Impact of COVID-19 on UK Banks; How Banks Reshape Consumer Banking Behaviour during Pandemic
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
All comments and suggestions are in a file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer
The responses to the comments on the attached file
Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting and compelling subject that is very contemporary. The paper is well structured and logically presented. However, these are my remarks:
- In the Introduction part, you should add a paragraph regarding the structure /organisation of the paper
- In the Introduction Section, you should state the what (main objective), the why (motivation and scientific soundness) and the how (methodology used) of the study.
- You have used Deloitte and PWC sources a bit too much. Perhaps you should find other relevant scientific reports/papers?
- in-text referencing is not ok. You should write ex. Mateev et al. (2021), without commas in between
- Rows 197-199 do not make any sense, please rephrase
- Sample is too small- six managers cannot be enough to draw relevant conclusions
- In Table 1, there is an error in HSBC total
- Section 4.2. - start with capital letter (check the whole text for this error, I have seen it a few times)
- In the conclusion section, please add the limitations of the study
- In the reference list, the font of the numbering is bigger. Moreover, the references: 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, 19-24, 29, 31, 32, 36, 39, 40 are not adequately stated according to APA style. Please revise.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
The responses to the comments on the attached file
Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors and Editor,
I am glad to say that reading your paper again it seems much better – like another paper on the same topic! You have adequately addressed the concerns I had and made subsequent changes. In my opinion, your second version is publishable but needs just some minor editing. The only remark concerns Tables 2, 3, and 4. In my opinion, the data cells contain too much (long) texts, it is better to point out some key words or -wordings. Doing so, these tables could be merged into one table. Yet, this is just a recommendation.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thank you for reviewing our paper and providing constructive and valuable feedback that helped significantly improve it. Regarding your suggestion to point out some keywords in tables 2, 3, and 4, we prefer to keep the same context and examples to provide the reader with personalized examples from the interviews and support our findings.
Best Regards
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised manuscript has addressed all the raised issues.
I would recommend accepting it in present form.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thank you for reviewing our paper and providing constructive and worthwhile feedback that helped significantly improve it.
Kindly regards
