Is E-Trust a Driver of Sustainability? An Assessment of Turkish E-Commerce Sector with an Extended Intuitionistic Fuzzy ORESTE Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The following are my comments on the manuscript:
1. Abstract: It has been mentioned that “In addition, an extended intuitionistic fuzzy 13 ORESTE (Organisation, Rangement Et Synthèse De Données Relationnelles) approach was proposed.” Did the method propose or adopted? Some redundant data are there in the abstract. Focus on key findings and contributions of the study. Avoid repetitive sentences.
2. Introduction: The expansion for E-commerce must be provided in the first mention itself. Maintain uniformity. In some places, it was mentioned as EC while in another place, it was mentioned as E-commerce. The introduction looks very long. Consider keeping it simple and clear. Lines 117 to 126 can be provided in a single line. Also, lines from 164 to 169 can be given as a single line. Consider providing research objectives and questions. Provide expansions for all the abbreviations used. Drastic improvement is needed in the introduction section.
3. Literature Review: What is e-WS? Section 2.1, states the research gaps identified by reviewing earlier studies. Highlight the advantages of the ORESTE method. Is Table 1 necessary? The same thing has been discussed in Section 2.2.
4. Method: “Because female consumers constitute 85% of all consumers’ purchasing decisions of e-commerce or affect their purchasing decisions, this per-277 centage shows that there are female consumers as more profitable customers”. Provide a reference for this claim. Section 3.1 can be better presented. Many unnecessary details are there. Stick to the content. The number of criteria given in Table 2 is very low. Sections 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 can be merged. Tables 3 and 4 can be supported with reference. How the criteria are evaluated. Do any experts have been approached for evaluating the criteria?
5. Results and Discussion: Looks vague. Compare the outcome of the study with earlier works. Highlight if there are any deviations in your study from other studies. Too many tables are given. Keep only the important tables. Move the remaining tables to the appendix section.
6. Conclusion: Poor. Clearly conclude the study. Consider stating the major findings, contributions, limitations, and future scope of the study.
7. Reference: Many references are provided. However, most of them are not related or significant to the study. Avoid old articles. Consider citing articles that are published in recent times. Consider the following article for improving the quality of the manuscript:
· Evaluation of the barriers in the adoption of automated technology by the manufacturing sector: a case from India
· E-commerce in Spain: Determining factors and the importance of the e-trust
· E-commerce and consumer protection in India: the emerging trend
· A Novel Quality Function Deployment Based Integrated Framework for Improving Supply Chain Sustainability
· What matters in the e-commerce era? Modelling and mapping shop rents in Guangzhou, China
Overall, there are many inconsistencies in the manuscript. It lacks coherence and continuity. Attention must be given to the presentation of the manuscript also. Hence, I recommend strict major revision.
Author Response
Reviewer1:
The following are my comments on the manuscript:
- Abstract: It has been mentioned that “In addition, an extended intuitionistic fuzzy 13 ORESTE (Organisation, Rangement Et Synthèse De Données Relationnelles) approach was proposed.” Did the method propose or adopted? Some redundant data are there in the abstract. Focus on key findings and contributions of the study. Avoid repetitive sentences.
The intuitionistic fuzzy was adopted, and the related sentence was corrected in the Abstract. The excessive information and repetitions were removed. Key findings and contributions were focused.
- Introduction: The expansion for E-commerce must be provided in the first mention itself. Maintain uniformity. In some places, it was mentioned as EC while in another place, it was mentioned as E-commerce. The introduction looks very long. Consider keeping it simple and clear. Lines 117 to 126 can be provided in a single line. Also, lines from 164 to 169 can be given as a single line. Consider providing research objectives and questions. Provide expansions for all the abbreviations used. Drastic improvement is needed in the introduction section.
The expansion of E-commerce was retained throughout the manuscript to keep uniformity.
The mentioned listed items were given in lines.
The introduction section was shortened and improved.
Research questions and objectives were provided.
The abbreviations were explained at the end of the manuscript.
- Literature Review: What is e-WS? Section 2.1, states the research gaps identified by reviewing earlier studies. Highlight the advantages of the ORESTE method. Is Table 1 necessary? The same thing has been discussed in Section 2.2.
The advantages of the ORESTE method were highlighted in section 2.2
Table 1 clearly reveals the conducted studies on different problems with various hybrid methods. Thatswhy, the repetitions were excluded from Section 2.2.
The e-WS stands for e-commerce web shopping. In order not to cause any misunderstanding, the abbreviation form was removed from the article.
- Method: “Because female consumers constitute 85% of all consumers’ purchasing decisions of e-commerce or affect their purchasing decisions, this percentage shows that there are female consumers as more profitable customers”. Provide a reference for this claim. Section 3.1 can be better presented. Many unnecessary details are there. Stick to the content. The number of criteria given in Table 2 is very low. Sections 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 can be merged. Tables 3 and 4 can be supported with reference. How the criteria are evaluated. Do any experts have been approached for evaluating the criteria?
We referenced the sentence related to the percentage of online female customers
In order to better present section 3.1., unnecessary information was excluded.
Tables 3 and 4 are supported with references.
The number of criteria was the limitation of the study. That's why this point is highlighted in the section on “limitations and future studies”.
The criteria were evaluated by surveying decision-makers. The survey questionnaire is given in Appendix.
- Results and Discussion: Looks vague. Compare the outcome of the study with earlier works. Highlight if there are any deviations in your study from other studies. Too many tables are given. Keep only the important tables. Move the remaining tables to the appendix section.
The comparison was made with the earlier studies. The excessive tables were moved to the Appendix.
- Conclusion: Poor. Clearly conclude the study. Consider stating the major findings, contributions, limitations, and future scope of the study.
The conclusion part was improved, and the limitations and future directions were enhanced.
- Reference: Many references are provided. However, most of them are not related or significant to the study. Avoid old articles. Consider citing articles that are published in recent times. Consider the following article for improving the quality of the manuscript:
- Evaluation of the barriers in the adoption of automated technology by the manufacturing sector: a case from India
- E-commerce in Spain: Determining factors and the importance of the e-trust
- E-commerce and consumer protection in India: the emerging trend
- A Novel Quality Function Deployment Based Integrated Framework for Improving Supply Chain Sustainability
- What matters in the e-commerce era? Modelling and mapping shop rents in Guangzhou, China
We benefitted from the above-mentioned articles and referenced them in the article. Thank you for the suggestion.
Overall, there are many inconsistencies in the manuscript. It lacks coherence and continuity. Attention must be given to the presentation of the manuscript also. Hence, I recommend strict major revision.
Reviewer 2 Report
I am pleased to submit my review for the manuscript titled: Are E-commerce Websites Sustainable? An Assessment with A Novel Intuitionistic Fuzzy MCDM Approach. Please address these concerns and recommendations carefully.
1. In order to establish the significance and value of the study, it is necessary to provide a comprehensive rationale for the research, which emphasizes its relevance and unique contributions to the current scholarly discourse. This will strengthen the study's originality and scholarly impact.
2. Please revise the title and make it attractive for the readers.
3. The author must revise the abstract to include such gaps, how they fill them, topic importance, methods and clear-cut findings, and policy implications from research findings.
4. The abstract is too long, please shorten the abstract.
5. The introduction is generally acceptable for the first part, but it fails to establish the need for carrying out this study? What was the driving force behind conducting this particular study?
6. At the end of the introduction, in presenting the paper goals, try to answer the questions: How is the current research important? And how is it novel and contributes to the state of the art?
7. How and when did experts were consulted? How many rounds of revisions? The demographic should clearly be presented in Table form, along with their organizations and nationality. Also please include questionnaire survey and data analysis.
8. The research gap should be clearly defined.
9. What is the reason of choosing an extended intuitionistic fuzzy ORESTE method? Why not other MCDM methods, what is the reason and motivation? How is it Novel? The authors mentioned in the title.
10. In the results and discussion section, I did not find discussions, rather authors only provided the findings of the study.
11. I found that, the authors did not discuss and compare the findings with previous studies. So the main concern is arising of research gap. How did authors find the research gap? What is the research gap to conduct this study? The results of earlier studies should be compared to the findings of this study.
12. What is your conclusion for theory and method development? Please, reflect on the conclusion. You need to convince the reader why this research is important and what its contribution.
13. Also provide policy recommendations as well as limitations and future research direction.
Author Response
Review2:
I am pleased to submit my review for the manuscript titled: Are E-commerce Websites Sustainable? An Assessment with A Novel Intuitionistic Fuzzy MCDM Approach. Please address these concerns and recommendations carefully.
- In order to establish the significance and value of the study, it is necessary to provide a comprehensive rationale for the research, which emphasizes its relevance and unique contributions to the current scholarly discourse. This will strengthen the study's originality and scholarly impact.
The rapid growth of digital technology has completely changed how organizations run and communicate with their stakeholders. The idea of sustainability has drawn a lot of attention in recent years, which is a reflection of the rising concern about environmental, social, and economic challenges. E-trust has concurrently come to be recognized as a crucial element in determining the nature of online interactions and transactions. This study seeks to examine the connection between e-trust and sustainability, illuminating their interaction and adding to the present scholarly conversation.
- Please revise the title and make it attractive for the readers.
The title was made attractive.
- The author must revise the abstract to include such gaps, how they fill them, topic importance, methods and clear-cut findings, and policy implications from research findings.
The abstract was revised and included the points you mentioned.
- The abstract is too long, please shorten the abstract.
The abstract was shortened.
- The introduction is generally acceptable for the first part, but it fails to establish the need for carrying out this study? What was the driving force behind conducting this particular study?
We improved the introduction part and highlighted the driving force of the study.
- At the end of the introduction, in presenting the paper goals, try to answer the questions: How is the current research important? And how is it novel and contributes to the state of the art?
We defined the research questions and the importance of the study was highlighted as you suggest at the end of the Introduction.
- How and when did experts were consulted? How many rounds of revisions? The demographic should clearly be presented in Table form, along with their organizations and nationality. Also please include questionnaire survey and data analysis.
The decision makers’ information is given in 3. Section (Method) and the demographic of decision makers are given in Table 5 to weigh the experts. If decision makers’ detailed information were given in prior, such as in the Method section, then it would be a repetition.
The questionnaire survey for decision-makers was provided and included in the Appendix.
- The research gap should be clearly defined.
The contribution and novelty were addressed in the abstract and also at the end of the introduction.
Based on your and other reviewers’ comments, the research gaps were defined in section 2.2 clearly. Table 1 is also showing the existing literature on ORESTE and there is no research on the IF_ORESTE.
- What is the reason of choosing an extended intuitionistic fuzzy ORESTE method? Why not other MCDM methods, what is the reason and motivation? How is it Novel? The authors mentioned in the title.
The reason for choosing ORESTE methods was explained at the end of the Introduction section, and the advantages of the method were highlighted in the second section. Its novelty is applying IF to the ORESTE method. There is no study that examines IF-ORESTE, especially, in the e-commerce industry. The novelty of the study was highlighted in the Introduction section and the title was corrected.
- In the results and discussion section, I did not find discussions, rather authors only provided the findings of the study.
The result was discussed in detail.
- I found that, the authors did not discuss and compare the findings with previous studies. So the main concern is arising of research gap. How did authors find the research gap? What is the research gap to conduct this study? The results of earlier studies should be compared to the findings of this study.
The result was compared with the findings of previous studies.
- What is your conclusion for theory and method development? Please, reflect on the conclusion. You need to convince the reader why this research is important and what its contribution.
We consider that using different aggregating operators can extend and develop new methods. This idea was included in the section ” Limitation and future direction”.
The study of the connection between e-trust and sustainability is crucial for the development of theories and methodologies. Through this study, we may learn important things about how e-trust influences sustainability, adding to both theoretical understanding and real-world applications.
- Also provide policy recommendations as well as limitations and future research direction.
Policy recommendations, limitations, and future research direction were provided.
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall, the paper has a good structure and presentation. I have, however, some comments and suggestions for the authors:
1. Due to the high volume of calculations, all the formulas should be re-checked to ensure no errors in indices, typing, or concepts.
2. Check that all of your Figures and Tables explain your text well.
3. Add new literature, especially in 2023. You can check read the following literature
Maclaurin symmetric mean aggregation operators based on novel Frank T-norm and T-conorm for intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute group decision-making
4. Check the English presentation of this paper to remove the typo mistakes.
5. Also, you need to look for recent studies and remove those more than 5 years unless they are essential. You must look to further studies in high-impact factor journals and limit to a large extent those from conferences.
6. Add the significance of the fuzzy set and the intuitionistic fuzzy set with appropriate literature.
7. There is no comparative study. Please compare your results with the below paper and some other recent papers:
Assessment of Solar Panel Using Multiattribute Decision-Making Approach Based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Aczel Alsina Heronian Mean Operator
8. After comparative study, the advantages of the proposed work must be reflected in the discussion section.
This manuscript can be published with the changes mentioned. At this stage, I'm going with a minor revision and waiting for your corrections.
No comments
Author Response
Review3:
Overall, the paper has a good structure and presentation. I have, however, some comments and suggestions for the authors:
- Due to the high volume of calculations, all the formulas should be re-checked to ensure no errors in indices, typing, or concepts.
We checked all formulas including indices.
- Check that all of your Figures and Tables explain your text well.
We controlled all Figures and Tables captions that explain them.
- Add new literature, especially in 2023. You can check read the following literature
Maclaurin symmetric mean aggregation operators based on novel Frank T-norm and T-conorm for intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute group decision-making
We added new papers published in 2023.
- Check the English presentation of this paper to remove the typo mistakes.
We proofread the English language throughout of the manuscript
- Also, you need to look for recent studies and remove those more than 5 years unless they are essential. You must look to further studies in high-impact factor journals and limit to a large extent those from conferences.
We benefitted from the recent studies to improve the quality of the paper.
- Add the significance of the fuzzy set and the intuitionistic fuzzy set with appropriate literature.
The significance of fuzzy set theory was added at the end of Section 2.2 below Table 1. The appropriate IF literature is also given in this section.
- There is no comparative study. Please compare your results with the below paper and some other recent papers:
Assessment of Solar Panel Using Multiattribute Decision-Making Approach Based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Aczel Alsina Heronian Mean Operator
We compared our study with the paper you suggested. Thank you for the suggestion.
- After comparative study, the advantages of the proposed work must be reflected in the discussion section.
This manuscript can be published with the changes mentioned.,
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Earlier comments were addressed to a satisfactory level. Hence, the manuscript may be considered for possible publication.
Author Response
Comments for Reviewer
Reviewer 1:
Earlier comments were addressed to a satisfactory level. Hence, the manuscript may be considered for possible publication.
Thnks lot
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please separate the discussion part from conclusion section. It must be justified after the results.
Author Response
Comments for Reviewer
Reviewer 2:
Please separate the discussion part from the conclusion section. It must be justified after the results.
We divided the discussion part into the conclusion part. We also added some references related to the topic. The conclusion part was improved.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is well revised; however, my comment 3 is not addressed correctly. I am recommending the paper after addressing comment 3.
The English seems ok.
Author Response
Reviewer 3:
The paper is well revised; however, my comment 3 is not addressed correctly. I am recommending the paper after addressing comment 3.
We also added this references related to the topic.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
