PONE-D-23-02126Impact of Investor Sentiment on Contemporaneous and Future Equity Returns in Emerging MarketsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. ANDLEEB,

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 May 14 2023 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,

Saqib Farid

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

2. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. We do appreciate that you have a title page document uploaded as a separate file, however, as per our author guidelines (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-title-page) we do require this to be part of the manuscript file itself and not uploaded separately.

Could you therefore please include the title page into the beginning of your manuscript file itself, listing all authors and affiliations.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

The paper tackles an interesting topical research question. It would surely benefit from the following comments and suggestions that are aimed to make it better crafted and more polished.

Reviewer # 1

Dear Authors,

Hope this mail finds you well.

After examining your submission I have decided not to seek the advice of reviewers. Your paper entitled “Impact of Investor Sentiments on Contemporaneous and Future Equity Returns in Emerging Markets “offers a set of very interesting aspects. While your findings illustrate merit, however, the manuscript can be improved in few ways before publication.

the Main points are:

1. The authors should better highlight the research gap and motivation of the study.

2. The contribution of the papers should be clearly explained.

3. The literature review section should discuss few latest papers on the topic.

4. The choice and rational to justify the use of specific methods needs to be improved.

5. The discussion on the results requires to be expanded, where focus should be paid on corroborating the findings with previous evidence, and economic interpretation of the results should be improved.

Good look with the revision!

Reviewer # 2

Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “ Impact of Investor Sentiments on Contemporaneous and Future Equity Returns in Emerging Markets “ After carefully reading the manuscript, I have few suggestions for the author(s) to incorporate in the manuscript and improve its quality further.

Comment 1: I can see that there is contribution of study but is not well-written or explicitly

stating what novelty is being added in the study.

Comment 2: What is the rationale behind using underlying methods in the current research?

Why the authors did not employ other similar techniques and preferred this technique solely?

Comment 3: Are there any other studies on the similar methodology? If yes, please cite them

to have a better empirical justification.

Comment 4: What are future prospects of this study? Adding the future directions along with

the implications for individual market would be greater advantage of the study.

Comment 5: I found some grammatical and typo errors in the manuscript. In that case, a

professional proofread can polish and enhance the quality of your manuscript.

Good Luck with the revision !

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: Dear Authors,

Hope this mail finds you well.

After examining your submission I have decided not to seek the advice of reviewers. Your paper entitled “Impact of Investor Sentiments on Contemporaneous and Future Equity Returns in Emerging Markets “offers a set of very interesting aspects. While your findings illustrate merit, however, the manuscript can be improved in few ways before publication.

the Main points are:

1. The authors should better highlight the research gap and motivation of the study.

2. The contribution of the papers should be clearly explained.

3. The literature review section should discuss few latest papers on the topic.

4. The choice and rational to justify the use of specific methods needs to be improved.

5. The discussion on the results requires to be expanded, where focus should be paid on corroborating the findings with previous evidence, and economic interpretation of the results should be improved.

Good look with the revision!

Reviewer #2: Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “ Impact

of Investor Sentiments on Contemporaneous and Future Equity Returns in Emerging Markets “

After carefully reading the manuscript, I have few suggestions for the author(s) to incorporate

in the manuscript and improve its quality further.

Comment 1: I can see that there is contribution of study but is not well-written or explicitly

stating what novelty is being added in the study.

Comment 2: What is the rationale behind using underlying methods in the current research?

Why the authors did not employ other similar techniques and preferred this technique solely?

Comment 3: Are there any other studies on the similar methodology? If yes, please cite them

to have a better empirical justification.

Comment 4: What are future prospects of this study? Adding the future directions along with

the implications for individual market would be greater advantage of the study.

Comment 5: I found some grammatical and typo errors in the manuscript. In that case, a

professional proofread can polish and enhance the quality of your manuscript.

Good Luck with the revision !

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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.

Predictive Effect of Investor Sentiment on Current and Future Returns in Emerging Equity Markets

PONE-D-23-02126R1

Dear Dr. ANDLEEB,

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,

Saqib Farid

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: