The paper aims to investigate the resistive factors that delay the adoption of full IFRS in Saudi listed companies, including banks and insurance companies. The study determined several factors that affect IFRS adoption in Saudi Arabian firms, and their relationship with the IFRS adoption process. These factors include: Saudi accounting bodies, culture, accountants’ knowledge, political issues, religion, and international trade relations (globalisation), including foreign investments.

• Overall, the length of the article is sensible. The paper consists of the main components/parts that an academic paper should have. The contribution of the study was mentioned clearly. Hypothesis of the study was developed and tested. The data was presented in an appropriate way. There is cohesion between text, tables, and figures. Subject selection is clear, and the research question and objectives are clearly outlined. The study recommended practical implications for other researchers and the general public. The authors highlighted the research questions in the results section, which contributes to the discussion at the end of the paper. In addition, the references were referenced correctly and included recent publications.

Several points/suggestions could be done to improve this article:

1- General issues: • Personally, I felt that the title of the paper did not express accurately the case in Saudi Arabia, as it already adopted IFRS. After reading the article, I understand that the authors meant that KSA was one of the later countries to take the decision to adopt IFRS, in comparison to other developing countries. • Also, having the listed companies in the title of the paper, gave the impression that the study will cover all listed companies in KSA. However, I did not feel that the sample was broadly representative of all listed firms including banks and insurance companies in Saudi Arabia.

2- Literature: (No improvement suggestions) • The authors explained/described the case in the Saudi context, by providing a section that clarifies the institutional background of Saudi Arabia. Also, the study referred to recent publications.

3- Theory: (No improvement suggestions) • The study used a combination of two theoretical trends: the institutional isomorphism and the anti-globalisation approach.

4- Method: • It is not clearly stated when was the sample taken? • How many listed companies were examined? size of the sample?

5- Findings/results and analysis: (No improvement suggestions) • The findings of the paper were stated clearly.

6- Conclusions: • In this paper, there is no discussion section. I suggest adding a DISCUSSION subheading, which discusses explicitly the main and key findings of this study and connects/compares them with prior research (whether the findings of this study contradict or support prior research).

7- Limitations and future research: • Limitations of this study were not mentioned clearly. I suggest making them obvious. • The authors suggested a limited area for future research, I suggest adding more interesting questions for future research.

There are other minor points like: • In page 477, it was stated that: ‘mixed methods: a qualitative method using a questionnaire and quantitative method using a constructed interview’. I am not sure if a questionnaire can be considered as a qualitative method. • In page 478, it was stated that: ‘secondary data (questionnaire), which was distributed to the respondents to obtain information’. My understanding is that secondary data refers to data that is collected by someone other than the primary user. I consider a questionnaire as a primary source of data.

I hope you find these comments helpful to develop this paper.