The Six Decades of the Capital Asset Pricing Model: A Research Agenda
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Please specify the source of each figure / table (e.g. “Author's own processing” or other expressions / sources, if the case) between square or round brackets after the name of the table. Improve each figure / table (which is not “self- processing) “with your own contribution”
- Explain more clear which is your “own contribution” to the general study of the phenomenon, in time you used (in general) an well kown online free tool for analyses (VOSviewer).
- An uninformed reader can think that it is a descriptive article and that’s why, would be really appreciated (actually is a request) if you wil formulate (a few or at least one) Objectiv/s of the study with (minimum) two Hypotheses (e.g. Hypothessis 1, 2, 3… - introduced perhaps at the end of Introduction chapter or at the beginning of Materials and Methods chapter) in the way to be validated by the research in Discussion and Future Trends & Conclusions chapters (with clear reference to Objectives and Hypotheses 1 & 2 & (and so on) of the objective/s of the research). This would prove that there is a line of argumentation - that starts from (minimum) one objective (with minimum 2 hypothesses) and reaches a conclusion (proven with the help of the study).
- Please refer in the Description of the data collected or / and Performance analysis chapters to speculative studies and include them in the articleI recommend that the “concrete” proposals with “practical” applicability and if possible ... “measurable” be more clearly individualized (in a separate subsection at Discussion and Future Trends (sub)chapter and / or Conclusion chapter ). Compare your method with other methods (advantages and disadvantages), please.
Author Response
Comment 1. Please specify the source of each figure / table (e.g. “Author's own processing” or other expressions / sources, if the case) between square or round brackets after the name of the table. Improve each figure / table (which is not “self- processing) “with your own contribution”.
Response: Thank you for the comment. We have revised the paper as per suggestion.
Comment 2 Explain more clear which is your “own contribution” to the general study of the phenomenon, in time you used (in general) an well known online free tool for analyses (VOS viewer).
Response: The contribution of the paper is structured in 5 Key ideas, ranked in the Introduction section and explained in the conclusion section.
Comment 3 An uninformed reader can think that it is a descriptive article and that’s why, would be really appreciated (actually is a request) if you will formulate (a few or at least one) Objectiv/s of the study with (minimum) two Hypotheses (e.g. Hypothessis 1, 2, 3… - introduced perhaps at the end of Introduction chapter or at the beginning of Materials and Methods chapter) in the way to be validated by the research in Discussion and Future Trends & Conclusions chapters (with clear reference to Objectives and Hypotheses 1 & 2 & (and so on) of the objective/s of the research). This would prove that there is a line of argumentation - that starts from (minimum) one objective (with minimum 2 hypothesses) and reaches a conclusion (proven with the help of the study).
Response: Thank you for the comment. We have framed two objectives and hypotheses in line with the 5-Key ideas and placed in the Materials and Methods section.
Comment 4. Please refer in the Description of the data collected or / and Performance analysis chapters to speculative studies and include them in the article I recommend that the “concrete” proposals with “practical” applicability and if possible ... “measurable” be more clearly individualized (in a separate subsection at Discussion and Future Trends (sub) chapter and / or Conclusion chapter ). Compare your method with other methods (advantages and disadvantages), please.
Response: Thank you for your comments and concern; we have reframed the conclusion, implication, and methods section to show the precise purpose of the article.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article “The SIX Decades of CAPM: A Research Agenda” summarize the relevance of the CAPM by publication and citation trends, as well as identify the most prolific and impactful contributors. The paper is based on a systematic review of the literature with the help of various bibliometric techniques. The study revolves around the key ideas related to articles published with the keywords CAPM in the last six decades. However, the precise purpose of the article is missing.
The research methods used in the paper, were correctly selected. The results of the study were presented in a consistent manner, supplemented with figures and tables, to illustrate the analyzed problems. The conclusions result from the conducted analysis, they are complete. The conclusions are very clear. Moreover, the article indicates future research and implications. The type and scope of source materials is adequate to the analyzed problem. The article has the correct structure. Summing up, it should be stated that the article is coherent and logical. But in my opinion, the exact purpose of the article should be indicated.
Author Response
Comment ; The article “The SIX Decades of CAPM: A Research Agenda” summarize the relevance of the CAPM by publication and citation trends, as well as identify the most prolific and impactful contributors. The paper is based on a systematic review of the literature with the help of various bibliometric techniques. The study revolves around the key ideas related to articles published with the keywords CAPM in the last six decades. However, the precise purpose of the article is missing.
The research methods used in the paper, were correctly selected. The results of the study were presented in a consistent manner, supplemented with figures and tables, to illustrate the analyzed problems. The conclusions result from the conducted analysis, they are complete. The conclusions are very clear. Moreover, the article indicates future research and implications. The type and scope of source materials is adequate to the analyzed problem. The article has the correct structure. Summing up, it should be stated that the article is coherent and logical. But in my opinion, the exact purpose of the article should be indicated.
Response: Thank you for your favorable comments and concern; we have reframed many implications and methods sections to show the precise purpose of the article.
Reviewer 3 Report
The connection between the methodology and the achievement of the objectives should be emphasized more.Author Response
Comment : The connection between the methodology and the achievement of the objectives should be emphasized more.
Response: Thank you for your favorable comments and concern; we have reframed the methods section to emphasize more on practical implications of the study.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
- In the Implications chapter you say that 3 Objectives were achieved, but in the Materials and Methods chapter you issue only two Objectives . Please check and correct. Also, I would like you to "summarize” how the two hypotheses stated to support the achievement of the objectives „were demonstrated"
- Formulate “concrete” proposals with “practical and measurable” applicability of the study, please
- “Compare” your method with other methods (advantages and disadvantages), please
- Please mentione in Implications chapter (the subjective and) limiting nature of the study (the limits of the research and the way in which these limits will be addressed in the future – if will be) and argue opinion regarding a possible modification of the investigation indicators also to reflecte and to have a holistic view on the topic
Author Response
Comment 1. In the Implications chapter you say that 3 Objectives were achieved, but in the Materials and Methods chapter you issue only two Objectives . Please check and correct. Also, I would like you to "summarize” how the two hypotheses stated to support the achievement of the objectives „were demonstrated
Response: Thank you for your observation, this was a typo mistake from our side. We have included the third objective in the literature at appropriate place.
Comment 2 Formulate “concrete” proposals with “practical and measurable” applicability of the study, please
Response: The contribution of the paper structured in 5 Key ideas and 3 objectives, ranked in different section and explained in conclusion section. This is a primary attempt to study the presence/ importance of ‘CAPM’ in last six decades (since inception). Which will be very handy and clear to any reader.
Comment 3 Compare” your method with other methods (advantages and disadvantages), please
Response: Thank you for the comment, as per our search, this is a primary attempt to study the presence/ importance of ‘CAPM’ in last six decades (since inception). So,we don’t find any good paper to do comparative study .
Comment 4. Please mentione in Implications chapter (the subjective and) limiting nature of the study (the limits of the research and the way in which these limits will be addressed in the future – if will be) and argue opinion regarding a possible modification of the investigation indicators also to reflecte and to have a holistic view on the topic
Response: Thank you for your comments and concern, we have added the limitation and future direction of research in the implication.
The paper has been revised and highlighted in different colours. The different sections have been updated as per the guideline of the suggested design papers and articles with necessary reference credit (citation).
All authors have approved the changes made in the manuscript as revised work
Sincerely,
Kamred Udham Singh
