Analysis of Results of Experts’ Perspectives of Sustainable Regional Competitiveness Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process Multi-Criteria Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a resubmitted manuscript. The authors have addressed all my concerns in the previous round. I would suggest accept.

Author Response

Dear Respective Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful review and positive recommendation.

We truly appreciate your time and effort in evaluating our manuscript.

Your feedback has been invaluable in improving our work, and we are grateful for your support throughout the review process.

Sincerely,

The Authors

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the authors have done some improvements. Yet it is not clear what the study adds to competitiveness ranking already defined and published. what's the novelty and contribution. And also why they randomly chose some countries.

Author Response

Dear Respective Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your comments, which help us further clarify our study.

While existing competitiveness rankings provide an overall assessment, our study goes a step further by utilizing the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) methodology to determine which specific factors of regional competitiveness have the greatest impact. Instead of simply ranking regions, our approach identifies the key drivers of competitiveness by analyzing data from random regions. This allows for a more structured and decision-oriented understanding of competitiveness beyond predefined indices.

This contribution is particularly valuable for policymakers and stakeholders, as it provides insights into which aspects require targeted interventions to enhance regional competitiveness. We have now made this clearer in the revised manuscript.

The countries were chosen randomly to ensure that the AHP methodology runs correctly in our specific case.

To achieve this, we first considered the Regional Competitiveness Index (RCI) and selected regions randomly across the full range of the index, from the highest to the lowest values. This approach ensured a diverse representation of regions with varying competitiveness levels. We then analyzed their characteristics, applied the AHP method, and derived the results accordingly.

We have now clarified this process in the revised manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.

Sincerely, 
The Authors

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I checked the improvements after the resubmission, and I want to suggest a few more revisions:

You mention your previous work in different paragraphs; you should refer to it each time. At least you should guarantee that it was referred to the first time it appears.

I have one ethical concern about this research, called "slicing research," which I think you should argue about in the paper. You present the specialist's preferences as materials and methods from their previous research and then present the AHP weight in results. Could you explain this approach in the paper?

The RCI score seems to be different from the global preference distribution of alternatives in AHP methods, which was between 0 and 1, so it is important to clarify how it was calculated.

I suggest you explicitly state in your conclusion, "The practical contributions are (...)" and the same for theoretical contributions. Specifically, I suggest you discuss more the contribution of the AHP method application to this case. 

Kind regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

Comment 1: I have one ethical concern about this research, called "slicing research," which I think you should argue about in the paper. You present the specialist's preferences as materials and methods from their previous research and then present the AHP weight in results. Could you explain this approach in the paper?

Response 1: Our study does not aim to repurpose previous research in a fragmented way but rather to build upon established expert insights as part of a structured multi-criteria decision-making process. The specialist preferences used in our methodology serve as foundational input data rather than standalone results. These expert opinions, derived from prior research, were integrated systematically within the AHP framework to quantify their relative importance and validate their alignment with empirical findings.

Comment 2: The RCI score seems to be different from the global preference distribution of alternatives in AHP methods, which was between 0 and 1, so it is important to clarify how it was calculated.

Response 2: The RCI score and the global preference distribution in AHP indeed follow different scales, and we acknowledge the importance of clarifying this distinction. The RCI score is derived from the European Commission’s Regional Competitiveness Index (RCI), which is calculated based on a composite index methodology that aggregates multiple socio-economic indicators. These scores are standardized and typically scaled in a way that allows for relative comparisons between regions within the EU. On the other hand, the AHP preference values are computed through pairwise comparisons and normalized to fall within a 0 to 1 range, representing the relative importance of each alternative. In our study, we used the AHP methodology to determine the relative importance of factors influencing regional competitiveness, which were then analyzed in relation to the RCI rankings. 

Comment 3: I suggest you explicitly state in your conclusion, "The practical contributions are (...)" and the same for theoretical contributions. Specifically, I suggest you discuss more the contribution of the AHP method application to this case. 

Response 3: Please see the revised manuscript in Conclusions Section in lines 390 - 399 and 409 - 411. 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the paper titled "Analysis of Results on Experts' Perspectives of Sustainable Regional Competitiveness Using the AHP Multi-Criteria Method".  I have the following comments.

1. The literature review part could be enhanced by adding more recent and relevant literature.

2. Table 1 is constructed based on the pairwise comparisons of experts. However, the information of the experts is not provided? If possible, could you kindly provide information about the experts (such as number of experts, experience, background, etc)?

3. Table 3 presents the value and weight of different region, what does weight mean?

4. The score of different factors are not normalized as weights, why?

5. How is the RCI calculated? Why is there negative value?

6. The factor values of different regions should be provided to enable more transparent and easy understanding.

7. The discussion should be further imporved.

8. The conclusion is too long.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the article needs more elaboration before publication. the literature review is really vague. it is not undestandable why you chose some regions and how. in the text you mention "From a comprehensive list of over 250 regions in the EU, a selection was made based  on their Regional Competitiveness Index (RCI) ranking [23]. This involved selecting one  representative region from each of the fifty of the RCI rankings.", it is not clear how you go from 250 to chose 50 and then one from 50. you do not explain or provide references about Analytic Hierarchy Process. the mthodological approach here used is not clearly explained. Overall it is not comprehensive what your study adds to competitiveness ranking already defined and published. what's the novelty and contribution. i suggest to elaborate more before considering it for pubblication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The paper is well-written and organized, but some statements should be overcome in the argumentation:

- AHP is a very simple and overapplied method in the literature - Why is this application practical and theoretically relevant in this case and for sustainability studies?;

- There is an interpretation that AHP best uses it to balance criteria weight and not rank alternatives. Many references were indeed presented in the paper to fundament criteria by criteria the application of AHP in which criteria context, but in an overall perspective, why, in this case, is it more appropriate to use AHP than another multicriteria method?

- It looks like reinforcing a ranking by applying the AHP method is a redundancy that could be interpreted as a little contribution to academic and practical perspectives - I suggest clarifying practical and theoretical relevance for sustainability in the results and conclusion.

Finally, for better comprehension, I suggest presenting the table "Ranking of Regional Competitiveness Factors and Their Respective Scores" before the table "Values and Weights for Selected Regions" in the argumentation. Presenting criteria weight first and then alternative preferences seems better. 

Kind regards,