Article Title: Review of IPSASs Compliance in Sovereigns’ Financial Reporting Reviewer report Date: 26 December 2022 Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. The topic of the study is indeed interesting and useful. It presents an original idea of how to assess the extent of compliance with the IPSASs. However, I regret to suggest that the article is rejected at this stage, so that the author(s) is given ample time to consider the work that needs to be done. As it stands, the article has three major defects: The first is the quality of the language used. I empathise with the author(s) that, when the English language is foreign, it can be difficult to use especially for academic writing. I’m afraid that I found the majority of the paper barely understandable due to this problem. Secondly, the article is very long. The study deals with various aspects and lacks focus. It seems more like a mini-thesis, rather than an academic article. Perhaps the author(s) could consider breaking down the study into a number of articles. For example, page 4: ‘This situation prompted us to investigate the extent public capital expenditures were properly captured in sovereign entities financial statements in compliance to IPSASs or otherwise’ – just this aspect of capital expenditure would provide a more feasible and straightforward objective. Similarly, you could choose to just focus on heritage (section 2.2.6) or natural resources (s2.2.7). Alternatively, you could limit the scope of your study by excluding heritage and natural resources. This would simplify matters for you. Thirdly, the study lacks proper referencing. The article often includes sweeping statements that are not referenced, let alone justified. For example in Section 1.4 you state that: ‘The rendition of improper, inaccurate and unrealistic financial statements in many countries encourages sub-optimal public resources management, and poor public governance.’ – How did you arrive at such a conclusion? Is it from your readings? Where are the references?
Please, I am the Author and I found the Reviewer's Remarks absolutely derogatory, hate speech which is unnecessary in peer - review process and research and scholarship has no attachment to mother tongue, race , culture or any form of racial discrimination and I think it is important to trace this particular commentator. Dr. Chris
Since, the reviewer recommends rejecting your paper, that is bad news. With regard to your use of English, the reviewer "found the majority of the paper barely understandable." This strongly suggests that you need to get an English language copyeditor for your paper.
I think you have seen it differently. There two reviewers and the second reviewer rated the manuscript perfect. At that point it had 50% chance and you will see his comment that Reviewer (1) specifically required a rework of the paper which the Editor of the AMR approved. The things that are wrong are the following: First, Reviewer (1) lacked in-depth of the Topical or Thematic issues content of the paper; second, Reviewer (1) read and copied the format of my pioneering paper on Fund Accounting & Government Financial Reporting - via suggesting that the Research Questions be inserted with the Sections on Literature Review. Third point the Reviewer (1) goofed in commenting that the length or size of the manuscript was too long whereas the author based my paper submission on 14000 word count prescribed in AMR guidelines to authors and Reviewer (1) does understand the statistical testing method adopted in the paper which is similar to my prior works in government-wide accounting and financial reporting.
For your information, the said author did PhD. Accounting with focus on government-wide accounting and 1st, 2nd & 3rd (PhD) in economics and have undertaken post-doctoral professional commissioned research on Public Sector Entities project evaluation and financial performance measurements. The author is an international reviewer on IFRS/IAASB & IPSASs standards for a decade; reviewer to over a dozen Journal brands; authored international version of insolvency accounting & liquidation financial reporting, a well known country expert in insolvency accounting; Adjunct Senior Lecturer and Content Reviewer of more 10 PhD theses,and two member of Imprimatuer (Editorial Team) in the development and publication of Study Packs of Professional Accountancy Body.
Given the author's dossier, can anyone reasonable person agree with Reviewer (1) ranting that the author does know and unskilled in academic writing; and he has presented papers in three (3) international conferences - one in an African Continental Conference and the other two (2) in Global Conferences of IPSASs Standard-Setters and 40 year old Global Academic Forum.
Reviewer (1) should come forward to meet me as someone possessing critical mass of knowledge that will direct him in the best practice of academic writing. Please share this response with him.
Please note that I have caught two different Eminent Western based Professor, plagiarizing my works; models and contents of my research papers for their own use and sometimes, they will revert, stating that they forgot - the paper is not good and acceptable.
Researchers, please open your eyes and the best peer review process is to subscribe the Reviewers names and make it known to manuscript authors and for the Reviewers and correspondent author to exchange mails on any doubtful items. Stealing of authors works and the use of derogatory comments should stop - this is the purpose of my posting this issue here.
Dr. Chris
There isn't really any point in arguing with a reviewer. The editor chose that person because they were considered qualified to review your paper, and it is unlikely that an editor's mind with the kinds of arguments that you are making here. Remember, when you try to convince an editor that they made a poor choice for a reviewer, you are calling that editor's judgment into question, so be very careful if you go that route.
As far as I can tell, the three arguments that the reviewer made against your article were all substantive and not personally derogatory. But the reviewer's comments were demanding, so you should consider going to another journal.
My dear friend, i can understand you, acting as peer reviewer does not confer any person the right to riddle an author. Having made this point the matter is closed because I have got my work published. The important thing is to forewarn the those peer reviewers that delight to riddle non-English authors to desist from such immmoral behaviour. In fact, many Black researchers have done great as much as their white counterpart - Did you get this meassage clear - David. Thanks.
Congratulations on getting your work published, Dr Chris enyioma Alozie . Has this (language) issue been a problem before?
I m not quite clear with regards to whether you mean with the Journal or this particular Reviewer. This is my first ever submission to the Journal and one of the two reviewers rated the manuscript without any comment. But this particular individual generated four page observations and comments. In fact, in one of the comments, he or she admitted that not possessing adequate knowledge of the simple numerical analysis method adopted in the study. In all, it is an abusive for whoever he is to have made such derogatory remarks to an author with six degrees (two PhDs, three M.Scs and B.Sc (Econs). I received a commissioned research grant that was reviewed by a technical board of about 24 eminent persons and seven member academic panel. That some person a yellow coloured (no one is white in colour) does not confer superior understanding of English in any case.
You know something: I responded to all issues raised in their review report in a 20 page write up and adequate references for them to read.
I can send you a copy is you wish.
Thanks
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Statistics
- Survey