Reviewer’s Comment

1. The paper has used SEM Model for establishing relationship between five variables LA, PH, LO,
PE, PB and accuracy of target price forecasts. The findings have been presented as “significant”
without explaining the level of significance. For example, on Page 18 3 para it has been stated
that “Price to Earnings ratio (P/E), were hypothesized to have significant positive relationship
with PB ratio”. The level of significance in all cases needs to be explained along with the
goodness of fit of the overall SEM Model. There is no mention on the overall fit of the model
anywhere in the paper (like Chi-square and p- value). It needs to be specified if the overall
model is accepted with discussion on chi square of p-value of the overall model. The data is
presented in figure 4 but there is no explanation on the overall model. It appears that the
author(s) have a lack of understanding of the SEM model.
The authors need to provide clarity on the statistical aspect of the SEM model. This is the most
important part of the paper.
2. The variables used with the exception of LA have been used in earlier studies. I suggest the
authors come up with at least two more variables to add more depth to the study. This bring
novelty to the paper and findings. Many of the findings have already been reported in earlier
studies and the paper lacks any meaningful contribution. Addition of different variables will
surely add novelty to the study. For example, the author(s) could come up with a variable like
change in EPS and its impact on TPAch.
3. The paper has serious proof reading issues. On page 18 second line, the author(s) have written
Sayed and Chadlekar (2014) which is actually Sayed and Chaklader (2014) which is rightly
mentioned in the citations, Kerl (2011) has been written as Karl (2011) on Page 18 third line.
Such mistakes are not expected when publishing papers in a reputed journal.
4. Page 13 last line it is stated that Table 1 and Table 2 enlists banking stocks under study. Only
Table 2 lists stocks under study while Table 1 puts forward the model. Why say Table 1 has
listed stocks under study? Again, the author(s) should be more sincere in proof reading before
sending paper for review.
5. The sample size needs to be increased to at least 500 so that the study has more credibility.
Current sample size of 250 is too small for a standard publication.
6. On the positive side, the author(s) have worked well on the literature review and cited relevant
papers.
Editor’s Comment

1. You may quote at least TWO papers in your area, published in Global Business Review in any
volume number. Then you add those references to your reference section.
2. The author must write the following in Acknowledgment (place before references): “The authors
are grateful to the anonymous referees of the journal for their extremely useful suggestions to
improve the quality of the paper. Usual disclaimers apply.
3. The sources of all the tables and figures are to be given. In case of your own
calculations/findings, please write source as: Authors’ own findings/Authors’ calculations" or
"Prepared by the author"
4. Kindly follow the structure given below while revising the paper:
 Abstract
 Keywords
 Introduction. End part of the Introduction should be structure of the paper (in sections)
 Review of Literature
 Objectives (write in paragraph(s) not in points)
 Rationale of the studies/ Theoretical framework
 Methodology – Data source, Sample frame, Empirical model
 Analysis
 Discussion
 Conclusion
 Managerial Implications
 Limitations/ Future Research, if any
 References
 Appendix (if you have)