PONE-D-23-34873Moderating role of Political Stability and Economic Policy Uncertainty between Country Governance Practice and Stock Market Performance. A Comparative Analysis of Pakistan and Kurdistan Region of Iraq.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. S Maghdid,

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.

==============================

1. do the changes in according to the comments provided by the reviewers2. Improved on the motivation, significant of study and also the interpretation of the results.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 19 2024 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,

Evan Poh Hock Lau

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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[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

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: 1. Please provide the hypotheses statements embedded in text such that prior literature is discussed before making an hypothesis statement.

2. Provide main effects along with in interaction effects in table 5 and 7.

Reviewer #2: The introduction effectively outlines the key components of the research topic, highlighting the moderating role of political stability and economic policy uncertainty between country governance practices and stock market performance, with a specific focus on a comparative analysis between Pakistan and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. However, to enhance the quality of the introduction, consider incorporating the following suggestions:

Contextual Background:

Provide a brief contextual background on the significance of examining the relationship between country governance practices and stock market performance. This could involve a concise overview of the importance of political stability and economic policy uncertainty in influencing financial markets.

Rationale for the Comparative Analysis:

Clearly articulate the rationale behind selecting Pakistan and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq for the comparative analysis. Are there specific economic, geopolitical, or financial factors that make these regions particularly relevant for the study? Providing this context will help readers understand the motivation behind the comparative approach.

Research Gap and Contribution:

Explicitly state the research gap that this study aims to address. What is not well-understood or explored in the existing literature? Emphasize the unique contribution of your study in filling this gap and advancing the understanding of the interplay between governance practices, political stability, economic policy uncertainty, and stock market performance.

Importance of the Study:

Clearly convey why investigating the moderating role of political stability and economic policy uncertainty in the specified regions is important. Discuss the potential implications for policymakers, investors, and other stakeholders. This will underscore the practical relevance of your research.

Scope and Limitations:

Define the scope of your study by specifying the time frame, the key indicators of country governance practices, and the variables used to measure stock market performance. Additionally, acknowledge any limitations inherent in the study to provide a realistic context for the findings.

By incorporating these elements, the introduction can be strengthened, providing readers with a clearer understanding of the research's significance, context, and potential contributions to the field.

The literature section is well -documented and offer detailed information about the topic, however, please consider the following suggestions:

1: Theoretical underpinning is not stated which dilute the novelty, therefore, proposed model should be backed by a theory. To do so a particular section of overarching theories relevant to the phenomena of user adoption behavior should be incorporated.

2: Gap identification is missing needs to be incorporated.

3: Author is advised to include some of the context specific studies such as relevant to Pakistan to make the literature section more specific, following studies will enrich the literature sections and recommended to be the part of literature:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2023.102160

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2023.102036

https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1947557

https://doi.org/10.1108/SAJBS-09-2019-0168

https://doi.org/10.1142/S2010495222500269

https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1947557.

Designing a robust methodology is crucial for ensuring the validity and reliability of your research. Here are guidelines for the methodology section:

Research Design:

Clearly articulate the research design you will be employing. Will it be quantitative, qualitative, or a mixed-methods approach? Justify your choice based on the research questions and objectives.

Sampling Technique:

Specify the sampling technique used to select participants or cases. Whether it's random sampling, stratified sampling, or another method, explain the rationale behind your choice and ensure it aligns with the research objectives.

Study Participants or Cases:

Provide detailed information about the participants or cases in your study. For instance, in the context of Pakistan and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, describe the characteristics of the companies, markets, or other entities you are analyzing.

Variables and Measurements:

Clearly define and operationalize the variables in your study. Explain how you will measure governance practices, political stability, economic policy uncertainty, and stock market performance. Include details about any scales, indices, or metrics you plan to use.

Data Collection:

Describe the data collection methods you will employ. If using surveys, interviews, or archival data, explain the process and tools. Ensure the reliability and validity of your data collection instruments.

Data Analysis Techniques:

Clearly state the statistical or analytical techniques you will use to analyze the data. Whether it's regression analysis, content analysis, or another method, explain how these techniques will help address your research questions.

Control Variables:

Identify and justify any control variables you will include in your analysis. These variables help account for potential confounding factors and enhance the internal validity of your study.

Comparative Analysis Approach:

Explain how you will conduct the comparative analysis between Pakistan and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Outline the criteria for the comparison and justify the choice of these regions.

Ethical Considerations:

Discuss any ethical considerations associated with your research, particularly if it involves human participants. Address issues of confidentiality, informed consent, and any potential conflicts of interest.

Discussion Section:

Interpretation of Findings:

Begin by summarizing the key findings of your study. Interpret the results in the context of your research questions and hypotheses. Clearly articulate how your findings contribute to the existing body of knowledge.

Comparison between Pakistan and Kurdistan Region:

If your study involves a comparative analysis, provide a detailed discussion of the similarities and differences between Pakistan and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq in terms of governance practices, political stability, economic policy uncertainty, and stock market performance.

The Role of Political Stability and Economic Policy Uncertainty:

Delve into the moderating role of political stability and economic policy uncertainty. Discuss how these factors influence the relationship between country governance practices and stock market performance. Provide insights into the nuanced dynamics observed in your study.

Implications for Stakeholders:

Relate the findings with past studies

Role of financial and non-financial information in determining individual investor investment decision: a signaling perspective. South Asian Journal of Business Studies.

Role of Financial and Non-Financial Information in Shaping Trading Behavior: A Retail Investor’s Perspective. Studies of Applied Economics, 38(3).

Role of ESG disclosure in determining asset allocation decision: An individual investor perspective. Paradigms, 14(1), 157-165.

Discuss the practical implications of your findings for various stakeholders, including policymakers, investors, and businesses. Consider how your research contributes actionable insights that can inform decision-making in the financial and governance domains.

Limitations and Future Research Directions:

Address the limitations of your study openly and discuss how these limitations may have influenced the results. Propose avenues for future research that can build upon your findings and address any gaps or constraints identified in your study.

Contextualize within Theoretical Frameworks:

Place your findings within relevant theoretical frameworks. Discuss how your results align with or challenge existing theories in governance, finance, or related fields. This helps anchor your study within the broader scholarly discourse.

Practical Relevance:

Emphasize the practical relevance of your study by highlighting how the insights gained can be applied in real-world scenarios. Discuss potential strategies or interventions that could be derived from your findings to enhance governance practices and stock market performance.

Conclusion Section:

Summary of Key Points:

Begin the conclusion by summarizing the key points discussed in the paper. Reinforce the main findings and their significance.

Contributions to Knowledge:

Reiterate the unique contributions of your study to the existing body of knowledge. Clearly state how your research advances understanding in the field and fills identified gaps.

Final Reflections:

Offer final reflections on the importance of studying the relationship between governance practices and stock market performance, especially within the specific contexts of Pakistan and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

Broader Implications:

Discuss the broader implications of your research beyond the immediate scope of your study. Consider how your findings may have relevance for similar regions, industries, or global financial dynamics.

Call to Action:

Conclude with a call to action. Encourage further research, policy considerations, or practical implementations based on your findings. Emphasize the continued importance of exploring the intersection of governance, political stability, economic policy uncertainty, and stock market performance.

**********

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: Yes: Muhammand Naveed, PhD, Finance, Department of Management Studies, Bahria University Islamabad

**********

[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.

Moderating role of Political Stability and Economic Policy Uncertainty between Country Governance Practice and Stock Market Performance. A Comparative Analysis of Pakistan and Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

PONE-D-23-34873R1

Dear Dr. S Maghdid,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Evan Poh Hock Lau

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: Yes

**********

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: Yes

**********

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: The authors have incorporated the comments. The paper is recommended for publication in current form.

Reviewer #2: As a reviewer, I have thoroughly evaluated the paper titled "Moderating Role of Political Stability and Economic Policy Uncertainty between Country Governance Practice and Stock Market Performance: A Comparative Analysis of Pakistan and Kurdistan Region of Iraq." I am pleased to report that the authors have demonstrated commendable dedication in addressing the feedback provided during the review process.

The revised version of the paper exhibits significant improvements in several aspects. The authors have effectively incorporated the suggested revisions, enhancing the clarity and coherence of the argumentation throughout the manuscript. The conceptual framework has been refined to provide a more robust theoretical foundation for the study, and the research methodology has been meticulously articulated to ensure transparency and replicability.

**********

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: Yes: Muhammad Aftab

Reviewer #2: Yes: Muhammad Naveed, Department of Management Studies, Bahria University Islamabad

**********