Dear Mohamed, Sorry for my late getting back to you! I just finished examining t

Dear Mohamed,
Sorry for my late getting back to you! I just finished examining this last version of your DBA thesis
I attach the revised manuscriipt with my comments and suggestions for changes
I was thinking when getting this version that we were close to submit it to the jury members after having invited them and set up the jury. Unfortunately, it is not the case. There is still work to do before the submission.
The main concerns turn around the lack of coherence and consistency throughout the manuscriipt and the weakness of the whole structure. For example, the Table of Contents does not correspond to the sections / subsections of the manuscriipt, moreover the titles and subtitles are not sufficiently distinguished (I have tried to bring something here by increasing the size of the policy for the titles of the main sections (Introduction, Literature review, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion); I also added subsections, for example, in the ‘Results’ section to better balance / organise the development and ease the reading. After the Summary, you have added a section under the title ‘Introduction’ that develops sometimes differently from the section that follows titled ‘Objectives of the study’! the key dimensions of your research. I provided you with a couple of comments here asking for clarification and suggesting to merge these two sections.
Pay a great attention to the level of coherence throughout the manuscriipt. For example, there are a lot of inconsistencies between the two already evoked sections (see the previous comment).
Finally, be sure that all references given in the final list of references correspond to all citations in the body of the manuscriipt. Similarly, those citations in the body of the text should be referenced in the final list. Double checking is needed here.
I would like to share with you my objective for the final phase of your DBA thesis.
I would like to organise the defence in September or October at the latest. I would mean that the next version of the manuscriipt should be the last one. It would imply at your level, to take into consideration the comments / suggestions and make the final decisions regarding the writing and the way you will improve the manuscriipt to reach a better level of quality.
I would ask you to send me the final revised version by the end of may at the latest. Don’t hesitate to ask your colleagues for help, reading and rereading the manuscriipt in order to identify and fix the eventual problems.
I will organise the jury, invite two internal (ISC) reviewers in June or July. They will have a couple of months to make the review and send their reports.
Let me know if such a view is fine with you and please feel free to get back to me in case of need.
All the best