PONE-D-23-24997National Debt Management and Business Sustainability in Africa’s Largest Economy: A Focus on the Private SectorPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. UFUA,

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 Oct 26 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,

Magdalena Radulescu

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

 "Not Applicable"

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. 

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author.

5. Please upload a new copy of Figure 1 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/ https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/

6. Please include a copy of Table 4.1 and table 4.7 which you refer to in your text on page 6 and 8.

7. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 4 and table 4.8 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please check reviewers'reports. Elaborate a response letter to show how you have addressed to their comments and mark in color all changes you will make into the manuscript.

[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: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

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: No

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: No

Reviewer #2: 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: Thank you very much for inviting me to assess the above-mentioned manuscript submitted to Plos One. From the research topic, this paper attempts to examine “National Debt Management and Business Sustainability in Africa’s Largest Economy: A Focus on the Private Sector” approaches. After reading this paper, I have too many comments.

Firstly I suggest authors to rewrite the abstract to make it more constructive. Abstract should have at least one sentence per each: context and background, motivation, hypothesis, methods, results, conclusions. Add some numbers from your findings and take out paranthesis from the abstract

i) The introduction part of the study needs improvement and story flow and the authors need to give proper contributions to their study. İi) It is better to affard the contributions of the paper in the introduction part. İii) I would like to suggest that authors should update the literature for intro and all text.

There is a need to do a more rigorous and systematic literature review. The authors should clearly mention the literature gap. See following literatures and please kindly add them https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2016.1263251; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-28977-w; https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2151; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04514-6; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16720-2; https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-011-0075-2; https://doi.org/10.1007/s12667-010-0018-1; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12993-9; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06276-7; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12637-y; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103300; https://doi.org/10.1177/13548166231174812

It would be appropriate to indicate a sharp future research directions and limitations of this at the end of the conclusion section just before references. Need clear future recommendation/implementation in the context of uncertainty. See and add kindly followings to your text: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816619888346; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-023-02452-x

Language quality: The paper needs an extensive language editing with the help of a professional language editor to improve its quality.

Reviewer #2: I am writing about the manuscript (PONE-D-23-24997) entitled “National Debt Management and Business Sustainability in Africa’s Largest Economy: A Focus on the Private Sector” Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. The paper is not well-structured and conveys a deal of information. I recommend for the paper substantial modifications and refinements of the present version. My comments are as follows:

1. The paper uses complex language and technical terms, potentially challenging readers without relevant backgrounds. A revision is needed to make the abstract more accessible and professionally written.

2. The study's scope in addressing knowledge gaps appears limited; a broader examination of existing gaps could enhance the research's significance.

3. No clear justification is provided for the selection of specific variables in the study, which should be clarified to enhance the research's validity.

4. the theoretical framework is not well-explained, the study's specific contributions to addressing literature limitations and gaps are not adequately discussed.

5. The relationship between the selected variables in the results and the theoretical framework should be justify by valid theoretical framework.

6. The methods section lacks explicit justification for the chosen study design and methods, as well as the management of potential biases, necessitating additional clarification.

9. The results section does not clearly explain how the results are organized, how they relate to the research question, or how they will inform the study.

10. The discussion section does not provide a clear comparison and contrast between the study's findings and relevant literature in the field, nor does it explain unexpected findings.

11. The discussion section lacks a clear explanation of how study limitations may have affected the results, how the results will be used to inform future research or practice, or a clear and concise conclusion.

12. The presentation of tables and figures is not always consistent with the text description, and the figure legends and table headings do not always clearly explain the content.

13. The references do not always include up-to-date sources, and discrepancies exist between citations and the reference list.

14. In the conclusion section, there is a lack of further insights or suggestions for future research, and limitations are not always acknowledged. Additionally, critical analysis of policy recommendations is limited.

15. The existing literature requires updating, and a comprehensive summary should be provided at the end of this section. The summary must highlight areas of agreement and divergence among previous studies, pinpoint aspects they did not address, and establish connections to the objectives of the current study.

16. The discussion section needs more previous studies, studies, and examples of agree and disagree points to support the current results.

17. The study needs to incorporate the limitations and future direction and future direction as well.

**********

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.

National Debt Management and Business Sustainability in Africa’s Largest Economy: A Focus on the Private Sector

PONE-D-23-24997R1

Dear Dr. UFUA,

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,

Magdalena Radulescu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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: (No Response)

**********

5. 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: (No Response)

**********

6. 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: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read your paper. The paper “PONE-D-23-24997” is interesting for journal readers. But following changes should be done before the consideration to improve the quality of the paper:

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. 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

**********