitles of some sections of the article.

 In the discussion, it is suggested to more precisely contrast the results of the article with the respective literature in order to support or contradict the findings.

 In the conclusions, it is suggested to clearly and precisely write the conclusions regarding the objectives of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is interesting. It allows filling gaps in the investigation of the subject in question.

It offers several contributions to the existing literature on corporate governance.  The conclusions also make it possible to make suggestions in terms of public policy.

Theoretical background and literature review are systematized. The hypotheses are reasonably supported in the literature.

Multiple regression analysis using the Ordinary least Squares (OLS) has been used. At this level, I consider that the study could be enriched, taking into account the following questions:

- Why this model? Are the regression assumptions verified?

- Wouldn’t panel data models have been more appropriate?

I think the robustness of the results could also have been further explored.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. As a researcher in this field myself, I very much enjoyed reading it. This paper examine the relationship between the remuneration committee chairperson’s 8 (RCC’s) remuneration and their individual characteristics. While the article is informative and of potential interest among some readers, I found it difficult to justify the rationale and motivation for conducting the research. Below I describe my concerns in greater detail. I hope that my comments are viewed as constructive feedback that will help you clarify and enhance your research quality.

Title;- Sound!

Keywords;- Sound!

Abstract;- Sound!

After carefully reviewing your paper, my view is that it is a good paper with a potential to contribute to the literature. It can, however, be improved further as follows:
1. Please re-structure paper as follows: 1. Introduction, 2. Background, 3. Theoretical literature review, 4. Empirical literature review and hypotheses development, 5. Research design, 6. Empirical results and discussion, and 7. Summary and conclusion. 

2. Introduction: Please clarify your research questions, objectives, background motivation, theoretical and empirical motivation and the lines of contributions to the literature. You can do this by sharply articulating your research questions/objectives, identify the potential theoretical, background and theoretical motivation or gaps, and explain how your study contributes to the literature. You can do this by highlighting the weaknesses of prior studies as well. Currently, your introduction is very dry.  Additionally, you need state clearly the contributions of the paper. For example, "Consequently, the current paper seeks to make the following contributions to the existing literature. First,…, Second,…., Third, …, Fourth,… and so on". The introduction should be about 5 pages long.

3. Background - you need to explain why this is the appropriate context to conduct this study by exploiting regulatory, reform and policy issues and developments within the research context or setting. This should be about two to three pages long.

4. Theoretical framework - Please an overarching theoretical framework that will explain the underlying predictions and hypotheses of interest. In doing so, please explicitly outline how they help link the dependent and independent variables together by drawing on both seminal (old) and recently (newly) published studies. This should be about two to three pages long.

5. Literature review and hypotheses Development - please enhance your hypotheses by: (i) drawing on the theory; (ii) empirical literature; (iii) research setting/contextual insights; and (iv) then setting up your hypotheses. You will do this for each hypothesis. Currently, you have not developed your hypotheses in this way. You will need to so by drawing on both seminal (old) and recently (newly) published studies. In this case, these papers are directly relevant to your study, from which insights can be drawn and cited to support your analysis (update the literature):

(i) Do ownership structures and governance attributes matter for corporate sustainability reporting? An examination in the Indian context (10.1108/MEQ-08-2021-0196)

Alsaad, A. and Al-Okaily, M. (2022). Acceptance of protection technology in a time of fear: the case of Covid-19 exposure detection apps. Information Technology & People, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-10-2020-0719.

(ii) Impact of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility disclosure of the UAE listed banks. 10.1108/JFRA-11-2021-0424
Al-Adwan, A. S., Nofal, M., Akram, H., Albelbisi, N. A., & Al-Okaily, M. (2022). Towards a Sustainable Adoption of E-Learning Systems: The Role of Self-Directed Learning. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 21, 245-267.

(iv) The development of corporate governance literature in Malaysia: a systematic literature review and research agenda (doi: 10.1108/CG-12-2020-0565).
(v) Global trends in board diversity research: a bibliometric view (doi: 10.1108/MEDAR-02-2021-1194).

Add each hypothesis at the end of its respective discussion.
6. Research design - Please identify, classify and explain your variables - dependent, independent and control variables, as well as any others, such as moderating or mediating variables. Please also explain your sample selection clearly (insert a table tabulating the steps - how many was missing, many had data, how many selected and why) and also clarify in a normative way how the variables are operationalised. Similarly, explain your sample in a tabular form, outlining step by step the total population to the selection of the final sample. Label all your equations, figures and tables in a consecutive manner. Make the tables self-contained by clearly identifying dependent, independent and control variables in the tables.

7. Empirical findings - please link your findings more strongly to the: (i) theory, (ii) empirics, (iii) context; and (iv) highlight their economic, academic/research and policy implications. Closely link up and cite the papers that you have discussed in the background, theory and empirical literature review & and hypotheses development section to the findings you are presenting here.

8. Conclusion - Please outline a summary of findings, contributions, implications, limitations and avenues for future research. Especially, expand the discussions relating to implications, limitations and avenues for future research.

9. Robustness or additional analyses - please demonstrate how your findings are to alternative measures (e.g., different ways of measuring the key dependent and independent variables), estimations (e.g., lagged structure, GMM estimator, Generalised Least Square regressions, Fixed or random effects regressions, two- or three-stage least squares regression, propensity score matching, difference in difference estimation, probit and logit models, Heckman selection models, and instrumental variables estimation, amongst others) and general endogeneities.

10. Typos - please there are considerable number of typos, spelling errors and grammatical mistakes throughout the paper that a careful reading will help you to eliminate them. Seek professional proof-reader's help if deemed appropriate. Improve presentation by clearly labelling equations, tables, sections and subsections.

I hope the author/s will positively embrace these constructive suggestions as a way of taking this research forward.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is acceptable

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments: The manuscript presents a comprehensive analysis of [topic]. While the overall structure and content are commendable, there are several key areas that require attention for the improvement of the manuscript.

1. Firm Size Measurement: The measurement of firm size should utilize the logarithm (Log) of total assets instead of the actual total assets. This adjustment will contribute to a more nuanced and standardized assessment, enhancing the robustness of the study's findings.

2. Removal of "In Conclusion": The phrase "In conclusion" appears in the manuscript's concluding section and should be removed for a smoother transition.

3. Focus on Implications in Conclusion: The conclusion of the manuscript lacks emphasis on the practical implications of the study. It is recommended that the authors specifically discuss how the findings could benefit policymakers and practitioners. Shifting the focus to the implications of the study will provide a more actionable and policy-relevant conclusion.

4. Citation Support for Board Importance: The statement regarding the importance of effective boards of directors influencing the long-term viability, sustainability, and success of companies should be substantiated. Please consider supporting this claim with relevant literature, such as Khatib (2023). The citation is as follows: Khatib, S. F. A., (2023) “The Role of Share Repurchases for Firms’ Social and Environmental Sustainability”. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal. In Press, 1-3.

Author Response

Dear reviewer for the Int. J. Financial Stud.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf