Credit Risk Determinants in Selected Ethiopian Commercial Banks: A Panel Data Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper aims to understand the best determinants of credit risk. A panel data of 10 ethiopian commercial banks over the period 2010-2019 is analyzed.
The thematic is relevant, although the work is has several problems in my opinion.
First, most of the references are old (the majority finishes before 2018, there are only 2 of 2020 and none of 2021, 2022 or 2023).
Second, the authors refer that refer two other works conducted in Ethiopia. What is the innovation of the work? The authors only present this explanation "Therefore, given the shocking credit risk level in Ethiopian commercial banking sectors and the divergent findings of previous empirical studies, more research is required to better understand the factors determining credit risk in Ethiopian commercial banks." In what this work is different from the existent ones (analyzing Ethiopia or other countries)?
The work hypothesis appear in the introduction section, without an accurate explanation.
The literature review is confusing. Sometimes the authors write by study, explaining all the determinants, others by determinant.
Several sentences have no source of information (e.g., "Ethiopian commercial banks have a significant reliance on loans, which account for 50 to 75 percent of their assets".
Why the authors select these determinants? Table 3.1 have no source of information.
Regarding the conclusions, the authors focus more on the coefficient number instead of explaining why the relation is positive or negative - main motivations.
The conclusion starts with the model results, without an explanation of the work's aim. The main contributions of the work are not presented.
Minor concerns:
- citations not always are accurate (see page 6)
I wish the authors good luck.
Minor concerns.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have done excellent work to improve the paper's quality. Although, in my opinion, some changes are still recommended.
First, the abstract is extensive. The authors could simplify it to call the reader's attention (information about regression diagnostic or software used are irrelevant in this section of the paper).
Table 3.1 still has no source of information, even if the author's answer says that they have included it.
Regarding results, the authors should only analyze the statistically significant determinants to explain credit risk. Moreover, the authors have created hypotheses and have not confirmed the validity of those hypotheses in the discussion of results. When analyzing board size the authors say inverse relation (page 11) but is a linear relation, an increase in board size increases credit risk.
I recognize the authors' effort but I think these changes can increase the work's quality.
english editing is suggested
Author Response
We value the feedback and ideas you have provided. We have updated our document in response to the comments, and we've attached the response.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
N/A
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for the insightful comments and recommendations you have made. We sincerely thank you for your contributions, which have helped us improve the quality of our paper. Once again, we want to thank you for your invaluable help.
Sincerely,
Authors
