Dear Dr. Meral Gündüz,

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.

Following a thorough review by two reviewers and an academic editor, it must be noted that the manuscript requires significant revision. In particular, further clarifications are required and definitions need to be improved. The literature review should be expanded. It is essential to clarify the study's contribution to existing research in the field. Please ensure that you implement all of the reviewers' comments and resubmit the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #1:

Thank you for the opportunity to read and review your paper. I found it very interesting by the subject that you have chosen, that is suitable and very interesting in the current knowledge of accounting research. Also, I appreciate the scientific approach that you have chosen, but I would like to better present your research hypotheses and research objectives. The references are properly selected, the statistical results are correctly interpreted with high level of phenomenon understanding, and conclusions are suitable. In my opinion this paper could contribute with a high level of scientificness to the current level of knowledge in the field and I encourage the author to continue the research in the field.

Reviewer #2:

This manuscript under review focuses on firms included in the BIST 30 index of the Istanbul Stock Exchange (Turkey) and uses financial data from 2013 to 2022. The authors employ a panel ARDL model to examine the relationships between deferred tax assets (DTA), deferred tax expenses (DTE), tax planning (TP), and earnings management. The study attempts to combine heteroskedasticity and cross-sectional dependence tests in panel data with PMG estimation. The overall logical structure is basically coherent; however, several issues need to be addressed. Detailed comments are as follows:

Comment 1. In the manuscript, TP is proxied by “Net Incomeₜ / Net Income Before Taxₜ₋₁” (Equation 5), but the theoretical rationale linking this indicator to tax planning is not clearly explained.

Comment 2. Earnings management is influenced by various factors such as firm size, leverage, and growth opportunities. However, Models 1 and 2 include only the main explanatory variables (DTA, DTE, TP) without controlling for these potential confounders. The authors should justify the choice of control variables and perform robustness checks including them to ensure the reliability of the results.

Comment 3. Model 1 is specified as ARDL (1,1,1) and Model 2 as ARDL (1,1,1,1), but the manuscript does not explain how the lag lengths were determined.

Comment 4. Table 2 indicates that DTE and TP do not exhibit cross-sectional dependence, whereas other variables do. The manuscript only differentiates between “first-generation / second-generation unit root tests” but does not clarify how remaining cross-sectional dependence is addressed in the PMG estimation.

Comment 5. In the keywords, the term “Deferred tax expensive” appears incorrect. It should be revised to “Deferred tax expense” to accurately reflect the concept.

Comment 6. The reference formatting should be standardized according to the journal’s style.

Comment 7. It is recommended to include the following references to improve literature coverage and theoretical grounding.

(i)Zhong, Q., Song, Q. & Lee, CC. Managing crash risks through supply chain transparency: evidence from China. Financ Innov 10, 126 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-024-00633-3

(ii)Sun, Y., Liu, L., Xu, Y. et al. Alternative data in finance and business: emerging applications and theory analysis (review). Financ Innov 10, 127 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-024-00652-0

(iii)Kweh, Q.L., Lu, WM., Tone, K. et al. Evaluating the resource management and profitability efficiencies of US commercial banks from a dynamic network perspective. Financ Innov 10, 19 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-023-00531-0

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 06 2025 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.

• 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,

Thomas Kollruss, Prof. Dr.

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

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Additional Editor Comments:

[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?

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Dear Author,

Thank you for the opportunity to read and review your paper. I found it very interesting by the subject that you have chosen, that is suitable and very interesting in the current knowledge of accounting research. Also, I appreciate the scientific approach that you have chosen, but I would like to better present your research hypotheses and research objectives. The references are properly selected, the statistical results are correctly interpreted with high level of phenomenon understanding, and conclusions are suitable. In my opinion this paper could contribute with a high level of scientificness to the current level of knowledge in the field and I encourage the author to continue the research in the field.

Reviewer #2: PONE-D-25-12793

This manuscript under review focuses on firms included in the BIST 30 index of the Istanbul Stock Exchange (Turkey) and uses financial data from 2013 to 2022. The authors employ a panel ARDL model to examine the relationships between deferred tax assets (DTA), deferred tax expenses (DTE), tax planning (TP), and earnings management. The study attempts to combine heteroskedasticity and cross-sectional dependence tests in panel data with PMG estimation. The overall logical structure is basically coherent; however, several issues need to be addressed. Detailed comments are as follows:

Comment 1. In the manuscript, TP is proxied by “Net Incomeₜ / Net Income Before Taxₜ₋₁” (Equation 5), but the theoretical rationale linking this indicator to tax planning is not clearly explained.

Comment 2. Earnings management is influenced by various factors such as firm size, leverage, and growth opportunities. However, Models 1 and 2 include only the main explanatory variables (DTA, DTE, TP) without controlling for these potential confounders. The authors should justify the choice of control variables and perform robustness checks including them to ensure the reliability of the results.

Comment 3. Model 1 is specified as ARDL (1,1,1) and Model 2 as ARDL (1,1,1,1), but the manuscript does not explain how the lag lengths were determined.

Comment 4. Table 2 indicates that DTE and TP do not exhibit cross-sectional dependence, whereas other variables do. The manuscript only differentiates between “first-generation / second-generation unit root tests” but does not clarify how remaining cross-sectional dependence is addressed in the PMG estimation.

Comment 5. In the keywords, the term “Deferred tax expensive” appears incorrect. It should be revised to “Deferred tax expense” to accurately reflect the concept.

Comment 6. The reference formatting should be standardized according to the journal’s style.

Comment 7. It is recommended to include the following references to improve literature coverage and theoretical grounding.

(i)Zhong, Q., Song, Q. & Lee, CC. Managing crash risks through supply chain transparency: evidence from China. Financ Innov 10, 126 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-024-00633-3

(ii)Sun, Y., Liu, L., Xu, Y. et al. Alternative data in finance and business: emerging applications and theory analysis (review). Financ Innov 10, 127 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-024-00652-0

(iii)Kweh, Q.L., Lu, WM., Tone, K. et al. Evaluating the resource management and profitability efficiencies of US commercial banks from a dynamic network perspective. Financ Innov 10, 19 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-023-00531-0

**********

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.

The Impact of Tax Accounting and Planning on Earnings Management: Evidence from Panel ARDL Approach

PONE-D-25-12793R1

Dear Dr. Meral Gündüz, 

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Prof. Dr. Thomas Kollruss

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

All reviewer comments have been addressed. The article is ready for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: I have reviewed the revised manuscript submitted by the authors. I appreciate the significant efforts they have invested in this revision, which are clearly evident in the updated work. Having undergone a previous round of review, I find that the manuscript now demonstrates the necessary content depth, academic rigor, and novelty suitable for publication.

The authors have effectively addressed the key remarks and suggestions provided by the reviewers. These revisions have been appropriately and thoroughly integrated into the new version of the manuscript.

Key improvements observed:

Abstract: Has been effectively expanded to include the study's practical implications and limitations, resulting in a more comprehensive and informative summary.

Introduction: Now provides a clearer articulation of the specific research gap addressed, effectively distinguishing this work from previous, more general reviews.

Literature Review: Demonstrates not only broad thematic coverage but also a strengthened critical synthesis of past studies, explicitly acknowledging their theoretical and regional limitations.

Findings: Are well-organized and strongly supported by insightful sub-theme discussions.

Conclusion: Effectively reflects on the study's limitations and outlines specific, actionable directions for future research.

Overall, the revised manuscript exhibits clear academic rigor, relevance, and originality. I am satisfied with the authors' responses to the review comments and believe this revised version represents a significant improvement over the initial submission in terms of its completeness and robustness.

Therefore, I am pleased to recommend this manuscript for acceptance in its present form.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********