Note on Pre-Taxation Data Reported by UK FTSE-Listed Companies: Search for Compatibility with Benford’s Laws
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript “Note on pre-taxation reported data by UK FTSE-listed companies. A search for Benford’s laws compatibility” uses Benford’s Law (BL) to analyze pre-tax data on FTSE All-share index data.
The study uses a first-digit, second-digit, and first-and-second-digit probability distribution to check whether the data confirms these log-form distributions.
What is the primary research question addressed by the paper?
The research question is not clear. The paper purports to use BL to see if the data confirms BL distribution. I suggest the research question(s) and the hypothesis should be succinctly stated in the introduction and fully developed in the main body of literature.
Suggestions:
1. A Literature Review section is necessary. This section will show the current status of research in using BL, the controversies around such use, any possible gaps, and why the authors think this is a good method to study data conformability (e.g., fraud).
2. A brief statement on what Benford’s law suggests. Many very good papers can be used and cited. Here are two examples:
a. Fewster, R. M. (2009). A simple explanation of Benford's Law. The American Statistician, 63(1), 26-32.
b. Kukeli, A., & Karunaratne, H. S. (2020). Benford’s Law Application: Case of Elections in Sri Lanka. Journal of Social and Political Sciences, 3(4).
3. Tables and figures should follow the standard established in academic writing. They should be placed right after the sentence, where they are referenced first. I found it awkward to start the paper with tables.
4. The methodology should discuss other tests used in the literature. Here is a paper I suggest the authors use:
a. Barabesi, L., Cerasa, A., Cerioli, A., & Perrotta, D. (2021). On Characterizations and Tests of Benford’s Law. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 117(540), 1887–1903. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2021.1891927
5. The results of the study must be discussed thoroughly and contrasted with other studies.
Author Response
We thank you for your comments and suggestions. Please allow us some reply. Your comments are summarized in italics, for faster consideration.
See the ached file for a full reply.
Notice that the revised version contains some blue text, hopefully clarifying our way to have taken into account all your comments. We try to maintain the paper at a reasonable size with specific emphasis, and we hope that you accept this revised version as a modest contribution to the field. We thank you in advance for your positive consideration. We look forward to your recommendation for a subsequent publication.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI consider that the present manuscript is of a great importance in the academic literature development due to the novel approach regarding the Benford’s law application. However, there are some aspects that can be improved in the current version of the paper:
1. The abstract could be developed with the relevance of the results obtained.
2. The “Introduction” should include and emphasize more clearly the following aspects: importance and relevance of the phenomenon on which the current study will be focused; the objectives of the paper; the importance of the novel approach on the Benford’s law application in the understanding of studied phenomenon.
3. The references included in the manuscript are mainly written before the year 2020. The manuscript should also include some more recent references that would emphasize the current stage of research regarding the studied phenomenon.
4. The “Data Acquisition” subsection should include a short description of the database used and, also, of the variables considered.
5. There should be given a short description for Benford’s law in order to be easier for the reader to understand their role in the study.
6. Figures 1-4 should be inserted in the text of the manuscript near their interpretations.
7. The results presented in the Tables 3-8 should be interpreted in more detail.
8. The manuscript is structured more like a report than a scientific article. I believe that it could be developed so that it complies with the structure and rigors of a prestigious journal.
Good luck in completing the work!
Author Response
We thank you for your comments and suggestions. Please allow us some reply. Your comments are summarized in italics, for faster consideration in the attached file for your consideration.
Notice that the revised version contains some blue text, hopefully clarifying our way to have taken into account all your comments. We try to maintain the paper at a reasonable size with specific emphasis, and we hope that you accept this revised version as a modest contribution to the field. We thank you in advance for your positive consideration. We look forward to your recommendation for a subsequent publication.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the implication of the authors and their effort made in responding to my recommendations. I consider that the updated version of the Communication is improved including several paragraphs intended to bring more clarity in the presentation of the research. I recommend its acceptance for publication. Congratulations and good luck in the future researches!
