Is Financial Innovation Bestowed or a Curse for Economic Sustainably: The Mediating Role of Economic Policy Uncertainty
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Please see below comments.
Comment 1 – General comment:
The manuscript “Financial innovation is bestowed or a curse for Economic Sustainably: the mediating role of Economic policy uncertainty” aims to outline and measure the interconnection between economic policy uncertainty (EPU), financial innovation (FI) and economic growth from 2004M1 to 2018M12 in the economy of India and Pakistan.
The topic you approached is a hot topic these days and of major importance to all actors on the market.
Hence, the paper has a very up-to-date approach, as tackling financial innovation is one of the most important concerns of worldwide economics. Moreover, having solutions for this time of crisis means having an efficient sustainable management, a healthy and effective governance and sustainable economic growth, henceforth you have approached this hot issue from the most pertinent point of view.
Comment 2:
Regarding the structure of the manuscript, the structure is as follows:
xx
Introduction
I. Literature review
A. Effects of financial innovation on economic growth
A. Effects of Economic Policy uncertainty on economic growth
I. Data and methodology of the study
Financial innovation
Economic Policy uncertainty
Estimation techniques
Nonlinear ARDL
Toda Yamamoto causality test
I. Model estimation and interpretation
Unit root test:
I. Findings and conclusion
xx
In this context I consider the study, which is focused on a very hot and relevant topic, does not present a very convincing structure at the moment. At this moment, the paper looks to me rather as a preliminary draft of a first half of a future paper to be published.
You ought to comply with the requirements of the Sustainability Journal, respectively you should consult the Instructions for Authors (https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/journal/sustainability/instructions). Although the Journal does not have strict formatting requirements, all manuscripts must contain the required sections, i.e.: Introduction, Materials & Methods, Results, Conclusions (…).
I strongly advise you to revise the structure of your paper.
Comment 3:
The introduction, as well as the theoretical background are well developed. You succeeded in placing the study in the broad context (financial innovation, economic policy uncertainty and economic growth) and highlight why it is relevant – presenting the nexus between these three variables through an investigation of monthly data over the period 2004M1-2018M12 in the economy of India and Pakistan.
Comment 4:
Regarding the presentation of materials and methods, I consider you described with sufficient detail the methodology you used, as well as methods and instruments (econometric techniques), so as to allow others to replicate and build on published results.
Comment 5:
The results of the research are clearly presented in the second to last section. In addition, in the last section – Findings and Conclusion – you discussed the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and initial assumption. The findings and their implications are discussed in the broadest context possible.
However, because of the length and particular content of these sections, I advise:
- either splitting the section into 2 distinct sections:
- Results (in which you should provide only a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn from the performed analysis), respectively
- Discussion and Conclusions (where you should discuss the results and explain how they can be interpreted in perspective of research questions and previous studies; in this latter section the findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible, however a deeper discussion would better outline your own contribution in the already existing specialty literature);
- either creating 2 sub-sections under the section (subsection Results and subsection Discussion and Conclusions).
In addition, I recommend you to briefly highlight limitations of research, as well as future research directions.
Comment 6:
The paper “Financial innovation is bestowed or a curse for Economic Sustainably: the mediating role of Economic policy uncertainty” has valorous contributions and reached valuable conclusions.
The conclusions, per se, are adequately argued and founded, however, as also stated above, I recommend revising the structure of this last section: restating topic, restating research objectives and research assumption, summarizing the main points of the research – and, consequently discussing the significance of these points.
An additional enclosing (positive) paragraph comprising a “great conclusion” that makes the readers think by would be appropriate. I advise you to choose a more appropriate and thought-provoking way to end your paper. Comparing your ideas to a universal concept may help readers relate and may provide a better sense of closure (since your readers will find your ideas more compelling if they can relate to them).
Comment 7 – Minor issues:
7.1. Please review typos, errors, topic of phrases. As regards English language and style, moderate English changes are required - please revise the whole text and rephrase some sentences.
7.2. Also, please pay attention to MDPI’s Instructions for Authors regarding preparing and presenting the References Section (abbreviated journal name, authors’ names, punctuation marks, etc.), as well as presenting references in the body of your manuscript.
7.3. In addition, please see MDPI’s Instructions for Authors in order to respect the formatting of your manuscript (e.g. please revise bulleted/numbered lists, tables, figures, etc.).
Comment 8 – Final comment:
In conclusion, this study focuses on a very relevant topic, presents a relatively convincing structure and is written fluently, the research methodology being adequate.
However, I believe you could strengthen it by improving the structure of the manuscript.
Good-luck with your paper,
Reviewer
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you so much for your time in reviewing our research work and put valuable, constructive suggestions for further development. During the revision process, we put our best efforts into incorporating all suggestions and revised accordingly.
Please see the detailed response below. If you found any further improvement is necessary
Let us know, and we do that positively.
Kind regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The concept of the research itself is good also the literature review is sufficient.
The main problem of the paper is a lack of discussion part. Authors should add this part before the conclusion and there describe their findings with linking and comparison to literature. The should say what were the similar researches what is the relation of their results with literature conceptions etc.
Also, it's worth to add some limitation of the paper.
Authors should add the scope of the study in abstract and introduction.
Maybe it would be useful to add a hypothesis.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you so much for your time in reviewing our research work and put valuable, constructive suggestions for further development. During the revision process, we put our best efforts into incorporating all suggestions and revised accordingly.
Please see the detailed response below. If you found any further improvement is necessary
Let us know, and we do that positively.
Kind regards
Comments and Suggestions for Authors and respective responses
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The concept of the research itself is good also the literature review is sufficient.
Response: dear reviewer, thank you so much for your appreciation
The main problem of the paper is a lack of discussion part. Authors should add this part before the conclusion and there describe their findings with linking and comparison to literature. The should say what were the similar researches what is the relation of their results with literature conceptions etc.
Response: dear reviewer, please see the revised version of the manuscript, we incorporated following suggestion.
Also, it's worth to add some limitation of the paper.
Response: dear reviewer, please see the last paragraph in conclusion section where limitation of this study inserted
Authors should add the scope of the study in abstract and introduction.
Please, see the revised abstract
Maybe it would be useful to add a hypothesis.
Response: dear reviewer, see the literature review section, hypothesis inserted following literature
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors must make the following corrections in the paper:
- Authors should explain better the academic contribution of the work developed. Highlighting what is innovative / original about the existing literature.
-Authors should explain better how the model presented in this paper was validated.
- Authors should develop the conclusions of the work and refer in more detail to the next steps of the work
- Authors should develop the Abstract, presenting in particular the main contributions / results of the work.
-Authors should better explain the results shown in table 5.
-Authors should correct the following references, indicating all authors: 5, 10 , 20, 29, 52, 84, ..
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you so much for your time in reviewing our research work and put valuable, constructive suggestions for further development. During the revision process, we put our best efforts into incorporating all suggestions and revised accordingly.
Please see the detailed response below. If you found any further improvement is necessary
Let us know, and we do that positively.
Kind regards
Comments and Suggestions for Authors and respective responses
Authors must make the following corrections in the paper:
- Authors should explain better the academic contribution of the work developed. Highlighting what is innovative / original about the existing literature.
Response: Dear reviewer, please see the second last paragraph of introduction section that is novelty of the study.
-Authors should explain better how the model presented in this paper was validated.
Response: Dear reviewer, please see the last para of literature review segment, i.e. conceptual development of the study
- Authors should develop the conclusions of the work and refer in more detail to the next steps of the work
Response: dear review, revised accordingly
- Authors should develop the Abstract, presenting in particular the main contributions / results of the work.
Response: dear reviewer, please see the revised abstract
-Authors should better explain the results shown in table 5.
Reponses: dear reviewer, please see the revised version, we do so
-Authors should correct the following references, indicating all authors: 5, 10 , 20, 29, 52, 84, ..
Response: dear reviewer, please see the list of references prepaid following journal requirements.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have implemented all my remarks.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Authors have implemented all my remarks.
Response: dear reviewer, thank you so much for you appreciation
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
