Towards Sustainability in E-Banking Website Assessment Methods
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is a comparative analysis of banking websites ranking using six multi-criteria methods (a scoring method, a scoring method with preferences, conversion method, Promethee II, Promethee II with preferences, PROSA and TOPSIS) on a sample of 276 respondents in April 2019. It continues the authors` evaluation of the banking websites in Poland started in 2016.
- lines 19-22 - `the most popular banks in Poland` and line 352 - `the respondents assessed 22 banking websites`. The authors should explain the criteria for choosing these banks: by total assets, by market share, by number of clients etc.? What type of banks are? According to European Banking Federation, at the end of 2018, the Polish financial landscape was made up of 32 commercial banks, 543 cooperative banks and 31 branches of credit institutions.
- different terms are used in the paper for the same expression - `e-banking websites` (in title, abstract and text), `internet banking` (in keywords and text), `online banking websites` (in text), `electronic banking` (in text) - and could produce a confusing image. For example, an online bank is a financial institution with no psihical branches, operate exclusively online. The authors should describe what type of bank they choose for the study?
- the study is focused not only on technical but on economic and anti-crisis criteria/attributes of the websites. Please describe/explain what does the `anti-crisis criteria` mean. What the clients could see on website to be evaluated?
- lines 98-99 - `the basic research problem is the question of selecting the best MCDA method for the decision-maker to the problem under consideration`. What is the `problem under consideration`? Furthermore, on lines 251-252, the authors refer to a new/own method to evaluate websites - the conversion method, `which would prove better or more effective than the previous ones, seemed to be a viable solution to the above-mentioned research problem, and the authors also initially decided to take this path`. Is this research problem solved in the final? The authors should answer these questions in text and Conclusions section.
- lines 104-105 - `The main objective of this article is to compare and present possible recommendations regarding the selection of those methods of website evaluation which would be the best from the point of view of the individual client, from the group of various multi-criteria methods.` What are the authors` recommendations? Which is the best method for the client? Please mention it in the Conclusions section.
- lines 163-165 - `From the methodical point of view, the paper concerns the analysis of the possibility of using multi-criteria decision-making methods for the assessment and selection of electronic (internet and mobile) banking systems which would be the best from the point of view of an individual client`. I think that it is difficult for a banking client to evaluate and select the best bank based on different multi-criteria methods, because some of them are not very accessible and need a high level of knowledge. But, for the banking managers, the multi-criteria decision-making methods could be a very useful tool because the customers’ preferences are investigated to identify the factors for further development and for their higher satisfaction. The authors should be more precise regarding the optimal method to be used by a bank customer for websites evaluation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It is confusing, difficult to read.
Poor explanations of the research methodology.
Introduction is not connected with the objective. Analysis of results are so difficult to follow
Literature review is poor in content and do not justify the GAP
I can’t see contribution at all
I believe that the topic is not suitable for the Journal goals and audience
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
On Sustainability in Website Assessment Methods. E-Banking Individual Customers Case
Witold Chmielarz and Marek Zborowski
Objective:
The principal objective of evaluating banking websites and applications. The process involves identification of the most important characteristics of this type of tool for cognitive reasons; establishing a ranking according to specific criterion/criteria; identifying the most and the least significant features of these tools considering the perspectives of different categories of users (???); formulating project recommendations related to designing banking websites and applications.
Major comments:
- The study considers 22 of the most popular banks in Poland. However, the sample does not consider the unpopular banks at all which may have survivorship bias. Although the objective of the study intends to consider different categories of users however eventually ended up with only the students within a specific age range. In addition, the study may have been influenced by the behavioral bias of individuals taking part in the survey in their attitude of optimism and pessimism.
- The study needs to motivate its uniqueness and summary of findings in the introduction section.
- The findings section needs to compare with existing studies especially with the motivated studies.
- The conclusion does not reflect the findings of the research questions.
Minor comments:
- The author/authors need to motivate why the study does not include mobile banking services and only consider Internet banking.
- Cybercrime using internet banking website to the clients is a major challenge now, and it should be a concern in this type of study.
- Tables and text need to be tidied up.
- I expect the conclusion free of tables and references and replace those in the main body under the data analysis section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
line 137 is unclear and a lack of references, "There are numerous approaches for multi-factor decision making..." like which ones??????, how I know the approaches if I can see references
line 146.... what is the first category?
in the "first category" no references and in the other one yes, Why?!
it is a mess of results, that a lack of connection is evident, your paper is difficult to follow, and it is easy to lost interest
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
na
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
