The Impact of Financial Development and Macroeconomic Fundamentals on Nonperforming Loans among Emerging Countries: An Assessment Using the NARDL Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review for

The level of originality of the paper is high. The literature review and proposed NARDL methodology are properly discussed and compared to the previous studies.

In this paper, authors used 63 sources, containing both historical and fundamental works, as well as the latest scientific research on this topic. But the literature review can be structured. The papers discussed many points of this study. Please, discuss these papers too:

Moiseev, N., Mikhaylov, A., Varyash, I., Saqib, A. (2020). Investigating the relation of GDP per capita and corruption index. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 8(1), 780-794. http://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2020.8.1(52)

Varyash, I., Mikhaylov, A., Moiseev, N., Aleshin, K. (2020). Triple bottom line and corporate social responsibility performance indicators for Russian companies. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 8(1), 313-331. http://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2020.8.1(22)

Kranina E.I. (2021). China on the way to achieving carbon neutrality. Financial Journal, 13, 5, 51–61.

Bushukina V. (2021). Specific Features of Renewable Energy Development in the World and Russia. Financial Journal, 13, 5, 93-107.

Matveeva N. (2021). Legislative Regulation Financial Statement Preparation by Micro Entities: International Experience. Financial Journal, 13, 5, 125-138.

The introduction section has benefit from having a clearer structure of what to expect in the paper. Furthermore, the author(s) would benefit from being more concise in their writing, as much of the content was redundant and overemphasized. While it is good practice to assume the reader has no prior knowledge of the content, a topic and/or discussion does not need to be explained over and over again if it is stated both adequately and appropriately once.

Some conclusions contribute to the study of the problem. The author does not formulate the problem itself – it makes impossible to analyse the contribution of the paper. The aim or the question of the paper (or even the hypothesis of the author) are formulated.

Overall, it is very clear to grasp understanding of the manuscript and content in its current state. I strongly advise using hypothesis points to articulate and/or express material in scientific writing. Publication of this piece seems likely in any reputable scientific periodical after a correction in the writing of the manuscript.

Table 1 should be discussed more properly.

Authors need to add more details on the range of simulation considered in this work should be clearly outlined within the abstract. The current statements are vague and too general to get an idea of the work that have been accomplished.

The paper possesses a proper form of well-structured and readable technical language of the field and represents the expected knowledge of the journal`s readership.

There are minor errors in English, but this does not affect the general nature of the work. The current study brings many new to the existing literature or field. For one, the author(s) seem to have a good grasp of the current literature on their topic area (i.e., recent literature and seminal texts relevant to their study is not cited/referenced).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your kind comments and suggestions, which has helped to make our paper flow much better and more interesting. We have tried to answer each comment and suggestion as best we could and have written them below each of your comments or suggestions.

• The level of originality of the paper is high. The literature review and proposed NARDL methodology are properly discussed and compared to the previous studies.

Authors Response: Thank you for this nice and kind comment.

• In this paper, authors used 63sources, containing both historical and fundamental works, as well as the latest scientific research on this topic. But the literature review can be structured. The papers discussed many points of this study. Please, discuss these papers too:

Moiseev, N., Mikhaylov, A., Varyash, I., Saqib, A. (2020). Investigating the relation of GDP per capita and corruption index. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 8(1), 780-794. http://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2020.8.1(52)

Varyash, I., Mikhaylov, A., Moiseev, N., Aleshin, K. (2020). Triple bottom line and corporate social responsibility performance indicators for Russian companies. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 8(1), 313-331. http://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2020.8.1(22)

Kranina E.I. (2021). China on the way to achieving carbon neutrality. Financial Journal, 13, 5, 51–61.

Bushukina V. (2021). Specific Features of Renewable Energy Development in the World and Russia. Financial Journal, 13, 5, 93-107.

Matveeva N. (2021). Legislative Regulation Financial Statement Preparation by Micro Entities: International Experience. Financial Journal, 13, 5, 125-138.

Authors’ Response:  We thank you for your valuable inputs and suggestions and we have accordingly discussed and addressed the suggested studies in the revised manuscript.

3. The introduction section has benefit from having a clearer structure of what to expect in the paper. Furthermore, the author(s) would benefit from being more concise in their writing, as much of the content was redundant and overemphasized. While it is good practice to assume the reader has no prior knowledge of the content, a topic and/or discussion does not need to be explained over and over again if it is stated both adequately and appropriately once.

Authors’ Response: We thank you for your valuable inputs and suggestions and we have accordingly updated the introduction section and have highlighted the contribution of the present study – Vide track Changes.

4. Some conclusions contribute to the study of the problem. The author does not formulate the problem itself – it makes impossible to analyse the contribution of the paper. The aim or the question of the paper (or even the hypothesis of the author) are formulated.

Authors’ Response: We thank you for your valuable inputs and suggestions and we have accordingly updated the introduction section and have highlighted the contribution and aim of the present study – Vide track Changes.

5. Overall, it is very clear to grasp understanding of the manuscript and content in its current state. I strongly advise using hypothesis points to articulate and/or express material in scientific writing. Publication of this piece seems likely in any reputable scientific periodical after a correction in the writing of the manuscript.

Authors’ Response: We thank you for your valuable suggestion to include a hypothesis, which we assume resulted from the lack of clarity in formulating the problem and the contribution. We have now addressed the issue as explained in point 4 above and show that the aim of the study was not to test a hypothesis but to study the relationship between financial development and NPLs in context to the sample countries in order to add a new dimension to the Literature on NPLs. We feel that a hypothesis would give the reader the impression that we had biases in formulating our methodology and deriving the results. However, if you feel strongly that we should include hypothesis we have no objection and will add them.

6. Table 1 should be discussed more properly.

Authors’ Response: We thank you for your valuable inputs and suggestions. In line with your comments, we have added a discussion highlighting the relevance of table 1.

7. Authors need to add more details on the range of simulation considered in this work should be clearly outlined within the abstract. The current statements are vague and too general to get an idea of the work that have been accomplished.

Authors’ Response: Thank you, for your valuable input as per your suggestion we have modified the abstract.

8. The paper possesses a proper form of well-structured and readable technical language of the field and represents the expected knowledge of the journal`s readership.

Authors’ Response: Thank you for your kind words. Much appreciated

9. There are minor errors in English, but this does not affect the general nature of the work. The current study brings many new to the existing literature or field. For one, the author(s) seem to have a good grasp of the current literature on their topic area (i.e., recent literature and seminal texts relevant to their study is not cited/referenced).

Authors’ Response: Thank you for your kind comment. The paper has now been reviewed again by one of the co-authors who is a native English Speaker.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise the article and for the very kind suggestions and comments.

Kind Regards

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is well written and can be published in the present form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your kind comments which have given us the courage to continue contributing to society with our research.

The Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper uses NARDL and ARDL models to investigate the impact of financial development and macroeconomic factors on NPLs in developing countries. The motivation and contribution of the study is well explained. There is extensive review of the literature with several recent papers reviewed on emerging markets. The selected countries have been adequately justified. In the data section, the choice of variables for inclusion has been extensively justified, with inclusion of expected signs. The methodology and tests applied are appropriate and well explained. The paper has adequately compared similarities and differences in results with prior studies, and the implications for policy have been well covered. Overall, I believe the paper is very well written and makes a good contribution to the understanding of the factors influencing NPLs in developing countries and can be accepted for publication in its current form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your kind comments which have given us the courage to continue contributing to society with our work and research.

 

The Authors