Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution in Performance Evaluation in the Albanian Banking Sector
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview report
J. Risk Financial Manag
Using Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS in performance evaluation in 2 the Albanian Banking Sector
Manuscript ID: jrfm-3420850
The paper investigates the Albanian banking system, second-tier banks, between 2020 and 2022, in order to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of banks using multi-criteria decision-making. In addition, highlights the sustainability of banks’ financial performance as a form of trust from stakeholders, using eight financial indicators.
The paper is interesting and uses a quite novel approach. Below are several comments and suggestions for improving the quality of the paper..
Major issues:
1. Results and Conclusions should be developed. Now, the main issue found is want bank ranked first. Just saying “National Commercial Bank (BKT) is ranked first in all three years. This is because all the indicators taken into consideration favor this bank” is not enough. Deeper investigation and additional comments should be provided in order to shed light to factors determining the ranking, in order to offer more interesting policy implications.
2. A comparison with the literature, with results from other studies, should be provided within the Conclusions section. In addition, policy implications should be added.
Minor issues
1. The authors claim to investigate “the post Covid 19 period”. However, the period under investigation is 2020-2022.
2. Page 1, rows 32-34: These financial institutions carry out the activity of accepting monetary deposits or other repayable funds from the public and then using them for granting loans or other financial activities (https://www.bankofalbania.org). – A citation should be provided form a paper, rather than a website, even if it is the central bank.
3. The explanation of the abbreviations for AHP, FAHP, MCDM, and TOPSIS are provided several times within the manuscript. These should be mentioned only at first use, for example in the Abstract.
An explanation should be provided for CCi parameter, as abbreviation, on page 11.
The final list of Abbreviations should be alphabetical, in order to ease the identification process.
4. The link provided on page 7, (https://qkb.gov.al/kerko/kerko-ne-registrin-tregtar/kerko-per-subjekt/) is not working.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
5. Proofreading is needed to avoid the repetition of the same words several times. Below are provided several examples:
- Abstract: page 1, rows 13-14: Banks are among the most important institutions of a country as they play an important role in economic, social and political development. Please avoid repeating “important” twice in the same phrase.
- Please revise the following phrase - page 1, row39-40: “The bank is an important component at the same time and the adoption of sustainable banking practices” - important component of what?
- Please revise the following phrase - page 14, rows 547-548: “Another limitation is the lack of non-financial indicators other than financial ones taken into consideration”.
Author Response
The paper investigates the Albanian banking system, second-tier banks, between 2020 and 2022, in order to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of banks using multi-criteria decision-making. In addition, highlights the sustainability of banks’ financial performance as a form of trust from stakeholders, using eight financial indicators.
The paper is interesting and uses a quite novel approach. Below are several comments and suggestions for improving the quality of the paper..
Major issues:
- Results and Conclusions should be developed. Now, the main issue found is want bank ranked first. Just saying “National Commercial Bank (BKT) is ranked first in all three years. This is because all the indicators taken into consideration favor this bank” is not enough. Deeper investigation and additional comments should be provided in order to shed light to factors determining the ranking, in order to offer more interesting policy implications.
We additionally clarified the research results and compared them with similar results in the Discussion selection.
- A comparison with the literature, with results from other studies, should be provided within the Conclusions section. In addition, policy implications should be added.
We have made additional selections, research limitations, and guidelines for future research, and we have moved part of the conclusion here. So the conclusion is now clearer.
Minor issues
- The authors claim to investigate “the post Covid 19 period”. However, the period under investigation is 2020-2022.
We have corrected that the data is for the COVID-19 period and not the post-COVID-19 period.
- Page 1, rows 32-34: These financial institutions carry out the activity of accepting monetary deposits or other repayable funds from the public and then using them for granting loans or other financial activities (https://www.bankofalbania.org). – A citation should be provided form a paper, rather than a website, even if it is the central bank.
We dropped the references from the paper and not from the website of the Central Bank.
- The explanation of the abbreviations for AHP, FAHP, MCDM, and TOPSIS are provided several times within the manuscript. These should be mentioned only at first use, for example in the Abstract.
We have included the full names of the methods the first time they are mentioned and they are no longer used.
An explanation should be provided for CCi parameter, as abbreviation, on page 11.
What CCi means in the TOPSIS method is explained
The final list of Abbreviations should be alphabetical, in order to ease the identification process.
We sorted them in alphabetical order.
- The link provided on page 7, (https://qkb.gov.al/kerko/kerko-ne-registrin-tregtar/kerko-per-subjekt/) is not working.
The link has been corrected.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
- Proofreading is needed to avoid the repetition of the same words several times. Below are provided several examples:
- Abstract: page 1, rows 13-14: Banks are among the most important institutions of a country as they play an important role in economic, social and political development. Please avoid repeating “important” twice in the same phrase.
- Please revise the following phrase - page 1, row39-40: “The bank is an important component at the same time and the adoption of sustainable banking practices” - important component of what?
- Please revise the following phrase - page 14, rows 547-548: “Another limitation is the lack of non-financial indicators other than financial ones taken into consideration”.
This text in the paper has been corrected.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments:
1. It is advised that the authors explain the details of Figure 1 more precisely.
2. Authors used classical TOPSIS methods already applied in different case studies. The authors also mentioned the proposed TOPSIS MCDM method, but this study is the application of TOPSIS.
3. The authors also mentioned no sensitivity analysis is required, but they did not perform a comparative analysis.
4. Novelty is missing in the manuscript.
Author Response
Comments:
1. It is advised that the authors explain the details of Figure 1 more precisely.
Figure 1 and the research methodology are explained.
2. Authors used classical TOPSIS methods already applied in different case studies. The authors also mentioned the proposed TOPSIS MCDM method, but this study is the application of TOPSIS.
It has been corrected and a paper has been added where the AHP and TOPSIS methods were used.
3. The authors also mentioned no sensitivity analysis is required, but they did not perform a comparative analysis.
It is explained why comparative analysis and sensitivity analysis were not used.4.
Novelty is missing in the manuscript.
We have added what are the novelties of paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The paper entitled "Using Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS in performance evaluation in the Albanian Banking Sector" is an interesting paper and I believe that it will be of interest to the readers of the journal. Among its strengths are, the use of the selected detailed dataset on Albanian banks with subareas for a comparative perspective on the determinants of performance. To this end, study employs fuzzy multi-criteria decision model (Fuzzy MCDM), Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and Technique for Order Performance Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS).
Following issues should be addressed.
1) Before the comments below, as a first remark, I should note the high similarity of this paper, iThenticate reports it as 34%. If examined, too many places are colored. Further, a table with model specifications is totally colored. The reference similarity goes to another paper, which I believe that none of the authors are among the authors. Remaining tables with empirical results are not colored. However, blocks of colored paragraphs could be the sole reason of questioning the novelty of the paper. Therefore, I strongly recommend on working on improving the paper with this respect.
2) Abstract does not drive attention of the reader who qurestions the novelty of the paper. Suggested directions are to highlight the quality of data and detail the empirical results and how they diverge from existent literature.
3) Introduction is quite long. Also, the highlight of the paper regarding the placement of the paper in the literature is not well shown. Another issue is, most method related discussions could be taken to the methods section to further save space in the introduction and to change its format as suggested in the first direction above for highlithing. Simply put, research gap should be well shown in this section.
More discussion for the data in hand should be added. A direction with this respect is to discuss the fuzziness of dataset and justify the methods in terms of the properties of data
4) In the litearteure section, coverage is limited. Summarized work are not well detailed. Some of the articles here, which employed similar methods such as FAHP, TOPSIS are listed without highlighting their specific contributions or how they contribute or how the are criticized. Further, references shold be improved for more current research. Also, methodological comparisons should be added. Extentions could include nonlinear methods should be given, including deep learning, neural networks and machine learning. Afterweards, I suggest shaping this section according to themes of methods and areas of research
5) Methods section. The justification of methods should be presented more adequately with a discussion of data in the methods section. Therefore, descriptive properties table should be added here along with such discussion to justify the methods of this study.
6) The authors did not provide enough explanation about how they transformed linguistic values to fuzzy numbers, Table 1 is also cited with this respect but for instance which specific membership function is used is not well explained.
How is the number of experts adequate? Requires reasoning with this respect.
In the empirical section, authors should also extend the paper in terms of limitations and strenghts of the methods
Further, suggestions for future research is not enough especially after being ended with etc. and with a suggestion of application to other financial sectors after this study. A dedicated discussion section should be developed and provided before the conclusion section as a subheading to the final section of the empirics section with references to existing current research. This is also necessary to highlight the placement of this research in the current empircal literature.
7) After the changes being made, authors should revisit conclusion and revise it according to the critiques directed. Limitations and future directions should also be given in addition to the section before I mentioned as a final short paragraph in the conclusion section's last part.
Lastly, I should remind the 1st critique, the similiarity should be reduced. This is not only in terms of percentage. When looking at the paper, blocks of text are colored, which leads to possible novelty issue. Sentencing should be checked and references should be added for this respect. For instance, there are papers which are among the top similar papers but not cited, example: https://www.businessperspectives.org/journals/investment-management-and-financial-innovations/issue-298/ranking-of-firms-by-performance-using-i-distance-method
Author Response
Dear Authors,
The paper entitled "Using Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS in performance evaluation in the Albanian Banking Sector" is an interesting paper and I believe that it will be of interest to the readers of the journal. Among its strengths are, the use of the selected detailed dataset on Albanian banks with subareas for a comparative perspective on the determinants of performance. To this end, study employs fuzzy multi-criteria decision model (Fuzzy MCDM), Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and Technique for Order Performance Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS).
Thank you for your kind words, we have made sure to correct everything you suggested in the paper.
Following issues should be addressed.
1) Before the comments below, as a first remark, I should note the high similarity of this paper, iThenticate reports it as 34%. If examined, too many places are colored. Further, a table with model specifications is totally colored. The reference similarity goes to another paper, which I believe that none of the authors are among the authors. Remaining tables with empirical results are not colored. However, blocks of colored paragraphs could be the sole reason of questioning the novelty of the paper. Therefore, I strongly recommend on working on improving the paper with this respect.
We also ran the paper through Turnitin and saw which parts were critical and corrected them. We hope that the report will now be below 20%.
2) Abstract does not drive attention of the reader who qurestions the novelty of the paper. Suggested directions are to highlight the quality of data and detail the empirical results and how they diverge from existent literature.
We have corrected the summary in accordance with your suggestions.
3) Introduction is quite long. Also, the highlight of the paper regarding the placement of the paper in the literature is not well shown. Another issue is, most method related discussions could be taken to the methods section to further save space in the introduction and to change its format as suggested in the first direction above for highlithing. Simply put, research gap should be well shown in this section.
We shortened the introduction and moved some of the literature review. We also explained which gaps our paper covers.
More discussion for the data in hand should be added. A direction with this respect is to discuss the fuzziness of dataset and justify the methods in terms of the properties of data
A Discussions selection has been added where we also explained this.
4) In the litearteure section, coverage is limited. Summarized work are not well detailed. Some of the articles here, which employed similar methods such as FAHP, TOPSIS are listed without highlighting their specific contributions or how they contribute or how the are criticized. Further, references shold be improved for more current research. Also, methodological comparisons should be added. Extentions could include nonlinear methods should be given, including deep learning, neural networks and machine learning. Afterweards, I suggest shaping this section according to themes of methods and areas of research
We added a selection to the literature review where we specifically listed papers from banking where these methods were used and papers where these methods were used together.
5) Methods section. The justification of methods should be presented more adequately with a discussion of data in the methods section. Therefore, descriptive properties table should be added here along with such discussion to justify the methods of this study.
We did that in the discussion selection.
6) The authors did not provide enough explanation about how they transformed linguistic values to fuzzy numbers, Table 1 is also cited with this respect but for instance which specific membership function is used is not well explained.
It is additionally explained in table 1. And how the membership function is used.
How is the number of experts adequate? Requires reasoning with this respect.
It was explained how many experts there were and how they assessed the weight of the criteria.
In the empirical section, authors should also extend the paper in terms of limitations and strenghts of the methods
These selections have been added.
Further, suggestions for future research is not enough especially after being ended with etc. and with a suggestion of application to other financial sectors after this study. A dedicated discussion section should be developed and provided before the conclusion section as a subheading to the final section of the empirics section with references to existing current research. This is also necessary to highlight the placement of this research in the current empircal literature.
A paper correction has been made regarding your requests.
7) After the changes being made, authors should revisit conclusion and revise it according to the critiques directed. Limitations and future directions should also be given in addition to the section before I mentioned as a final short paragraph in the conclusion section's last part.
We corrected that.
Lastly, I should remind the 1st critique, the similiarity should be reduced. This is not only in terms of percentage. When looking at the paper, blocks of text are colored, which leads to possible novelty issue. Sentencing should be checked and references should be added for this respect. For instance, there are papers which are among the top similar papers but not cited, example: https://www.businessperspectives.org/journals/investment-management-and-financial-innovations/issue-298/ranking-of-firms-by-performance-using-i-distance-method
We have done a complete revision of the paper. You will see that more than 60% of the text has been changed and new selections have been added so that the level of similarity with other papers has now been reduced.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper improved significantly. However, proofreading is needed.
Within the paragraphs added during the revision process, several phrases need proofreading.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Proofreading is needed.
Within the paragraphs added during the revision process, several phrases need proofreading.
Below are some examples:
- Page 1, within the Abstract: “Based on these indicators, the bank also created a decision-making model Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and Technique for Order Performance Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS).” – the bank created the model? Or the researchers applied the model?
- “When looking at table 1 where the indicators for 2020 are, it can be seen that by far the best indicators of the indicators”. page 15, row 580 – please revise the phrase, the meaning is unclear
- “The results BKT bank are so much better”, page 15, row 590 – a preposition is missing.
- “It was observed that the usual indicators of bank performance used in other research were used”. – page 16, row 606 – please avoid repetitions.
- “It was about Banca Intesa”. Page 15, Row 583 – very short sentence; should be included in the previous phrase.
- “Rezaei & Ketabi (2016) used the same criteria but on the example of banks in Iran. They ranked private banks and found that no bank has all the best indicators. Sharma and Kumar (2023) used the same methods as in this study, but the indicators on the example of banks in India showed that not all banks have the best indicators. Based on this, the difference between this research and the others is that among the banks in Albania, one bank has the best indicators and is ahead of other banks.” Page 15, rows 583 – 587: Please avoid repeating “this”. In addition “Sharma and Kumar (2023) used the same methods as in this study” - it is not clear if “this study” refers to the author’s research or to Rezaei & Ketabi (2016) .
- “the authors invented other methods” – you invented, or you applied this method? Please check again the meaning of the phrase! (Page 15)
Author Response
Greetings,
We first corrected the paragraphs and sentences that you told us, and then we proofread the entire paper. We hired a proofreader for that. We hope all is well now. We corrected the sentences you suggested and marked them in red.
All the best.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccepted.
Author Response
Greetings,
Thank you for accepting this paper.
All best.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy decision is positive for the revised manuscript.
Author Response
Greetings,
Thank you for accepting this paper.
All best.
