arg_1
stringlengths 4
5.08k
| round_1
float64 2
8
⌀ | ann_1
float64 1
2
⌀ | arg_2
stringlengths 8
2.19k
| round_2
float64 1
7
⌀ | ann_2
float64 1
2
⌀ | annotation_name
stringclasses 131
values | is_attacks
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
We agree with the reviewer's comments. As advised by the reviewer, the content of the scenario was additionally reflected in the abstract. The contents are as follows.
| 4 | 1 |
The motivation of the paper is still unclear for me in the introduction, and the reasons for the limitations of smart city services are not clear in Section 2, but is much better explained later in the paper, which is a nice improvement. I believe that explaining standard constraints (due to the multiplicity of service providers) and coupling between services in the introduction to motivate the paper would be valuable. Indeed, if my understanding is correct, they are the factors that cause the limitations of smart city services the authors want to address.
| 3 | 2 |
su14052981_makarova
| 1 |
The description of the characteristics of each city shown in Table 3 was insufficient, as was the reviewer's opinion. Accordingly, the project described in Table 3 was briefly explained and the contents of the article were also revised. - “... As a representative smart city project in Korea, Pilot city, Regulatory sandbox and Smart City Challenge are in progress. To summarize the smart city services used in this project, medical, crime prevention, transportation and environmental services are the most used.” Table 7 also agrees with the reviewer's advice that it does not fit the current content. Accordingly, the contents of Table 7 were deleted and only the contents described in the text were left. Thanks for your comments.
| 4 | 1 |
The authors made some efforts to streamline Section 2, and it is much easier to follow in its current form. Table 3 just shows that medical, crime prevention, transportation, and environmental services are the most frequent, which is already said in the text, but without an explanation of what pilot city, regulatory sandbox, and smart city challenge are, it is difficult to extract anything else from this table. Table 7 does not bring much useful insights as well in its current form. The authors have not responded to my previous comment on this table, I thus redirect them to my review of the previous version. However, some parts still appear unnecessary to me.
| 3 | 2 |
su14052981_makarova
| 1 |
Thank you. As commented by reviewer, the content of Section 3.1 includes the content of Section 2. However, for the 3.2 Expansion of smart city structure that we want to present, I think it is necessary to organize the contents of Section 2 through Section 3.1 and to draw limitations. Of course, it is also correct to understand the structure as the opinions of reviewer. We put a lot of thought into reflecting the opinions. We are sorry; however, we have decided that it is difficult to change the structure at the moment. We ask for your generous understanding of the current structure.
| 4 | 1 |
Section 3.1 gives an overview of the COVID-19 and smart city systems situation in South Korea, but is not part of the novel contribution by the authors. I would thus include it in Section 2 instead. Section 2 would thus have a part on smart city services, a part on COVID-19 response plans, and then the current content of 3.1 which deals with the relationship between the two parts of the current Section 2. It would allow a smoother transition between Section 2 and Section 3, as the modified Section 2 would conclude with the need for a novel smart city service structure.
| 3 | 2 |
su14052981_makarova
| 1 |
Thank you for understanding a little more about our paper. Also, I totally agree with the reviewer's comments about the skepticism of readers. Accordingly, the legal considerations specified in the first review have been added to the text. Its contents are as follows. “… In Korea, disease-related smart city services are legally sanctioned to be used only when necessary to protect personal information.”
| 4 | 1 |
From the additional explanations in the text, I understand that the idea is to track the movements of everyone and then use that information to trace back the contacts of confirmed infected patients. I stand by my position that the feasibility/ethical aspects should be discussed, at least from a social acceptance or a legal point of view, as the reader is left skeptical about whether it can actually be done with the current explanations. The authors bring up interesting legal considerations in their response to my comments, it would be nice to have them in the paper to show the reader under which conditions the authors' solution can be used.
| 3 | 2 |
su14052981_makarova
| 1 |
We are sorry for not being clear on the answer to the last review. This paper tried to present a concept for the smart city structure to cope with major situations such as COVID-19. Therefore, it was not possible to present a specific method of adding or removing a smart city system. Currently, smart city services in Korea are trying to implement a structure that adds and deletes when necessary, as in this paper (Reference #73). However, we apologize for not being able to give you a clear answer on this question. After observing the process of implementing the system, we will present a specific method in the thesis we plan to proceed later.
| 4 | 1 |
Finally, and this is my biggest remaining concern, the authors have not responded to my comment regarding the lack of explanations on how the flexible adding and removal of the proposed services would be achieved. This is still unclear to me in the paper. This is a very important point, since it changes what is the contribution of the paper. The current contribution seems to be the proposal of new services to handle the COVID situation, or similar situations in the future. However, I am lacking the contribution on the more general issue of integrating and removing services in an existing smart city infrastructure. In other terms, what can we use from the authors' paper to achieve a more flexible smart city service structure?
| 3 | 2 |
su14052981_makarova
| 1 |
Many revisions have been made to this paper according to the reviewer's comments. Although there are still many things incomplete, we did our best to reflect the opinions of the reviewers. In addition, we will use a more advanced paper by reflecting it in the ongoing research. Also, we sincerely appreciate the accurate comments from the reviewers.
| 4 | 1 |
In brief, the authors have made major improvements on the form and good improvements to the content. However, there are still several of my previous comments that were not answered or not answered in a sufficiently convincing way.
| 3 | 2 |
su14052981_makarova
| 1 |
The reference confirmed that the error occurred when the formatting was moved. In addition, errors in the sentences have been reviewed and corrected. We apologize again for the rudimentary mistake.
| 2 | 1 |
The whole manuscript is full of "Error! reference source..." (e.g. line 85)
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_makarova
| 1 |
In other words, the structure lacks flexibility
| 2 | 1 |
Line 142: lack of flexibility
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_makarova
| 1 |
The full terms of the abbreviation are reflected.
| 2 | 1 |
Please always explain abbreviations before use - e.g. line 149
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_makarova
| 1 |
The incorrect part of the year has been corrected. Thanks for your pointing out #6.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 320: according to the introduction the COVID-19 pandemic started in 2019 and here you state 2020
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_makarova
| 1 |
we sincerely apologize. There were many rudimentary mistakes. We corrected the errors by rechecking the paper.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 352-354: here we have two times Figure 2. Moreover, please bring the text together.
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_makarova
| 1 |
Missing or erroneous references were rechecked and corrected.
| 2 | 1 |
In this source you can find a whole list of smart city technologies http://www.sinfonia-smartcities.eu/en/resources/d21--swot-analysis-report-of-the-refined-conceptbaseline Might be of interest for your work
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_makarova
| 1 |
The confusingly written part has been simplified again. In addition, in order to solve the problem of awkward English, we have re-translated the entire sentence.
| 2 | 1 |
The abstract is very confusingly written and needs a lot of editing. This is the place where the story must be told as simply and clearly as possible, and I think a lot of the abstract is confusing and hard to interpret.
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
As your comments, Korea's smart city has technological and normative advances compared to other countries. However, we think that the USA and China are more developed in service than Korea`s (Smart city trends: A focus on 5 countries and 15 companies, Cities, 2022). Therefore, this paper intends to cover only general smart city technologies worldwide (Smart city trends: A focus on 5 countries and 15 companies, Cities 2022). We fully agree with the reviewer's comments that they may feel uncomfortable in other countries. After that, we will do more research and expand the case to other countries. Thank you very much for your comments.
| 2 | 1 |
I have some theoretical questions about the applicability of these approaches outside of Korea. For technical reasons (most smart cities have less capability and are less developed than Korean ones), but especially for legal and normative reasons (concerns about surveillance, governance, cybersecurity, etc.) I think many cities and countries will not be comfortable with this approach. I think this needs some exploration.
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
In this paper, the monitoring of sewage and wastewater for population level assessment of infection mentioned in smart city applications and urban automation was added as a limitation of this study. In the opinion of reviewers, epidemics in cities are not simply spread by one factor. Therefore, various factors should be dealt with, but in this paper, only heat and movement lines, which were mainly dealt with in Korea. The added part is as follows.
| 2 | 1 |
I'd argue that one of the areas in which Smart City applications (in particular) and urban automation (in general) have been most important during the COVID pandemic - the monitoring of sewage and wastewater for population level assessment of infection - isn't even mentioned. I think that is both a big oversight, and an opportunity for critics. I think that piece needs to be included and worked into any assessment of smart cities and pandemics. Additionally, I've included a few other pieces on COVID and smart cities.
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
Additionally, smart city services could respond neither timely nor sequentially.
| 2 | 1 |
“Additionally, smart city services couldn`t respond in-time series” (is this time series in the statistical sense? Just meaning sequential?)
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
This study proposes a method for timely and sequential responses, through a flexible combination of the healthcare system and smart city services.
| 2 | 1 |
“a method responding in-time sequential by flexibly combining” “Second, flexible smart city services are combined and deleted as needed to cope with COVID-19 has 17 been summarized.
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
Second, recommendations on combining or dismissing certain smart city services, as per the needs of coping with COVID-19, are summarized. Third, smart city services must be utilized only for addressing pandemics, as data from the healthcare system consists of personal information. Therefore, smart city services for responding to COVID-19 must be flexible.
| 2 | 1 |
Third, smart city services should only be used to cope with pandemic situations: 18 the healthcare-system data consists of personal information. Therefore, smart city services respond- 19 ing COVID-19 must exist as a flexible.” 2) Theoretical/Substantive questions: “Second, flexible smart city services are combined and deleted as needed to cope with COVID 19 has 17 been summarized.
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
The source has been specified. - (Smart city trends: A focus on 5 countries and 15 companies, Cities, 2022).
| 2 | 1 |
(pg3) Tables 1 is interesting, but it’s not clear the source of the data. Is this from the literature? (if so, needs sourcing), or a synthesis by the authors? This may be because of the error message 3 in sourcing in the document I received.
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
We have checked and corrected the Author's initials that you pointed out. We also Cognized that the expression 'EA' is a unit used only in certain countries.
| 2 | 1 |
(pg4) Table 3 isn’t clear to me. What is “EA”? Not spelled out.
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
Thanks for your kind comments.
| 2 | 1 |
(pg5) Table 4 is very useful.
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
We also agree with reviewers that it's an ideal situation to use built-in services only when needed and turn them off when not needed. Therefore, in Korea, it is legally required to be used only when necessary. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport(Korea): “…… But the scope of data collected will be kept to minimum and a due procedure should be followed in acquiring the data. First, an epidemiological surveyor should decide whether additional collection of personal information is needed. If the answer is yes, the official should seek approval from relevant authorities to get access to the data. For example, as for the location information, separate permission from the National Police Agency is required.” Source: http://www.molit.go.kr/english/USR/BORD0201/m_28286/DTL.jsp?id=eng_mltm_new&mode=view&idx=2931 3) Key missing components/literatures: We rechecked the paper related to “Key missing components/literatures”.
| 2 | 1 |
(pg14) “such services should be flexibly used only during a national crisis and removed when the service is no longer needed.” Is this likely to happen? Are there concrete examples of such systems being built and operated, then just turned off? Who would oppose turning them off? (I’d imagine many stakeholders) 3) Key missing components/literatures:
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
Webb, W., & Toh, C. K. (2020). The smart city and COVID‐19. IET Smart cities, 2(2), 56-57. Inn, T. L. (2020). Smart city technologies take on COVID-19. World Health, 841. Sharifi, A., Khavarian-Garmsir, A. R., & Kummitha, R. K. R. (2021). Contributions of smart city solutions and technologies to resilience against the COVID-19 pandemic: a literature review. Sustainability, 13(14), 8018. Gusikhin, O. (2020). The Impact of COVID-19 Experience on Smart City and Future Mobility. In Smart Cities, Green Technologies, and Intelligent Transport Systems (pp. 308-321). Springer, Cham. Kim, H. M. (2021). Smart cities beyond COVID-19. In Smart Cities for Technological and Social Innovation (pp. 299-308). Academic Press. 4 Inn, T. L. (2020).
| 2 | 1 |
Smart City and COVID
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
Farkas, K., Hillary, L. S., Malham, S. K., McDonald, J. E., & Jones, D. L. (2020). Wastewater and public health: the potential of wastewater surveillance for monitoring COVID-19. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 17, 14-20. Daughton, C. G. (2020). Wastewater surveillance for population-wide Covid-19: the present and future. Science of the Total Environment, 736, 139631. Bogler, A., Packman, A., Furman, A., Gross, A., Kushmaro, A., Ronen, A., ... & Bar-Zeev, E. (2020). Rethinking wastewater risks and monitoring in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Sustainability, 3(12), 981-990. Jaiswal, R., Agarwal, A., & Negi, R. (2020). Smart solution for reducing the COVID‐19 risk using smart city technology. IET Smart Cities, 2(2), 82-88.
| 2 | 1 |
Monitoring of sewage/wastewater for COVID case estimation
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
Thanks for your kind words. The quality of the paper has improved on the reviewer's advice. There are many things that need to be improved in this paper, however we will remember your sincere advices and write more advanced papers later. Thanks again.
| 4 | 1 |
I think the paper, and especially the abstract, are much improved. Both in terms of readability and accessibility, but also in terms of context and framing. I think the paper has the ability to make a contribution to the literature in a way that the previous version may not have been able to.
| 3 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
- This study proposes a method for timely and sequential responses, through a flexible combination of the healthcare system and smart city services by envisioning a scenario that sequentially grafts the current status of COVID-19 in Korea.
| 4 | 1 |
I think mentioning the scenario approach in the abstract might be worthwhile, but I don't think it's a huge problem if it isn't mentioned. Either way, I think the paper is in much better shape.
| 3 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
In order to improve the quality of the thesis, professional translation has been carried out again. We sincerely apologize for the rudimentary mistakes related to some expressions and errors.
| 2 | 1 |
This article advocates for better flexibility (in the sense of adding and removing when necessary) of smart city services and better integration between them. The authors argue that this would be precious to predict and fight against a pandemic, and as such they propose a smart city structure model. First, I have a series of concerns regarding the form. There are some phrasing issues and typos throughout the paper.
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
References are rechecked and deleted or erroneous references are recited or deleted. We humbly accept the reviewer's opinion that there are many references, and we have deleted references that are deemed unnecessary. We humbly accept the reviewer's comments that there is a quality problem, and We did our best to double-check, revise, and improve the quality of our papers.
| 2 | 1 |
There are referencing issues with sections as well (e.g. line 213: “As mentioned in 0”) Finally, and most importantly, the format of the bibliography is highly problematic. For many references (e.g. [15], [22], [25]) it is impossible to retrieve the source. For many other sources, the local access path of the file is provided, which again prevents the reader from retrieving the source. All these issues could have been picked up by a simple check. Unfortunately, they are enough for me to recommend to reject the paper, as I consider that submitting a report of scientific quality in this form is unacceptable.
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
We fully agree with the reviewer's comment that integration between services is difficult not only in smart cities but also in other fields. As advised by the reviewer, the situation in Korea was described in Figure 5 (Outbreak of COVID-19 in Korea and the limitations of smart city services) and Table 10 (Limitations of smart city services in each phase). The spread of COVID cannot simply be blocked by smart city services, but by simplifying the current state and proceeding with the thesis, we did not reflect Korea's medical stage with geographic characteristics. We will conduct additional research in the future to fully reflect the reviewer's comments. Thanks for the advice.
| 2 | 1 |
The content of the paper raises major concerns as well. In the introduction, I could not understand the motivation of the paper. The authors argue that the smart city services failed to be flexible enough to predict and fight the pandemic. However, I am lacking a concrete example of failure that proves the authors’ point. The contribution is not presented in the introduction, only the problem is. It is well-known that different services are hard to integrate together (this is not specific to the smart city), but I would have liked the authors to illustrate in 2 light of the pandemic context, and maybe to the context of Korea since their contribution is specific to this geographic context in that it integrates the 12 smart city categories of Korea and the healthcare phases of Korea.
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
The 'EA' refers to the quantity, but all have been deleted. We sincerely apologize for the basic mistake. We will check in more detail later. We reviewed the literature review and deleted redundant or unnecessary content. Also, we have checked and corrected the Author's initials that you pointed out. We also Cognized that the expression ‘EA’ is a unit used only in certain countries.
| 2 | 1 |
The literature review is very long (it represents half of the paper) and can be significantly shortened as it contains few information that is actually useful to the rest of the paper. It is also hard to read, as it contains more tabular content than text. In Table 3, what is an EA?
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
Smart city projects are underway all over the world. Also, although smart city services differ by country, the smart city structure has a similar framework to a certain level. Therefore, if we can transform the structure of the smart city, we decided that it would be a great tool to cope with situations such as COVID, even a little.
| 2 | 1 |
Table 4 presents smart city projects of several different countries. It the threats concern COVID only, it does not really make sense, as many of the mentioned services simply do not have this goal (e.g. smart grid). If it goes beyond COVID, this is a claim that needs to be backed with a sound and transparent evaluation by the authors or literature. The authors than write that hese services have a limitation in that cannot predict and prevent transmission of threats such as COVID.
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
Like the reviewer's comments, the rest of the table's contents other than those related to pandemic have been deleted.
| 2 | 1 |
Table 5 is useless in my opinion. It is well-known that many standards exist and are not used in every service, which causes integration issues. The authors could remove the table and mention 1-2 standards relevant for pandemics and make the same point.
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
Sections 2.2 and 2.3 have identified errors with the same title. Accordingly, the title has been modified as follows. We apologize once again for repeating basic mistakes. - 2.2 Status of smart city services - 2.3 Status of Pandemic #9.
| 2 | 1 |
Section 2.3 has the same title as Section 2.2.
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
We completely agree with the reviewer's sharp points. Accordingly, the contents including Tables 8 and 9 were deleted and reorganized into World Health Organization (WHO), Control and Prevention (CDC) and Korea Centers for Disease Control (KCDC).
| 2 | 1 |
It presents phased plans for pandemics. Several different plans are described, which is useless information for the reader. Indeed, the phases in a Texan county are of no use to understand the authors’ contribution. They could easily break the section down to the essential information that would be the WHO phases and the Korean healthcare phases, and mention that there are global and local plans throughout the world with different phases. Tables 8 and 9 can thus be removed. Table 7 is not very informative, all the phases say that actions from the previous phase should be continued or initiated. I have checked the online source and it mentions other aspects such as treatment and isolation for the recognition phase, which have not been picked up by the authors. A case study approach restricted to Korea would be more informative and more consistent with the contribution of the paper, which is as I mentioned specific to Korea.
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
Thanks for the reviewer's comments. The title of this section 3 has been changed according to the comments of the reviewers.
| 2 | 1 |
Section 3, named “Main discussion”, should be renamed to be more explicit regarding what the reader can expect to find. I suggest e.g. “Revised model of smart city service structure”.
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
In the case of Korea, rather than finding the infected person in advance, the focus was on identifying and blocking the spread of the infected person. Therefore, Smart City Service checked the movement of the infected people by time, found close contacts in the vicinity, and took measures to self-quarantine immediately. As a result, the critical point of being identified before an infectious disease spreads was missed. However, Korea has prevented a rapid collapse of the medical system by slowing the rate of propagation around it, and the role of smart city services has been significant in this regard. We agree with the reviewers' opinion that the biggest cause of this COVID-19 transmission is the rapid spread of infected people around them by moving to public places before they show symptoms. Reflecting the reviewer's opinion that it is not clear, the entire sentence has been revised and translated clearly.
| 2 | 1 |
The contribution is a proposition of services such as screening people with thermal cameras and tracking infected people through CCTV. However, it misses a critical point of COVID. Infected people are in the public space without knowing that they have COVID, since contagion happens before symptoms appears. Once infected people have been identified, they are supposedly in quarantine. Do the authors propose to track everyone and then go back to the records of infected people to retrieve their paths and contacts? Or do the authors want to check if infected people are outside their home instead of in quarantine? This is not clear to me. Also, and more importantly, the integration and flexibility aspects are not really addressed in the end. The authors do not explain how the services they propose could be integrated with existing ones (e.g. which standards should be used) and how the services can be added or removed. This part is only represented as clouds in the proposed structure model but not discussed further. Therefore, it seems that the contribution breaks down to proposing strict tracking services which feasibility and acceptance by the population is not assessed.
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
We fully agree with the reviewers' comments. Therefore, as the limit of this paper, the limit of the ethical aspect was first specified, and in the situation where the service is not needed, the service is deleted in consideration of the ethical aspect in the structure of the smart city. Also in Korea, it is legally required to be used only when necessary.
| 2 | 1 |
My last concern is the ethical aspects of the proposed services. The authors acknowledge that not addressing these is a limitation of their research. In my opinion, this is more than a limitation, this is essential to discuss given the nature of what the authors propose.
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
Also, we really appreciate the accurate comments from the reviewers.
| 2 | 1 |
In summary, my suggestions are to focus the paper on the Korean context, in an in-depth case study approach where authors detail more their contribution, clearly illustrate what the problem is and how their contribution helps solving it.
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
Thank you for the reviewer's heartfelt comments. The corrections to the reviewer's concerns are as follows: #2.
| 4 | 1 |
The authors made substantial efforts to take my comments into account, and I commend them for that. However, despite the good improvements, I have some remaining concerns.
| 3 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
We checked again that errors occurred. After fixing the errors, we rechecked it on others PC. We sincerely apologize for the continued errors. References deleted in the first review were deleted because they were deemed unnecessary. Thanks for the comments #3.
| 4 | 1 |
There are still some "Reference not found" errors and line breaks when referring to figures in the text, but almost everything regarding the format has been fixed, which gives the revised paper a much more professional look than its previous version. Regarding the references, my point was that there are many references *with formatting mistakes in them*, and not that there are too many references in the bibliography. Please feel free to add them back if you feel they should be included.
| 3 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
We agree with the reviewer's comments. As advised by the reviewer, the content of the scenario was additionally reflected in the abstract. The contents are as follows.
| 4 | 1 |
The motivation of the paper is still unclear for me in the introduction, and the reasons for the limitations of smart city services are not clear in Section 2, but is much better explained later in the paper, which is a nice improvement. I believe that explaining standard constraints (due to the multiplicity of service providers) and coupling between services in the introduction to motivate the paper would be valuable. Indeed, if my understanding is correct, they are the factors that cause the limitations of smart city services the authors want to address.
| 3 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
The description of the characteristics of each city shown in Table 3 was insufficient, as was the reviewer's opinion. Accordingly, the project described in Table 3 was briefly explained and the contents of the article were also revised. - “... As a representative smart city project in Korea, Pilot city, Regulatory sandbox and Smart City Challenge are in progress. To summarize the smart city services used in this project, medical, crime prevention, transportation and environmental services are the most used.” Table 7 also agrees with the reviewer's advice that it does not fit the current content. Accordingly, the contents of Table 7 were deleted and only the contents described in the text were left. Thanks for your comments.
| 4 | 1 |
The authors made some efforts to streamline Section 2, and it is much easier to follow in its current form. Table 7 does not bring much useful insights as well in its current form. The authors have not responded to my previous comment on this table, I thus redirect them to my review of the previous version. However, some parts still appear unnecessary to me. Table 3 just shows that medical, crime prevention, transportation, and environmental services are the most frequent, which is already said in the text, but without an explanation of what pilot city, regulatory sandbox, and smart city 2 challenge are, it is difficult to extract anything else from this table.
| 3 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
Thank you. As commented by reviewer, the content of Section 3.1 includes the content of Section 2. However, for the 3.2 Expansion of smart city structure that we want to present, I think it is necessary to organize the contents of Section 2 through Section 3.1 and to draw limitations. Of course, it is also correct to understand the structure as the opinions of reviewer. We put a lot of thought into reflecting the opinions. We are sorry; however, we have decided that it is difficult to change the structure at the moment. We ask for your generous understanding of the current structure.
| 4 | 1 |
Section 3.1 gives an overview of the COVID-19 and smart city systems situation in South Korea, but is not part of the novel contribution by the authors. I would thus include it in Section 2 instead. Section 2 would thus have a part on smart city services, a part on COVID-19 response plans, and then the current content of 3.1 which deals with the relationship between the two parts of the current Section 2. It would allow a smoother transition between Section 2 and Section 3, as the modified Section 2 would conclude with the need for a novel smart city service structure.
| 3 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
Thank you for understanding a little more about our paper. Also, I totally agree with the reviewer's comments about the skepticism of readers. Accordingly, the legal considerations specified in the first review have been added to the text. Its contents are as follows.
| 4 | 1 |
From the additional explanations in the text, I understand that the idea is to track the movements of everyone and then use that information to trace back the contacts of confirmed infected patients. I stand by my position that the feasibility/ethical aspects should be discussed, at least from a social acceptance or a legal point of view, as the reader is left skeptical about whether it can actually be done with the current explanations. The authors bring up interesting legal considerations in their response to my comments, it would be nice to have them in the paper to show the reader under which conditions the authors' solution can be used.
| 3 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
We are sorry for not being clear on the answer to the last review. This paper tried to present a concept for the smart city structure to cope with major situations such as COVID-19. Therefore, it was not possible to present a specific method of adding or removing a smart city system. Currently, smart city services in Korea are trying to implement a structure that adds and deletes when necessary, as in this paper (Reference #73). However, we apologize for not being able to give you a clear answer on this question. After observing the process of implementing the system, we will present a specific method in the thesis we plan to proceed later.
| 4 | 1 |
Finally, and this is my biggest remaining concern, the authors have not responded to my comment regarding the lack of explanations on how the flexible adding and removal of the proposed services would be achieved. This is still unclear to me in the paper. This is a very important point, since it changes what is the contribution of the paper. The current contribution seems to be the proposal of new services to handle the COVID situation, or similar situations in the future. However, I am lacking the contribution on the more general issue of integrating and removing services in an existing smart city infrastructure. In other terms, what can we use from the authors' paper to achieve a more flexible smart city service structure?
| 3 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
Many revisions have been made to this paper according to the reviewer's comments. Although there are still many things incomplete, we did our best to reflect the opinions of the reviewers. In addition, we will use a more advanced paper by reflecting it in the ongoing research. Also, we sincerely appreciate the accurate comments from the reviewers.
| 4 | 1 |
In brief, the authors have made major improvements on the form and good improvements to the content. However, there are still several of my previous comments that were not answered or not answered in a sufficiently convincing way.
| 3 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
The reference confirmed that the error occurred when the formatting was moved. In addition, errors in the sentences have been reviewed and corrected. We apologize again for the rudimentary mistake.
| 2 | 1 |
The whole manuscript is full of "Error! reference source..." (e.g. line 85)
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
In other words, the structure lacks flexibility
| 2 | 1 |
Line 142: lack of flexibility
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
The full terms of the abbreviation are reflected.
| 2 | 1 |
Please always explain abbreviations before use - e.g. line 149 Line 320: according to the introduction the COVID-19 pandemic started in 2019 and here you state 2020
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
The incorrect part of the year has been corrected. Thanks for your pointing out #6.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 320: according to the introduction the COVID-19 pandemic started in 2019 and here you state 2020.
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
we sincerely apologize. There were many rudimentary mistakes. We corrected the errors by rechecking the paper.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 352-354: here we have two times Figure 2. Moreover, please bring the text together.
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
Missing or erroneous references were rechecked and corrected.
| 2 | 1 |
In this source you can find a whole list of smart city technologies http://www.sinfonia-smartcities.eu/en/resources/d21--swot-analysis-report-of-the-refined-conceptbaseline Might be of interest for your work
| 1 | 2 |
su14052981_perova
| 1 |
We very much appreciate the contributions.
| 2 | 1 |
Thank you for giving the opportunity to read such an interesting paper.
| 1 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
An analysis of extreme values was carried out, using univariate and multivariate detection methods. The analysis resulted in the elimination of 34 univariate extreme values and 2 multivariate extreme values. All statistical analysis was repeated considering a database of 520 companies.
| 2 | 1 |
For a better and accurate model I recommend the authors to eliminate from the model the extreme value. For example in Fig 2. - workers values greater then 40, community greater than 58, environment 45, customers 46 (the bullets), in Fig 3 - values with global score greater than 130, in Fig. 5 also all the bullets. Then repeat all the statistical analysis.
| 1 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
Thank you for your suggestion. We researched more literature on the subject and adopted a more moderate perspective for assessing normality (|Sk|>2-3, |Ku|>7-10 and |KuMult|>10). As you mention, with the elimination of the extreme values, the skewness and kurtosis values improved significantly, approaching the range -1 to 1.
| 2 | 1 |
In lines 391-395 I would prefer an Sk and Ku between -1 and 1. You have some values that are not included in this interval - maybe because of the outliers from the figures above that I recommend to exclude.
| 1 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
The discussion section has been improved and future research recommendations have been added in the conclusions.
| 2 | 1 |
The paper is interesting; however, it is not clear what the authors are trying to achieve with this study. The authors test a popular assessment tool using confirmatory factor analysis and finds that the model is weak. However, there is no in-depth discussion or recommendations that follow. In fact, the discussion needs to be grounded in previous research findings in regard to CSR/sustainability indices/assessment tools/initiatives. Unfortunately, I am really not sure what the point is here.
| 1 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
The hypothesis was removed since, as mentioned, it doesn't state what we are trying to test in this study.
| 2 | 1 |
Further, the hypothesis does not seem to be written correctly. First, it should be stated prior to the methods section. Second, currently it is descriptive. In other words, it doesn't state what the authors are trying to test in this study.
| 1 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
Major changes have been made to the paper. We hope that this new version may deserve your recommendation for publication.
| 2 | 1 |
Unfortunately, I cannot recommend publication unless major changes are made to the discussion section and possibly recommendations are added for future research and practice.
| 1 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
The manuscript has been revised to improve grammar and english language.
| 4 | 1 |
English language and style are fine/minor spell check required .
| 3 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
The discussion and conclusions sections have been improved (text in blue).
| 4 | 1 |
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?
| 3 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
Thanks for the comment. The conclusions section has been improved (text in blue).
| 4 | 1 |
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?
| 3 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
Thank you. We very much appreciate the comment.
| 2 | 1 |
The paper is well structured and presented in a very meaningful manner. It definitely adds a value to the existed literature.
| 1 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
The argument associated with studies [28] & [29] was added.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 169 page 4, studies [28] & [29] do not reference to any presented argument(s) unless the preceding para.
| 1 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
The words Table and Figure have all been revised to start with a capital letter.
| 2 | 1 |
The word of Table in all text should start with capital letter (e.g. Line 199, L. 223)
| 1 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
Paragraph presented after Table 2 (page 7) has been moved to footnote.
| 2 | 1 |
Paragraph presented after Table 2 (page 7) is a repetitive content to what has been presented in the Table. It could be removed or move to footnote.
| 1 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
• The (***) have been replaced by the p-values (<0.001) in Table - B Impact Assessment - Regression Weights (original model) (current Table 6).
| 2 | 1 |
It is better to show the P-values in Table 3 rather than (***) although a note is indicated in this regard.
| 1 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
Future research recommendations have been added to the conclusions.
| 2 | 1 |
Very good practical recommendations and criticism to the B Corp certification have been presented in the last para. of section (6). No any future research recommendations have been suggested by the respected authors.
| 1 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
The manuscript has been revised. The literature review has been improved, and new references have been added (text in blue).
| 4 | 1 |
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? Must be improved Response 4: Thanks for the comment.
| 3 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
The method section has been improved (text in blue).
| 4 | 1 |
Can be improved. Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?
| 3 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
We believe that the reviewers' suggestions have been very helpful in improving the manuscript. Thank you for the comment. The manuscript has been entirely revised.
| 4 | 1 |
The text has some improvements, but there are some points that still demand more attention.
| 3 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
Thank you for the suggestion. The title has been clarified in line with the main objective.
| 2 | 1 |
The title demands a review because there isn’t a connection between the first part and the second one. We understand what the authors intend to inform us after reading the paper. Even though this was clear to me, the title doesn’t show the real idea developed in the paper. The objective is a good guide for the title.
| 1 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
The results were improved and the paper's contribution was added.
| 2 | 1 |
The content is well organized, but the results need some to attract the reader. What is the main result of the B assessment with the confirmatory analysis? Besides, the contribution isn’t clear here.
| 1 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
The introduction has been improved, including a better explaination of B Impact Assessment. The use of confirmatory factor analysis has been explained. The aim of the paper was revised in the abstract to be aligned with the one presented in the introduction.
| 2 | 1 |
This section demands more attention because there are some empty spaces to fill. The authors should explain better what is B Impact Assessment. What is its contribution to the structure of a model using Confirmatory Analysis? For me, lines 39 and 40 show the aim of the paper, but the idea is different from the ones presented in the abstract (“The main objective is to understand the B Impact Assessment, verifying its added value in the sustainability process and socio-economic development of the business sector”). The sentence in the Introduction is more complete than the main objective in the Abstract. The ‘areas’ represent a broader goal than the main dimensions of sustainability (Triple Bottom Line).
| 1 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
Lines 70 to 82 have been revised and included in the introduction. Lines 90 to 103 have been revised and decided to be kept in the literature review as they express arguments from important scientific research ( S. Poponi, A. Colantoni, S. R. S. Cividino, and E. M. Mosconi, “The Stakeholders’ perspective within the B corp certification for a circular approach,” Sustain., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 1–15, 2019, doi: 10.3390/su11061584. / T. De Mendonca and Y. Zhou, “What does targeting ecological sustainability mean for company financial performance?,” Bus. Strateg. Environ., vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 1583–1593, 2019, doi: 10.1002/bse.2334. / C. Putnam Rankin and T. L. Matthews, “Patterns of B Corps Certification: The Role of Institutional, Economic, and Political Resources,” Societies, vol. 10, no. 3, p. 72, 2020, doi: 10.3390/soc10030072.). The literature review was enhanced with scientific information in the fields of sustainability and certification, and, B Lab certification and sustainability.
| 2 | 1 |
The lines from 70 to 82 could be summarized, and cut and paste in the Introduction section. I suggest cutting the text from lines 90 to 103 because it’s quite an advertisement for the B Certificate. The content in this section is exclusively dedicated to the Certification and the Corporation which offers it, there isn’t any scientific information there. The section demands a literature review about the theme, as the relationship between the certificate with adding value, sustainability, and the ‘areas’ governance, workers, community, environment, and customers. What is the idea of the assessment of sustainability, in these areas? This discussion is the basis of the paper, related to the objective, and connected with Figure 1 presented in the next section, Method. There isn’t a literature review in this work. Even 2 though the areas are from B Lab, the authors should study and related them to sustainability and value creation.
| 1 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
Factor analysis involves the examination of interdependence relationship, so it shouldn’t be expressed as a hypothesis that establishes dependence relationships. The economic dimension has been added in the former lines 180 and 181. We clarify that figure 1 is original and was created by the authors. Regarding the data, we confirm that it was taken from the official website, during the period between March and May 2021. The link provided (https://bcorporation.eu/directory) was the one used. In the meantime, the site has been changed and the directory of certified companies can be found in another link. Table 2 has been eliminated. To avoid the repetition of information in Table 2 and the paragraph after, we followed the recommendations of another reviewer by placing the paragraph as a footnote. The reduction in the number of companies was based on the analysis of the database and information collected from B Lab that allowed us to see that there was a change in the measurement model used in B Corp certification during the period January 2017 and March 2021. Thus, to ensure the 3 consistency of the database and the statistical analysis subsequently performed, we reduced the database to a recent period in which the same measurement model was used. Finally, the hypothesis was removed since, as suggested by another reviewer, it doesn't state what we are trying to test in this study.
| 2 | 1 |
In the Abstract, the objective added an economic dimension to the development, but in lines 180 and 181 the impact to be measured includes just environmental and social. It was not clear to me who is the author of Figure 1, the B Lab, or the authors of this paper? There isn’t a source below the Title of Figure 1, though after that seems that B Corporation is the owner of it. The source of data from all companies in the sample isn’t clear, is B Corporation (site) or authors contact all these companies and did the survey? I understood that the data is from the B Corporation website. I accessed the link available in line 191 and there was a message ‘404 page not found, but when I clicked on ‘What is B Corporation’, I found the ‘areas’ and the steps for a company that intends to assess its practices and be certified. The authors should develop more theory than describe a model which has already existed. Table 2 and the paragraph after it is a repetition of Figure 1 and Table 1, could be cut. It’s clever to reduce the number of companies, though it isn’t clear who contacts the companies, the authors or Company B? The hypothesis is interesting when they come from a discussion in the literature review to the field research to test a theory (models, methods, frameworks, etc). Suddenly, appears one in the Method section, in a paper with a limited presentation of a technical model/certificate from an existed company.
| 1 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
We have replaced the word "indicator" with "aspect" to eliminate possible confusion with the 5 indicators in the B Impact Assessment Model (Figure 6). The text has been completely revised and the word 'indices' has been used as the standard. The word ‘chapter’ has been replaced by ‘section’. Finally, we are thankful for the good appreciation to the many models studied in our research.
| 2 | 1 |
The sentence from line 137 to line 138 isn’t clear when I saw Figure 6. The authors could use a standard for a plural of index word, ‘indices’ (345) or ‘indexes’ (362). In line 384 the authors should substitute ‘chapter’ for ‘section’. The authors presented and analyzed the variables/areas of certification with many models, it is interesting and is a basis for analysis in the next section.
| 1 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
The topic is “B Corp certification”. The text has been revised and the source has been added (E. Diez-Busto, L. Sanchez-Ruiz, and A. Fernandez-Laviada, “The b corp movement: A systematic literature review,” Sustain., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1–17, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13052508.). Hypothesis 1 has been removed with the justification provided in response 5. Information was added on Cronbach’s Alpha and its impact on the need for B Impact Assessment improvement.
| 2 | 1 |
In the first sentence, what is the topic that the authors mentioned? What source provided that information? The analysis is interesting, but demands more comparisons and explanations for cuts and adds. For me, the answer to Hypothesis 1 isn’t clear. The authors should reflect the presence of that in the text. The Cronbach’s Alpha ‘selected’ just ‘environment’ area of the B Lab model. This is an interesting result, which could be more analyzed with other assessment models presented in the text, to say what the authors wrote at the end of the section.
| 1 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
Thank you for the suggestions. The word was changed to “objective”. The discussion section has been improved in line with the suggestions made in the conclusion.
| 2 | 1 |
Conclusion: I just see one objective, but in the first sentence the authors wrote ‘objectives’. Where are they? The suggestions are interesting, but demand more analysis in the previous section.
| 1 | 2 |
su14095590_perova
| 1 |
We added more coherent theoretical arguments to the discussion based on the most recently published relevant academic papers on the topic (lines 125-133, 153-158, 442-452). The incorporated studies include Yarram and Adapa (2021), Boukattaya and Omri (2021), Shakil (2021), Wang, Wilson & Li, (2021), Cordeiro et al 2020, Birindelli, et al. (2019), and Nuber & Velte (2021). In total, the list of references increased from 21 to 36. The details of these studies and the logic behind their inclusion are explained in the text (pages 3 and 4). For the quantitative papers, our guiding line is the inclusion of papers proposing a reliable strategy to address the problem of endogeneity characterizing virtually all studies dealing with gender diversity. In a nutshell, gender diversity and firms’ performances (be they financial, ESG or environmental) have reverse causality. More gender-diverse boards are found to improve firms’ performances, and at the same time, better performing firms are more attractive to females. Any study incorporating these two variables would suffer from endogeneity. Therefore, inference and results are biased. Finding an instrument for gender diversity becomes a concern of first importance. The task is challenging as all potential candidates for being a suitable instrument should be already part of the regression equation. So far, the literature has not found an instrument unanimously agreed upon. This is the reason for which our selection of papers is rather limited. We focused on those papers with a choice of instrumental variables that are well explained and papers that ‘’go around’’ the problem by making use of a method that does not rely on external instruments. This includes papers using difference-GMM or system-GMM estimators. Their principal advantage is the use of internal instruments instead of external ones. Indeed, the instruments chosen are difference and the level of the covariates themselves. There are only a few of these studies available, including ours. This again explains the relatively restricted number of references we are considering.
| 2 | 1 |
1- Need to update the literature review with recent studies
| 1 | 2 |
su14127346_makarova
| 1 |
Initially, we opted for integrating the theoretical background disseminated throughout the text to connect to the findings of related papers and to avoid redundancy and repetition. Changes that we incorporated in response to this comment improve the overall theoretical framework of the paper, including concepts, definitions and links to relevant literature. We also articulated theoretical assumptions and added a comprehensive discussion of the observed phenomena. Specifically, we added critical mass theory discussion in the literature review section (lines 125-132). We added interpretation of corresponding results in the findings and discussions section (lines 445-452) and the conclusion section (lines 482-503). These changes in addition to the existing discussions of theories and concepts significantly improve the theoretical background of the paper.
| 2 | 1 |
2- Please add a theoretical background section
| 1 | 2 |
su14127346_makarova
| 1 |
We also emphasize the policy implications of these findings (lines 453-462, 497-503). To better reflect the policy implications of the study, we incorporate changes that are diffuse through the text. In particular, we argue that promoting gender diversity cannot deliver its full potential, and may even lead to adverse results unless it is accompanied by measures that mitigate political and economic uncertainty. These measures would create an enabling environment both for households and entrepreneurs. Such measures should increase agents’ confidence, dump their willingness to invest and expand the activity by reducing their aversion to risk. The accompanying measures should primarily target building and strengthening institutions to unlock this potential. Institutions are a defence against uncertainty. They contribute to anchoring economic agents’ expectations and stabilize the economy. We also elaborate on the finding of the critical mass theory. This result suggests that a very effective way to improve environmental quality and mitigate the adverse effects of economic activities is to encourage gender diversity in corporate boards in countries with low uncertainty where we find a higher impact on firms’ environmental performances. In these countries, the margin for progress is large and the effect of improving gender diversity in corporate boards materializes more easily and at lower costs, as these countries are far from their efficiency frontiers (lines 445-461 and 482-503).
| 2 | 1 |
3- What are the policy implications of your study
| 1 | 2 |
su14127346_makarova
| 1 |
We addressed your suggestion to improve arguments and discussion of findings by revising existing and adding new paragraphs better explaining regression coefficients that demonstrate how political and economic uncertainty shapes the relationship between corporate board gender diversity and firms’ environmental performance. (Lines 379-389). Furthermore, we added supporting arguments disseminated across the text (particularly in lines 348-361, lines 379-389, etc). These relate our finding to theory. We focus here on the attitude towards risk and uncertainties. Women on corporate boards tend to be more risk-averse and lean more toward conservatism in uncertain environments. Therefore, the more females there are on corporate boards, the higher their weight in the board decisions would be, and by the same token, the higher the effect of uncertainty on firms’ decisions. Moreover, we also relate our findings to the critical mass theory, suggesting that the impact of gender diversity on the environmental performances of firms materializes only when a critical mass weight of females is realized in corporate boards (Konrad et al. 2008, Torchia et al. 2011, Schwartz-Ziv, 2017- page 12, lines 445-451).
| 2 | 1 |
4- Add discussion of results section and relate your results with theories.
| 1 | 2 |
su14127346_makarova
| 1 |
Absolutely. Changed accordingly (line 160).
| 2 | 1 |
"To the best of our knowledge, this is the only study that addresses the role of economic and political uncertainty as a moderator in a model that accounts for the dynamic patterns of firm environmental performance" (line 128). --> I believe the authors intended "moderating role."
| 1 | 2 |
su14127346_makarova
| 1 |
We answered this comment along different dimensions. We revise and elaborate on the explanation and interpretation of the results. We provide further explanations on the ways political and economic uncertainty shapes the relationship between corporate board gender diversity and firms’ environmental performance. We also emphasize the policy implications of these findings (lines 453-461, 487-496). In addition, we add more theoretical arguments to the discussion based on the most recently published academic papers on the topic. (Lines 421-452) “
| 2 | 1 |
The authors could go into greater detail to explain the logic behind this relationship. As it stands, the paper offers little insight into the reasoning behind their hypothesis.” We answered this comment along different dimensions.
| 1 | 2 |
su14127346_makarova
| 1 |
The related theory posits that females’ attitude when facing uncertainty is different from males. They tend to exhibit a strong inclination to wait until the uncertainty is resolved before making major business decisions. To address this comment, we added supporting arguments disseminated across the text (particularly in lines 348-361, lines 421-428, etc). These explain the finding you are referring to by attitude towards risk and uncertainties. Women on corporate boards tend to be more risk-averse and lean more toward conservatism in an uncertain environment. Therefore, the more females there are on corporate boards, the higher would be their weight in the board decisions, and by the same token, the higher would be the effect of uncertainty on firms’ decisions.
| 2 | 1 |
It would be useful if the authors provided some speculative thoughts on the finding that the slope of the GenDiv variable is negative in highly uncertain countries on the firm's environmental performance (Figure 3 (c) red line).
| 1 | 2 |
su14127346_makarova
| 1 |
The literature on the relationship between gender diversity and environmental performances of firms that addresses dynamic endogeneity is rather limited. We mention Gaio and Gonçalves (2022), Lu and Herremans (2019), Kassini et al (2016), Silla, et al (2016) that opt for a dynamic modelling using a System-GMM estimator. This estimator is particularly suitable to panels with large number of individual and few time periods, which the case for our paper. Moreover, it accommodates situations where the independent variable changes slowly (Antoniou et al., 2008). To keep a good flow in the text, we only mention these papers in the introduction section. We elaborate further on them in the literature review section. We describe their main purpose and explain how our analysis departs from them.
| 2 | 1 |
1- In lines 28 and onwards, you argue a lack of literature looking at dynamic (GMM) analysis of the role of female on CSR and ESG issues, but fail to mention some examples. Please provide some, and position your work in that (brief) strand of literature. One example you should consider is Gaio, C., & Gonçalves, T. C. (2022). Gender diversity on the board and firms’ corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Financial Studies, 10(1), 15.
| 1 | 2 |
su14127346_makarova
| 1 |
Thanks for the Suggestion. We highlighted the research hypothesis by moving it the introduction. We also added another hypothesis. The first relates to the very existence of a relationship between gender diversity on corporate boards and firms’ performances. The second, deals with the intensity and shape of this relationship. We believe, this adds a deal of clarity to the text and purpose of the paper.
| 2 | 1 |
2- Please revise if it makes sense to present your research hypothesis in the introduction.
| 1 | 2 |
su14127346_makarova
| 1 |
We reviewed all the text and changed wording in different parts of the text.
| 2 | 1 |
3- Please reconsider the use of adjectives such as "complicated" (line 79), interestingly (line 88) and so on.
| 1 | 2 |
su14127346_makarova
| 1 |
We initially meant, among all these papers, there is one that… We rephrased this sentence and reviewed all the text. We edited sentences when needed.
| 2 | 1 |
4- What do you mean by "in the crowd" (line 141). Please revise carefully english for clarity.
| 1 | 2 |
su14127346_makarova
| 1 |
In our initial submission, we used winsorized data for all our econometric analysis. However, we, inadvertently, displayed summary statistics (Table 2) for raw data, i.e., before winsorizing. We should have reported only winsorized summary statistics. This is precisely what we do in this revised version of the paper. The reason for winsorizing data (beyond its advantage of having regular statistical distribution) was that we initially have detected outliers. Further investigation revealed that one company (RIC: OBE.TO; CompName: Obsidian Energy Ltd) is responsible for these outliers. The company had presumably reported wrong values in FY-12, where PP&E was higher than Total Assets (see table below from Refinitiv Eikon). We have reported this case to Refinitiv (Case number: 11297339) and our doubts were confirmed (See their response below). Refinitiv Eikon replaced old value of PP&E (27834189009) with a correct value (10788172656). In order to avoid similar mistakes, we opted for winsorizing data and avoid outliers. Similarly, only one company had negative Tobins’ Q in 2017 (RIC: ELR.TO ; company name: Eastern Platinum Ltd), which was a reporting typo as well. However, our analysis is not affected by these outliers which are removed after winsorizing all the variables. In this revised version of the paper, we replace the table of summary statistics with the one based on winsorized variables.
| 2 | 1 |
5- Please revise your data: your max tangibility is over 2 (which means that Net PP&E, a subset of Assets, is 2 times those same Assets - this should be a typo. Similar problems might exist for a negative tobin's Q.
| 1 | 2 |
su14127346_makarova
| 1 |
The sentence “The global average of corporate boards’ gender diversity for all the sectors during 2008-2018 was about 13.5%” is correct as it is calculated based on all industries (5120 firms in total). However, since we are focusing on “Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction Industry”, it makes more sense indeed to report the value for that particular sector. Therefore, we update the text as follows: “The average of corporate boards’ gender diversity for Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction Industry during 2008-2018 was about 9.6%”.
| 2 | 1 |
6 - In line 192 you mention "all the sectors". But you are working one sector only, aren't you?
| 1 | 2 |
su14127346_makarova
| 1 |
This is an explanation of the following sentence in our article: “To avoid bias and inconsistency that might be caused by instruments proliferation, we collapse the instruments matrix.” We are using longer lags of the dependent variable as additional instruments. Intuitively, there is a trade-off, on one hand, using longer lags gives more information and improves efficiency, but on the other hand sample gets smaller (as it is the case in standard 2SLS models). GMM is a way around this trade-off between lag length and sample length. However, implementation of System-GMM is not exempt from weaknesses. With the instruments count being quadratic in the time dimension, the variance matrix of the moments can be very large. Estimating its elements may be problematic in particular in a finite sample lacking the adequate amount of information. This finite sample bias can weaken Hansen J-test and overstate its p-value and therefore generate suspicious high pass rate of instruments validity. The problem is known as instruments proliferation (Roodman 2009). To avoid bias and inconsistency due to instruments proliferation, we limit the number of instruments used and collapse the instrument matrix which prevents the model from being over-fitted.
| 2 | 1 |
7- Explain your sentences in lines 242-244. What did you do specifically?
| 1 | 2 |
su14127346_makarova
| 1 |
We revised the concerned section and rewrote the text in order to improve on clarity. The revised text reads as follows: Greater gender diversity for a firm located in a country with high political and economic uncertainty would lower the firm’s environmental performance (0.616-0.853=-0.237).
| 2 | 1 |
8- Lines 330 and onwards are presenting conclusions that are not warranted by the results and the english is a bit strange (what do you measnby "households' anxiety"?). Similar problems stem from the following paragraphs discussing the results.
| 1 | 2 |
su14127346_makarova
| 1 |
the inoculation points were labeled with the red arrows in Figure 1 as suggested.
| 2 | 1 |
I would like to suggest authors label inoculation points in Figure 1, which could give readers a clear view of three different inoculation methods.
| 1 | 2 |
toxins14060409_makarova
| 1 |
Sorry for carelessness. We corrected it as suggested. (Pag.4 Line 157) Point 3: Line 143: “PPSD-premature spike death” should be “PPSD-proportion of premature spike death”.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 142: “proportion of PPSD” should be “proportion of PSD or PPSD”.
| 1 | 2 |
toxins14060409_makarova
| 1 |
We revised the expression in the footnote of Table 1. (Pag.4 Line 158) Point 4: Lines 168 - 169: Should it be that DON content of most lines without Fhb1 exceeded 1000 µg/kg under UBFI?
| 2 | 1 |
Line 143: “PPSD-premature spike death” should be “PPSD-proportion of premature spike death”.
| 1 | 2 |
toxins14060409_makarova
| 1 |
we revised the sentence as “DON content of most lines without Fhb1 exceeded 1000 μg∙kg-1 under UBFI method (Figure 2), with the highest reaching 4224.38 μg∙kg-1 (Table S1)”. (Pag.5 Line 184-186) Point 5: Lines 411 & 413: “PPSB” should be “PPSD”.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 168 - 169: Should it be that DON content of most lines without Fhb1 exceeded 1000 µg/kg under UBFI? Where is 4224.38 µg/kg in Table 1? Do you mean in Table S1?
| 1 | 2 |
toxins14060409_makarova
| 1 |
We corrected it. (Pag.11 Line 441 & 443) Point 6: Table S1: “PPSD - premature spike death” in the footnote should be “PPSD - proportion of premature spike death”.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 411 & 413: “PPSB” should be “PPSD”.
| 1 | 2 |
toxins14060409_makarova
| 1 |
We revised the expression in the footnote of Table S1.
| 2 | 1 |
Table S1: “PPSD - premature spike death” in the footnote should be “PPSD - proportion of premature spike death”.
| 1 | 2 |
toxins14060409_makarova
| 1 |
Thanks. We revised the annotations in Table S1.
| 2 | 1 |
Fhb1- and Fhb1+ don’t appear in Table S1, so they can be removed from the footnote.
| 1 | 2 |
toxins14060409_makarova
| 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.