Review Process Artikel dengan Judul:

“Technical efficiencies of Indonesian regional and non-regional banks pre- and post- financial crisis” Untuk Penulis Nury

Effendi, Maman Setiawan, Rina Indiastuti.

Tahap 1: Submission

Dear Dr. Maman Setiawan,

Thank you for submitting your article entitled "Technical efficiencies of Indonesian regional and non-regional banks pre- and

postfinancial crisis" (Submission code: IJEBR-190291) for the International Journal of Economics and Business Research (IJEBR).

Your article has been processed to be refereed.

You can track the progress of your article by logging in at the following Web page:

URL: http://www.inderscience.com/ospeers/login.php

How long will take to review your article?

This depends on the journal. You should directly contact the editor of the journal if you haven't received any communication from the

editor after six months of submission. If you do not receive a satisfactory reply from the journal editor, please contact

submissions@inderscience.com

There are no charges for publishing with Inderscience, unless you require your article to be Open Access (OA). If you receive an

email requesting payment in relation to your article (for example for editing or reviewing services), then you should ignore and delete

the email – it is not a legitimate Inderscience email. If you are unsure, you can check with us at: submissions@inderscience.com

If you are considering publishing an Open Access article with us, remember that we will never request payment before your paper has

been accepted.

Thank you for your interest in our journal.

Best regards,

pp. IJEBR Editor

Inderscience Publishers Ltd.

newsubmissions@inderscience.com

Tahap 2: Comments from Referess

Dear Author(s),

We have received the review reports for your paper "Technical efficiencies of Indonesian regional and non-regional banks pre- and

postfinancial crisis".

We require now that you implement in your submission the following recommendations made by the reviewers:

Reviewer A Comments:

==================

Suggestions which would improve the quality of the paper but are not essential for publication:

The paper needs additional work prior to re-considering:

1. How about ASEAN data?

2. Why use data envelopment analysis instead of other methods and why "output"?

3. How about "ordinary" vs. "biased corrected" results?

Reviewer B Comments:

==================

Suggestions which would improve the quality of the paper but are not essential for publication:

The topic of the paper is interesting and it has a contribution to both literature and practical (banking strategy). The paper investigates

the efficiency of the type banks i.e. banks operating regionally and nationally. The paper also investigates the differences of the

efficiency between the two group of banks pre- and post-financial crisis in 2008. I recommend that the paper can be published, but I

have some comments to be considered by the authors as technical and substantial issues. The technical issues include:

1.The title of the Tables should be standard in English writing. For example, the format of Table 3 is different with format of Table 4

and Table 5.

2.There is also typo in the references, see the reference of Setiawan et al. (2012). Author should check the standard of writing.

Changes which must be made before publication:

This paper is written clearly, but there are some minor comments related to the content of the paper:

1.Authors may try to include the similar research in the references from ASEAN if authors could not find in Indonesia.

2.There is another method to estimate technical efficiency i.e. stochastic frontier approach. The author did not explain the reason of

using data envelopment analysis (DEA), instead of stochastic frontier approach (SFA).

3.The author should also include the reason why the output orientation is applied in the DEA.

4.Based on the results, the author should also add the implication of using the ordinary technical efficiency score compared to the

results of the biased corrected technical efficiency score.

NOTE: Please send an email to the editor to acknowledge the reception of this email notification. The editor needs to make sure that

messages reach the authors and don't delay the review process.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Instructions

1) To help the reviewer(s) verify that you have made the required corrections, please append a point-by-point report detailing how the

changes have been made in line with each reviewer's comments at the beginning of your revised manuscript.

2) Responses to reviewers' comments and the revised manuscript must go together in the same single MS Word or PDF file, without

revealing authors' identifications.

3) Append figures, images and tables at the end of your revised manuscript.

4) To upload your revised manuscript, please:

Login via http://www.inderscience.com/ospeers/login.php

(if you do not remember your username or password, you can recover it via http://www.inderscience.com/forgotpw.php)

Then point your browser to http://www.inderscience.com/ospeers/admin/author/articlestatus.php?id=190291 and scroll-down to find

the input box "Author's revised version of file".

Click on 'Browse...' to select the revised document to be submitted and click 'Upload'.

5) Click on "Editor/Author Comments" to access the referee(s) comments and possible annotated files.

6) We advise you to use MS Word to edit your submission and make sure that the revisions within the document are presented as

"tracked changes" so they would be more easily seen by the editor and the reviewers. It is preferable that you upload your revised

manuscript using a MS Word file. If you use LaTeX, please mark your changes as text in colour and provide a PDF file of your article

and the response to the reviewers.

If you have problems uploading the file with your revised manuscript please contact submissions@inderscience.com indicating the

submission ID of your article.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NOTE: In general we expect to receive your revised manuscript within three months or by the revision deadline established by the

editor. Please contact the editor if you will take more than three months to resubmit your revised manuscript.

Your prompt attention is much appreciated.

Dr. Demetri Kantarelis

Int. J. of Economics and Business Research (IJEBR)

submissions@inderscience.com

Tahap III: Author Responses

Responses on Comments

October 07, 2017

The Editors

International Journal of Economics and Business Research (IJEBR)

Dear Editors,

Please find attached our manuscript, entitled, “Technical efficiencies of Indonesian regional and non-regional banks pre- and post-

financial crisis”, which we are submitting for publication in International Journal of Economics and Business Research (IJEBR).

In this revised manuscript, We accommodate all the comments from the reviewers that are relevant for our paper. Most of the comments

are related to enriching and completing the analysis. We also addressed the comments related to English writing and potentially unclear

terminologies, numbers and typos.

Finally, we thank you for considering our revised manuscript for publication in the International Journal of Economics and Business

Research (IJEBR).

Yours sincerely,

Author

Reviewer A Comments:

==================

Comment 1

How about ASEAN data?

Answer:

In the new version of the paper, we have included the data of the average technical efficiency scores of the banks in some ASEAN

countries based on the previous research for the comparison with this research. (page 11)

Comment 2

Why use data envelopment analysis instead of other methods and why "output"?

Answer:

In the new version of the paper, I have included the reason why we use data envelopment analysis (DEA), instead of stochastic frontier

approach as an alternative method to DEA. (page 5-6)

In the new version of the paper, we also include the reason why we use “output orientation”, instead of “input orientation”. (page 6)

Comment 3

How about "ordinary" vs. "biased corrected" results?

Answer:

In the new version of the paper, we have provided the advantage of using the biased-corrected technical efficiency score. The explanation

of inclusion of ordinary and biased-corrected technical efficiency score also has been added. (page 7)

Reviewer B Comments:

==================

Comment 1

The title of the Tables should be standard in English writing. For example, the format of Table 3 is different with format of Table 4

and Table 5.

Answer:

The format of the Tables has been adjusted. (page 12-13)

Comment 2

There is also typo in the references, see the reference of Setiawan et al. (2012). Author should check the standard of writing.

Answer:

The references of Setiawan et al. (2012) and other typos of the references have been corrected. (Page 15-16)

Comment 3

Authors may try to include the similar research in the references from ASEAN if authors could not find in Indonesia.

Answer:

In the new version of the paper, we have included references which have ever investigated the technical efficiency of the banks in

ASEAN. The similar research only related to the effect of the golbal financial crisis in 2008 on technical efficiency of the banks in

three ASEAN countries. (page 5)

Comment 4

There is another method to estimate technical efficiency i.e. stochastic frontier approach. The author did not explain the reason of

using data envelopment analysis (DEA), instead of stochastic frontier approach (SFA).

Answer:

In the new version of the paper, I have included the reason why we use data envelopment analysis (DEA), instead of stochastic frontier

approach as an alternative method to DEA. (page 5-6).

Comment 5

The author should also include the reason why the output orientation is applied in the DEA.

Answer:

In the new version of the paper, we also include the reason why we use “output orientation”, instead of “input orientation”. (page 6)

Comment 6

Based on the results, the author should also add the implication of using the ordinary technical efficiency score compared to the results

of the biased corrected technical efficiency score.

Answer:

In the new version of the paper, the implication of using bootstrapping approach has been added. (page 10)

Tahap IV: Paper Accepted

Tahap V: Author Final Version

Tahap VI: Proofread 1

Tahap VII: Final Version hasil Proofread