Exchange rate sensitivity influencing the economy: The case of Sri Lanka

Presant Thevakumar; Ruwan Jayathilaka

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0269538

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 30, 2021
10 May 2022 Decision Letter - Ricky Chee Jiun Chia, Editor PONE-D-21-40958Exchange Rate Sensitivity Influencing the Economy: The Case of Sri LankaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jayathilaka, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 24 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ricky Chee Jiun Chia Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The article "Exchange Rate Sensitivity Influencing the Economy: The Case of Sri Lanka" (PONE-D-21-40958) has been an interesting read, but I feel that it should be improved at several, different points: 1) there are many grammatical errors and/or typos and/or repetitions and/or missing plurals: "This present reseach", "not used earlied used in Sri Lankan studies", "the ability borrow", "Foreign direct investment", "one of the most discussed microeconomic variables", "foreign reserve", "explored the determinates", "could cause deter" etc. I think that the whole paper should liguistically revised; 2) the contrast between some parts of the paper and others is particularly strong. On the one hand, the authors define macroeconomic concepts, which are rather known and unnecessary ("Exchange rate or conversion rate simply means the..." or "The exchange rate volatility means that the prices of imports and exports fluctuate" or "The reason for selecting USD to analyse the exchange rate is because the majority of international trade is conducted as USD"). On the other, they all of the sudden run several econometrical tests which are in turn particularly complex. The jump from one approach to another is - in my opinion - too pronounced and several, rather self-evident definitions should be cut and/or better articulated; 3) I don't really understand why the authors have to create a complex research scheme based on several papers (whose "suitability" as explained in Fig. 1 cannot be externally verified), although the macroeconomic factors identified as traditionally explaining exchange rate volatility are commonly accepted and do not need to be really justified. For instance, the relationship between interest rates or inflation and exchange rates has been widely analysed in the economic literature, meaning that it is not necessary to base the authors' decision on some papers retrieved in electronic journal databases. Moreover, I am pretty sure that much more articles have been written on these topics than those selected. Therefore, the parts from page 5 to 10 are - at least, in my opinion - not necessary or should be reduced so that the basic ideas (i.e., why the authors will analyse specific macroeconomic factors) are conveyed without getting too much into the details of the papers (which mention other countries than Sri Lanka (i.e., are therefore distracting)); 4) I feel that the authors should add graphs (for instance, with data from World Bank databases) showing the evolution of the macroeconomic factors analysed for Sri Lanka during the time period of analysis. For instance, the exchange rate LKR/USD, the inflation rate etc.; 5) the authors should better explain the added-value of their research. What is new? What is particular? These are mentioned in the "Objective", but should be better highlighted also in the "Conclusion"; 6) some assertions should be better clarified by means of economic literature. For instance, from "Although numerous studies..." to "fluctuation in another country". I feel, in general, that the paper should be reduced in its length while making its key messages clearer. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269538.r001
Revision 1
21 May 2022 Author Response Point–by–point response to reviewers Dear editor and reviewer. Greetings. Thank you very much for the fruitful comments. Comments from Authors: Please note that page numbers and line numbers refereed in this document is align with the revised manuscript which has track changes. Comments of Reviewer: Comment #1: There are many grammatical errors and/or typos and/or repetitions and/or missing plurals: "This present reseach", "not used earlied used in Sri Lankan studies", "the ability borrow", "Foreign direct investment", "one of the most discussed microeconomic variables", "foreign reserve", "explored the determinates", "could cause deter" etc. I think that the whole paper should linguistically revised; Comments of Authors: Thank you and well noted. This has been in cooperated in the revised manuscript with track changes. • "This present reseach" - rectified in Line #23. • "not used earlied used in Sri Lankan studies" rectified line # 41. • "the ability borrow” - rectified line #73. • "Foreign direct investment" rectified line #71. • "one of the most discussed microeconomic variables" – removed – line # 192. • "foreign reserve" - rectified in line # 252, 253, 268, 269. • "could cause deter" – rectified Line #619. The specifically highlighted errors have been corrected. In addition, revised version has been proofread. Correction has been made including typos, comma correction and brevity. Comments of Reviewer: Comment #2: The contrast between some parts of the paper and others is particularly strong. On the one hand, the authors define macroeconomic concepts, which are rather known and unnecessary ("Exchange rate or conversion rate simply means the..." or "The exchange rate volatility means that the prices of imports and exports fluctuate" or "The reason for selecting USD to analyse the exchange rate is because the majority of international trade is conducted as USD"). On the other, they all of the sudden run several econometrical tests which are in turn particularly complex. The jump from one approach to another is - in my opinion - too pronounced and several, rather self-evident definitions should be cut and/or better articulated; Comments of Authors: Thank you and well noted. This has been in cooperated in the revised manuscript with track changes. • "Exchange rate or conversion rate simply means the..." – removed Line #47-48. • "The exchange rate volatility means that the prices of imports and exports fluctuate" – removed. Line # 78 -82. • "The reason for selecting USD to analyse the exchange rate is because the majority of international trade is conducted as USD – Removed. Line # 98-101. Comments of Reviewer: Comment #3: I don't really understand why the authors have to create a complex research scheme based on several papers (whose "suitability" as explained in Fig. 1 cannot be externally verified), although the macroeconomic factors identified as traditionally explaining exchange rate volatility are commonly accepted and do not need to be really justified. For instance, the relationship between interest rates or inflation and exchange rates has been widely analysed in the economic literature, meaning that it is not necessary to base the authors' decision on some papers retrieved in electronic journal databases. Moreover, I am pretty sure that much more articles have been written on these topics than those selected. Therefore, the parts from page 5 to 10 are - at least, in my opinion - not necessary or should be reduced so that the basic ideas (i.e., why the authors will analyse specific macroeconomic factors) are conveyed without getting too much into the details of the papers (which mention other countries than Sri Lanka (i.e., are therefore distracting)); Comments of Authors: Thank you for your informative feedback. We agree with your statement. Literature review has been revised in the manuscript with track changes from Line #113 to 305 only to include Sri Lankan related studies and not to delve in too much detail of each study. Comments of Reviewer: Comment #4: I feel that the authors should add graphs (for instance, with data from World Bank databases) showing the evolution of the macroeconomic factors analysed for Sri Lanka during the time period of analysis. For instance, the exchange rate LKR/USD, the inflation rate etc.; Comments of Authors: Thank you and well noted. We would like to incorporate World Bank data however World Bank database only provides Inflation either on an Annual basis (URL1) or quarterly basis (URL2). Since we analysed variables on a monthly basis, we were unable to incorporate World Bank data. Therefore, we were limited to only Monthly data from Central Bank of Sri Lanka and have accordingly created graphs of all the analysed variables in Page No 17. Comments of Reviewer: Comment #5: the authors should better explain the added value of their research. What is new? What is particular? These are mentioned in the "Objective", but should be better highlighted also in the "Conclusion"; Comments of Authors: Thank you and well noted. This has been in cooperated in the revised manuscript with track changes from Line # 653 to 663. Comments of Reviewer: Comment #6: some assertions should be better clarified by means of economic literature. For instance, from "Although numerous studies..." to "fluctuation in another country". Comments of Authors: Thank you and well noted. With regards to “numerous countries” relevant example and explanation is given from Line # 50 to 58 With regards to "fluctuation in another country" relevant example and explanation is given from Line # 63 – 67. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269538.r002
24 May 2022 Decision Letter - Ricky Chee Jiun Chia, Editor Exchange Rate Sensitivity Influencing the Economy: The Case of Sri Lanka PONE-D-21-40958R1 Dear Dr. Ruwan Jayathilaka, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Ricky Chee Jiun Chia Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269538.r003
Formally Accepted
1 Jun 2022 Acceptance Letter - Ricky Chee Jiun Chia, Editor PONE-D-21-40958R1 Exchange Rate Sensitivity Influencing the Economy: The Case of Sri Lanka Dear Dr. Jayathilaka: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Ricky Chee Jiun Chia Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269538.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .