The Effect of Applying Sustainability (Maqasid Shariah) and Competition on Islamic Bank Financing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper tries to provide a theoretical and empirical model that could help understand the effect of Maqasid Shariah and competition on Islamic Bank Financing. I have the following issues for the paper:
- First, there are serious drawbacks in the language which hinders the readability and understandability of the paper. Please see the comments on the language.
- The paper should be restructured entirely. The introduction is weak and needs to be written in the following format/flow. For instance, an introduction should start with a research question, identifies the hypothesis, provides a motivation for the hypothesis test, presents the theory that motivates the hypothesis, approaches and brief findings, contributions (identify gaps in literature and clearly argue how your paper fills this research gap)--that is after reading the contribution section a reader wants to know what is there in the work that one did not know about from previous works.
- The conclusion section is very weak. No policy implications are discussed.
- There are no descriptive statistics pertaining to the data used in the paper.
- There is no information regarding the instruments used in the methodology, although it is articulated that IV approach is followed.
- The research question is "does sustainability matter for improving competition in Islamic Bank financing?". However, the the model used in the study does not allow to test answer this question, because sustainability and competition are two separate variables in the empirical setting. Accordingly, it is found that competition improves the growth of loans and so does MS variable. So, one cannot clearly argue on the impact of sustainability on the competition from these findings. The authors articulate that this is because of adding the variables to the model will imply the relationship. But this is not true. One cannot clearly state that sustainability improves competition upon this model. These are two independent variables and one can only measure their individual impacts on the dependent variable, i.e. growth of loans.
Unfortunately, the English in the present manuscript is not of publication quality . The authors should carefully proof-read spell check to eliminate grammatical errors. There are various issues such as the lack of structure and clarity, inadequate punctuation and formatting, improper use of academic language. Some sentences are lengthy and complex, making it difficult to understand their intended meaning. In addition, it's very important to use formal and academic language. Lastly, the text does not flow smoothly from one idea to the next. The paper should incorporate appropriate transition words and phrases to establish logical connections between sentences and paragraphs.
Author Response
Dear Professor
Thank you very much for your comments and suggestion. I have revised accordingly for the detailed revision point; please look at the attachment.
Best
YS
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The part of results, discussions and conclusions should be improved. Everything is presented very briefly, and the actual results are not clear enough.
Also, the limits of the research should be clearly presented.
I recommend the author to present a way to continue this study.
Author Response
Point 1: The part of results, discussions and conclusions should be improved. Everything is presented very briefly, and the actual results are not clear enough.
Response 1: Thank you for your comments and suggestion.
In result section: I have added a sentences to illustrates how the parameter affect on respected variables. I merge three table become one Table 3 to reduce the space and easy to compare and analysis between results. In particular hypothesis 3, I added new analysis to improve understanding by conducting simulation analysis to get more detail by comparing the results between bank that apply sustainability (MS) and less sustainability (MS0) by depicting in the Table 4 and demonstrating in Figure 2. I hope the results will be more clear and focus on hypothesis.
In discussion section: I have added some expalantion and comparing with previous results for both theory and empirical.
In the conclusion section: I extend the conclusion for in first and second paragraph as summary, in third paragraph the implication of my results to the existing hypothesis, the policy implication, limitation of study, and further study for next research.
Point 2: Also, the limits of the research should be clearly presented.
Response 2: Thank you for your comments and suggestion; I have added the limitation in conclusion section.
Point 3: I recommend the author to present a way to continue this study.
Response 3: Thank you for your comments, I have added further study in Conclusion section and suggesting how to continue this study.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Attached , you can find my comments !
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Low level of English Language !
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: First, we suggest the author to slightly modify the proposed title of the study, i.e. instead of „The Effect of Sustainability (Maqasid Shariah) and Competition on Islamic Bank Financing”, suggest the title : „The Effect of Applying Sustainability (Maqasid Shariah) and Competition within Islamic Bank Financing”.
Response 1: Thank you for your comments and suggestion. It improves my manuscript. I have changed the title to “The Effect of Sustainability (Maqasid Shariah) and Competition on Islamic Bank Financing”,
Point 2: The introduction part is far too long (3 pages out of 10); I suggest that the text from line 63 to line 122 of the introduction part be included in point 2, starting with line 123. Also, the text from line 36 to line 47, page 1 and 2 is confusing and includes content errors, most likely caused by weak English; it is not clear what is the relationship between CSR and MS and what is the relationship between "moral economy" vs. CSR; I suggest the author to completely redraft. First, it should be clearly explained what "moral economy" refers to, what is the history of the concept and what are the differences between it and "moral capitalism", with reference to the Western literature on "moral capitalism"; in this literature, "moral capitalism" has been discussed for about two and a half centuries, and CSR is only an important part of the concept !!!
Response 2: Thank you for your comments and suggestion, I have reduced the introduction to three pages and redrafted and restructured the text. Hopefully, the manuscript become clear now. I have changed that CSR as another proxied of sustainability. I have removed the moral economy within text and change into Islamic business ethics as previous literature has most cited. But suggesting moral capitalism is kind of interesting. So I have added in section Literature Reviews as your suggestion about Social Capitalism than I compared it with Maqasid Shariah. Many thanks for this valuable information.
Point 3: The author uses the phrase "Zakat, Infaq, Waqf and Qard Hassan ..." in line 45, page 1, and later, in several places in the text, uses some of the sequences of this phrase (e.g. Zakat and Qard Hassan ...), but nowhere in the text does he explain what he is referring to or what the content of these terms is. In any case, the sentence of line 45-46 makes no sense and one cannot deduce what idea the author is invoking. Later, in several parts of the article, the author refers to the addition/inclusion of "Zakat and Qard Hassan" (see line 291) as elements included in the model and which would have led to improved growth of funding in Islamic banks; how could the two concepts and/or terms, which are not described as to what they consist of, be subsequently included in any type of model?
Response 3: Thank you for your comments, I have changed the variables' name into Zakat and Qard Hassan as the data is available and used in my research. About Zakat Infaq Waqf and Qard Hassan, I move to the Literature Review section while these terms as part of the references. These terms I have described in the literature review.
Point 4: Point 2, the name "model setup" I think is not appropriate; I suggest alternative terms like "model building" or "model configuration".
Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. I have changed it to “Model Building” in Section 3.
Point 5: suggest the author to extend the number of references at least by including 45 volumes/books on international banking; among such books I mention:
− Smith C. Roy et al - Global Banking,Third Edition, Oxford Univ. Press, 2012
− Heffernan Sh. - Modern Banking, Wily, UK, 2005
Response 5: Many thank for this suggestion, I have added these two goods book in the text especially for the literature review, and I get good information on them.
Point 6: Also in the sense mentioned in point 4, since competition is one of the key topics around which the whole study is built, I appreciate that the author should refer at least in 4-5 sentences to M. Porter's conception (On competition, Harvard Business School, 2008).
The additional references that would arise, if the author takes into account the suggestions in points 4 and 5, should be included in the form of about 1 page of additional text in section 2 of the study.
Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. Again, thank you very much for this suggestion, of course, this book is good, and I read it after you mentioned and put these literatures in the literature review section and added in the discussion section. I have added about four sentences from this book as your suggestion.
Point 7: Some minor errors are likely to be due to insufficient English and/or insufficiently careful drafting of the study with reference to the theory in economics of competition and the principles of sustainable growth of a bank. In that sense , I imply errors that may be considered errors of content and/or form:
- On page 2,line 64-65 , the author says: "sustainability, which reduces risk, will enhance the bank's capacity against competitors"; the question that automatically arises is: "how exactly do the principles of applying sustainability enhance the bank's capacity against competitors; against other competitors which are also Islamic banks and/or against traditional banks?
- In Hypothesis 2 line ,193 , the statement is confusing, i.e.: it is not clear how
exactly the improvement of MS could lead to improve growth for funding?.
Response 7: Thank you for your suggestion. Yes, you are correct. After I read it, I thought that was my error in building sentences. Thank you for your correction.
- I have removed those sentences as your suggestion.
- I have added a brief explanation of the hypothesis in an introduction because other reviewer require the hypothesis should stated in the introduction section.
Point 8: In tables 1, 2, 3 the value of 217 observations is nowhere explained; what does it refer to?
Response 8: Thank you for your comments. Now, there is no table 1,2,3, but I merge into Table 3, because Table 2 now is Descriptive statistics that require by other reviewers. I have added information in Table 2 below about Obs = Number of observations, I also added Number of Observations in Table 3 so the reader is not confused.
Point 9: I suggest the author to re-examine the abbreviations used and the equations proposed in relations (4), (5), (6); as I fail to understand how the increase of risky financing takes place and how MS is applied in this situation by Islamic banks.
Response 9: Thank you for your comments; at this moment, the equation have changed, due to other reviewer comments to include on how this analysis can be compared with conventional. So I proved this using a theoretical approach rather than an empirical model. But your suggestion has been included in Model Building Section and Appendix A2 for defining complete indicator of MS.
Moreover to improve the reader understanding this is my argument about MS
This is the statement that I added in Section 3: Model Building
I define that MS is the growth of Total MS composite indicator that consists Social Indicators and Governance Indicators, as well as Zakat and Qard Hassan. A decision that MS is
- p(MS)=1 or Dummy Variable = 1 is the positive growth of the MS total score, and I assumed if IB comply this indicator IB will have better management and less risk. Positive growth of MS is increasing total score in the MS either CSR and Governance;
- p(MS)=0 or DummyVariable = 0 is the negative growth of the MS total score, and I assume IB has decreasing MS score indicators.
So, it is clear when the IB has negative growth persistent, the MS regime will be shift to less MS (MS0). Otherwise if the IB has persistent positive growth the MS so I can define that MS is strong.
This is the statement I insert in Appendix Section A2.
The MS Total Indicators cosist of Social Indicators and Governance Indicators.
The social indicator is Corporate Social Responsibility activities and distribution of funds through Zakat, Qard Hassan, and Charity (ZQH) which is treated as an Instrumental Variable. So omitted ZQH from social indicator and let the MS only CSR activities and Governance indicators
- Social Indicators proxies by the CSR activity consist of
- Mandatory CSR conduct of MS (that consists of 5 indicators that score with binary value) and
- voluntarily conduct of CSR (consists of 5 sub-indicators that score with binary value).
- Governance Indicators depend on the Sharia ecosystem of a country that each Islamic Bank should follow accordingly. This consists of
- Regulations were assessed with binary values that comprised of
- Islamic Bank regulation,
- Specific accounting/ reporting regulation for Islamic Finance;
- Specific Sharia governance regulation for Islamic Finance;
- Takaful Regulation;
- Sukuk Regulation;
- Islamic funds Regulation.
- Sharia Governance, I converted the score if there is a number into binary values for these indicators that consists of
- Number of scholars with at least one board membership is measured by the number of people
- Number of scholars with more than 5 board memberships is measured by the number of person
- Number of institutions with more than 3 Standard System Boards measured by the number of the person
- Centralized Sharia committee measured by a binary value
- Corporate Governance values using binary value
- Independent chairperson of the Board
- Non-Executive chair risk management committee
- Non-Executive chair of the audit committee
- Number of independent directors on the board
- Disclosure index that consists of 78 sub-indicators
- Regulations were assessed with binary values that comprised of
Point 10: In equation 6 it is not clear how the factors defining MS were included in the equation?
Response 10: Thank you for your correction; yes, you are correct; I have revised the equation. It is included in the equation to assess whether IB that persistently apply improves IB financing. This equation will test the hypothesis of MS on the growth of financing. The factors that define MS, I have mentioned in point 9.
Point 11: In the final part of the study, point 6, conclusions, should be completely reproduced and the dialogue the author has with himself should be dropped; however, the 7 lines of text should be extended, I think, to at least 2/3 page text; in this additional added text the author should answer questions such as:
- What is the main conclusion of the study on the relationship between the application of sustainability principles vs. the application of MS in the context of competition between Islamic banks;
- What is the main conclusion of the study on the relationship between the application of sustainability principles vs. the application of MS in the context of competition:
- Islamic banks vs. traditional banks;
- What limitations did the author face in conducting the study?;
- What is the impact of digital technologies for applying MS in Islamic banks?;What are the novel elements that the study brings to the literature on this topic? Are any other similar studies considered by the author for the future?
Response 11: Thank you for your suggestion. I have reproduced and expand it, and now the conclusion section is in two pages.
- I have changed as per your suggestion in the Conclusion section in the first paragraph;
- I think the second point is similar to the firs point, so I did not answer.
- I have added the implication of this study compared to conventional banking.
- I have added the limitation in the conclusion section in the fourth paragraph.
- I have added the possibility of digital technologies on MS in IB.
Formal Aspects
Point 1: Author should carefully check the entire text for misspellings/grammatical corrections
(e.g.: see first sentence on page 1, line 21-22 „Theoretically, the decision of a firm to engage in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) triggers by different motives of CSR.”,; page 2, line 63-64, the two sentences are confusing; there is probably a comma instead of a dot between them; line 179, page 5, the word "dan" makes no sense; what does it refer to; page 8, line 266, the word "growth" is capitalized ? etc).
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. I have checked it entirely and hopefully now its much better.
Point 2: The study is mostly written in the first person singular, following the model "I assume..."; in some places the phrase "if we..." is used. (e.g. line 63 page 2 etc.); I suggest writing the study in the first person plural or impersonal.
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. I have deleted the we and change it into I and you for the reader..
Point 3: The study repeatedly uses the phrase "moral economy"; I suggest that the phrase "moral capitalism" would be more appropriate, as noted in point 2 A of these comments of reviewer 1!
Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. I have removed it and try to avoid those terms.
Point 4: Line 206, page 5 uses the phrase "avoid noise in..."; I suggest the phrase: "avoid inconsistency";
Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. I have changed it.
Point 5: The sentence from line 219 to 223 is too long and induces confusion for the reader; I suggest that all the variables in the equation on line 218 be explained in a table;
Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. I have restructured the paper according to your suggestion by checking word by word and the article's structure. Hopefully, now the reviewer can easy to read my manuscript.
Point 6: In point 3.2, page 6, the explanations on lines 231-237 include several abbreviated phrases that are not explained in the text (even if one can deduce what w3 refers to); all variables related to equation (8) should be rephrased; the phrase "total cost" does not make any sense/logic, it should be completely rephrased.
Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. I have revised it and place the definition and the concept the variable chosen in Table
Point 7: There are some sentences where the author uses the same word and/or phrases repeatedly, unnecessarily; it induces a redundancy effect which is not suitable for an academic study; examples in the sense mentioned:
- In the sentence on line 50-53, page 2 the word "that" is used 3 times unnecessarily;- Line 102-103, the term "model" is used 3 times in one sentence; not appropriate; in addition, the syntax in the same sentence is incorrect;
- The term "bunch", line 103 page 3 is not appropriate for an academic study; I suggest "a lot", "package" or similar;
- Line 117, same page, reference to Hassan has no logical basis; what does the author refer to?
- The sentence in line 300, page 9, "This means that Islamic Bank needs more market amidst its lack of market.", makes no sense and is at best a tautology.
Response 7: Thank you for your suggestion.
- I have revised and moved into section literature review;
- I have changed it into “a lot of”
- Yes, you are correct Sir/Madam, I have changed it according to the effect through the IV variable.
- Yes, you are correct Sir/Madam, I have removed those sentences already, because it makes any sense.
Point 8: There are some abbreviations used by the author (see ESC, line 70) which are not explained at first use in the text.
Response 8: Thank you for your suggestion. I have added the abbreviation.
Point 9: Among the 22 references at the end of the study, most of the titles of studies or textbooks are written in lower case, except for reference 19; why?
Response 9: Thank you for your correction. Yes, I have revised it accordingly. Again, many thanks for your comments and suggestion. It really improves my manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The issues raised by the authors are topical and interesting for the reader. It can be a source of inspiration for both theorists and practitioners. It can be a starting point for further scientific research.
The text is clear. The author logically conduct a scientific argument.
The title indicates the subject matter discussed in the text.
The abstract is well written, comprehensive and sufficiently concise.
The keywords are appropriate.
In the introduction, the author should indicate the purpose of the research and describe the structure of the text.
A major weakness of the text is the literature review. Only 22 literature references were used (only 5 of the publications are from 2018 or later). The amount of cited literature must absolutely be increased by at least 20 items no older than 5 years.
No self-citations found.
The research process raises no objections. The author has correctly verified the hypotheses.
The "Conclusions" section needs to be expanded. The author should rely more on the analyses conducted earlier, including the literature. The author should also point out other implications of the research results and various directions for further research.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Point 1: In the introduction, the author should indicate the purpose of the research and describe the structure of the text.
Response 1: Thank you for your comments and suggestion. It improves my manuscript. I have rechecked word by word and restructured the paper, although the paper is getting longer due to accommodating other reviewers, such as Literature Review, to improve the paper.
Point 2: A major weakness of the text is the literature review. Only 22 literature references were used (only 5 of the publications are from 2018 or later). The amount of cited literature must absolutely be increased by at least 20 items no older than 5 years.
Response 2: Thank you for your comments and suggestion, I have added new 22 articles into references to improve number of references that strongly relevant to the paper. So the total number of articles now is 44 references. Due to the limitation of research references discuss about sustainability in Islamic Banking, I could not guarantee that the references range with the latest five years, but I did my best.
Point 3: No self-citations found.
Response 3: Thank you for your comments; I have added my article about Islamic Bank Sustainability using the Econometric approach. So self-citation is available.
Point 4: The "Conclusions" section needs to be expanded. The author should rely more on the analyses conducted earlier, including the literature. The author should also point out other implications of the research results and various directions for further research.
Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. I extend the conclusion in the first and second paragraphs as a summary; in the third paragraph, the implication of my results to the existing hypothesis, the policy implication, the limitation of the study, and further study for subsequent research.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
The title of the manuscript "The Effect of Sustainability (Maqasid Shariah) and Competition on Islamic Bank Financing" encapsulates a critical subject matter that is highly relevant to the field of Islamic banking. It promises to contribute valuable insights into the interface between Islamic law, sustainability, competition, and bank financing. However, after thorough review, several areas of the manuscript need improvement and refinement to make the study more robust and to make the reader understand the context and importance of the study in a more clear and concise way.
Abstract: The abstract is the first thing that readers see, and it should be comprehensive enough to provide a clear snapshot of your study. It currently lacks the needed depth and breadth. The abstract could benefit from providing more detailed information about the methods, the major findings, and their implications. This would give readers a clear idea of what to expect in the paper.
Literature Review: It's recommended to create a separate section for the literature review in Section 2. This would allow for a more structured and in-depth discussion of the various studies conducted on similar themes. Moreover, identifying research gaps within this section can help establish the necessity of the current study.
Theoretical and Practical Contributions: The manuscript does not clearly outline the theoretical and practical contributions of the study. This is a crucial aspect that needs to be addressed to help readers understand the potential impacts and applications of your findings. The theoretical contributions should be associated with how this study enhances or challenges existing theories or models. The practical contributions should explain how this research can be used by practitioners in the field of Islamic banking and finance.
Conclusion: The conclusion section seems rather concise and doesn't fully encapsulate the weight of your study. An expanded conclusion, encompassing a summary of the main findings, their implications in the context of the research problem, and how they advance our understanding of the issue, would make the ending of the paper more impactful.
Study Limitations and Future Research: The manuscript could benefit significantly from a more detailed discussion of the study's limitations. This not only enhances the credibility of the study by demonstrating a thoughtful analysis but also paves the way for future research. Suggestions for future studies can be made based on these limitations or on unexplored areas that your research has unearthed.
Overall, while the manuscript addresses an intriguing and important topic, a more detailed and structured approach would significantly enhance its quality and the impact it could have on the field. The mentioned amendments will not only provide clarity to the readers but will also strengthen the overall structure and contribution of the research.
Extensive editing of English language required
Author Response
Point 1: Abstract: The abstract is the first thing that readers see, and it should be comprehensive enough to provide a clear snapshot of your study. It currently lacks the needed depth and breadth. The abstract could benefit from providing more detailed information about the methods, the major findings, and their implications. This would give readers a clear idea of what to expect in the paper.
Response 1: Thank you for your comments and suggestion. It improves my manuscript. I have revised the abstract by adding the objective of the study in the second sentence, followed by my contribution to the literature, the methodology that I employed, the data sample, the results, and the conclusion.
Point 2: Literature Review: It's recommended to create a separate section for the literature review in Section 2. This would allow for a more structured and in-depth discussion of the various studies conducted on similar themes. Moreover, identifying research gaps within this section can help establish the necessity of the current study.
Response 2: Thank you for your comments and suggestion, I have added a dedicated literature review in the manuscript that indicates from a specific perspective to answer the hypothesis towards broader knowledge that readers are familiar with. The literature review fills in the brief information in the manuscript that the reader will miss in the hypothesis, results, and discussion. I have added the most relevant topics and explore not only in Islamic Banking perspective but from conventional bank and how this study is important.
Point 3: Theoretical and Practical Contributions: The manuscript does not clearly outline the theoretical and practical contributions of the study. This is a crucial aspect that needs to be addressed to help readers understand the potential impacts and applications of your findings. The theoretical contributions should be associated with how this study enhances or challenges existing theories or models. The practical contributions should explain how this research can be used by practitioners in the field of Islamic banking and finance.
Response 3: Thank you for your comments, I have restructured the paper in the following step:
- In the introduction section: I have added the theoretical contribution from the existing hypothesis in the first paragraph. Moreover, in the following paragraph, I added the current phenomenon of the knowledge gap in the current literature; then, in the third paragraph, I added the importance of the study and the contribution of my study to existing literature. In the later paragraph, I stated the research question and sub-hypothesis to answer the research question.
- In the literature review: I focus on the most relevant topics to answer the hypothesis from the literature point of view concerning the sustainability of Islamic and conventional banks, competition, and banks loan.
- In the model building: I derive the hypothesis into a mathematical approach, prove whether my hypothesis is correct, and produce an empirical model accordingly.
- In the data and method section, I focus on how data that employ in the model to answer the hypothesis, and method and how to estimate the empirical model to get robust results of parameter testing in the hypothesis;
- In the Results section, I focus on testing parameters to determine whether my empirical model is in line with the theoretical model;
- In the Discussion section: I focus on confirming the parameter with previous literature, and how my finding contributed to and added new knowledge;
- In the conclusion section: discuss the summary of findings, implication of my study, policy implication, limitation of my study, and further research.
In practical implication: I have added dedicate paragraph of policy implication in the conclusion section.
Point 4: Conclusion: The conclusion section seems rather concise and doesn't fully encapsulate the weight of your study. An expanded conclusion, encompassing a summary of the main findings, their implications in the context of the research problem, and how they advance our understanding of the issue, would make the ending of the paper more impactful.
Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. I have restructured and expanded the conclusion according to your suggestion. The first paragraph in the conclusion section is about a summary of findings, and the implication of my model in the existing literature that gives this study additional knowledge and impact.
Point 5: Study Limitations and Future Research: The manuscript could benefit significantly from a more detailed discussion of the study's limitations. This not only enhances the credibility of the study by demonstrating a thoughtful analysis but also paves the way for future research. Suggestions for future studies can be made based on these limitations or on unexplored areas that your research has unearthed.
Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. I have added the study limitation in the conclusion and the possibility that further study will do. I added about one paragraph dedicated to this statement based upon limitations and expanded as future research on refining my study.
Point 6: Extensive editing of English language required
Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. I have restructured the paper according to your suggestion by checking word by word and the article's structure. Hopefully, now the reviewer can easy to read my manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
Islamic banking operates on the principles of Shariah, which advocate for the adherence to ethical and responsible financial practices. Within the framework of Maqasid Shariah, sustainability assumes a pivotal role as it seeks to safeguard and foster human well-being, environmental stewardship, and social justice. Undertaking research in these domains serves the purpose of ensuring that Islamic banks remain steadfast in their commitment to these principles and contribute significantly to sustainable development.
Furthermore, competition emerges as a pivotal catalyst for stimulating innovation, efficiency, and customer satisfaction across various industries, including Islamic banking. Conducting research on competition within the realm of Islamic bank financing is instrumental in identifying effective strategies to bolster market competitiveness, attract a larger customer base, and enhance the quality of financial products and services provided. Moreover, such research endeavors can illuminate the regulatory framework and market dynamics that exert influence over competition within the Islamic banking sector, thereby empowering industry stakeholders, policymakers, and regulators to make informed decisions.
In its pursuit of financial inclusion, Islamic banking strives to extend accessible and inclusive financial products and services. Sustainable financing practices play a vital role in advancing this objective by addressing the financing requirements of underserved sectors, including small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and the agricultural sector. Through research in this domain, valuable insights can be obtained regarding the most effective approaches for Islamic banks to reach out to these segments and provide them with the necessary support to foster their growth and development.
I understand that conducting research in the areas of sustainability (Maqasid Shariah) and competition in Islamic bank financing assumes great significance. It ensures the adherence of Islamic banks to ethical principles, fosters their contribution to sustainable development, cultivates market competitiveness, and facilitates financial inclusion. Such research endeavors offer valuable guidance to policymakers, regulators, and industry stakeholders, empowering them to shape the trajectory of Islamic finance in the future.The abstract needs to be redrafted and the objective, methodology, findings and conclusion needs to be include.
My comments
The introduction needs to include the problem and contributions to literature.
A seperate section for the literature review is required to further determine the state of art of the subject.
The data section is not motivated. The authors needs to specify and describes the data and sources and what they captured and why they are necessary.
It is important to report the t-statistics and not only the standard error.
Additional analysis is required to capture the dynamics or control for endogeneity or correlation.
The results also should be compared with the previous findings.
The discussion of results should also include contribution to literature.
The conclusion should be redrafted: summary, policy implications and limitations of study.
It can be improved.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 6 Comments
Point 1: The introduction needs to include the problem and contributions to literature.
Response 1: Thank you for your comments and suggestion. I have added the theoretical contribution from the existing hypothesis in the first paragraph. Moreover, in the following paragraph, I added the current phenomenon of the knowledge gap in the current literature; then, in the third paragraph, I added the importance of the study and the contribution of my study to existing literature. In the later paragraph, I stated the research question and sub-hypothesis to answer the research question.
Point 2: A seperate section for the literature review is required to further determine the state of art of the subject.
Response 2: Thank you for your comments and suggestion, I have added a dedicated literature review in the manuscript that indicates from a specific perspective to answer the hypothesis towards broader knowledge that readers are familiar with. The literature review fills in the brief information in the manuscript that the reader will miss in the hypothesis, results, and discussion. I have added the most relevant topics and explore not only in Islamic Banking perspective but from conventional bank and how this study is important.
Point 3: The data section is not motivated. The authors needs to specify and describes the data and sources and what they captured and why they are necessary.
Response 3: Thank you for your comments, I have added a few sentences the specification why the data was obtained and why the data are necessary.
Point 4: It is important to report the t-statistics and not only the standard error.
Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. I have added T-Statistics in Table 3.
Point 5: Additional analysis is required to capture the dynamics or control for endogeneity or correlation.
Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. I have added the exogenity test explanation in sub-section 4.1 Method to ensure whether IV probit is proper to estimate the empirical model by conducting Wald exogenity test, otherwise if the Wald test is failed, the panel probit is more appropriate.
Point 6: The results also should be compared with the previous findings.
Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. I have added compare to previous findings in the discussion section, so now I can confirm the contribution of my results as additional knowledge in the existing literature.
Point 7: The discussion of results should also include contribution to literature.
Response 7: Thank you for your suggestion. I have restructured the paper according to your suggestion by checking word by word and the article's structure. Hopefully, now the reviewer can easy to read my manuscript.
Point 8: The conclusion should be redrafted: summary, policy implications and limitations of study.
Response 8: Thank you for your suggestion. I have restructured the paper according to your suggestion by checking word by word and the article's structure. Hopefully, now the reviewer can easy to read my manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Author,
Thank you for your revisions. I found them well improved. I have no further reservations. However, an English proofreading is still needed.
Dear Author,
I am of the view that a Moderate editing of English language required. There are still lots of typos and inappropriate use of language.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Thank you for your revisions. I found them well improved. I have no further reservations. However, an English proofreading is still needed.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your comments. I am glad that my revision has fulfilled your request. Thank you very much for your kindness.
Point 2: I am of the view that a Moderate editing of English language required. There are still lots of typos and inappropriate use of language.
Response 2: Thank you for your comment and suggestion. I have revised accordingly, such as changing from personal pronouns (such as I and you) into more academic writing in the entire paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Attached , you can find my comments !
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Minor English editing required !
Author Response
Point 1: Figure 2, page 13 revised text, is correct but it would be helpful if the writing in the diagrams were presented in larger type (more clearly, i.e. zoomed written).
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. I have revised the diagram in Figure 2, so the reader will easily read it.
Point 2: I mention that I am not a native English speaker and therefore my opinion on this topic is only orientative for the journal! The current English version is much improved from the original text. However, in my opinion, I think there are still some errors of syntax and/or terms that are preferred by the author (even if it is clear from various statements of the author). In the sense shown, I exemplify
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion. I have revised it accordingly.
Point 2a: The term " merger" is established in the international Economics literature under the syntagm of "Mergers and Acquisitions"; it is not appropriate for the author to use this term with another meaning to which it refers in various sections of the study (terms such as: to mix, to combine, to cumulate/blend/compound/aggregate etc. should be used by author);
Response 2a: Thank you for your suggestion, I have changed the word from “merge” to “combine” at line 861.
Point 2b: The term "share" , page 3 , line 145, is established in the international Economics literature with the meaning of a equity share or "share" in the shareholders' equity of a listed firm; it is not appropriate for the author to use this term when referring to Islamic Bank with the meaning of targeting profit as a subsidiary objective of a bank (a "share" of potential profit; see line 143-145, revised manuscript !!).
Response 2b: Thank you for your comments, yes you are correct; I changed it from share of profit to profits’ share (which means the firm profit that is shared, not firm’s share)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Thank you for your thorough and considerate responses to the initial review. Here are some additional points based on your revisions:
Introduction Section:
The introduction serves as a window into your research, setting the stage for what’s to come. While it's heartening to see that you’ve made efforts to address the gaps and importance of your study, the inclusion of the hypothesis in the introduction section can be distracting and unconventional. Typically, the introduction should highlight the research problem, its significance, the gap in the literature, and the research questions.
Recommendation:
Shift the detailed discussion of the research hypothesis to the literature review section, where it is more traditionally placed and where you can substantiate it with prior studies.
Use the introduction to clearly outline the problem statement, significance, and research questions.
Literature Review and Hypothesis:
While the literature review is meant to provide a synthesis of prior studies, it should culminate in the establishment of the research hypothesis. This progression from literature synthesis to hypothesis formulation is both logical and methodical.
Recommendation:
After presenting and discussing relevant studies, clearly define your research hypothesis. This would provide a smooth transition and create a clear link between existing studies and your contribution.
Ensure the hypothesis is not just placed, but is derived from gaps or unanswered questions that arise from your review.
Language and Clarity:
Given the prior concern regarding the English language, it’s crucial that after making these adjustments, the manuscript undergoes another round of meticulous proofreading. Consider employing a professional language editing service if you haven't already.
Recommendation:
After restructuring, revisit the entire manuscript to ensure flow and consistency.
Engage a colleague or professional service to review for language clarity and correctness.
Once again, I appreciate your dedication to refining your manuscript. These recommendations aim to further enhance the organization and flow of your paper, ultimately presenting your valuable research in the best light.
Given the prior concern regarding the English language, it’s crucial that after making these adjustments, the manuscript undergoes another round of meticulous proofreading. Consider employing a professional language editing service if you haven't already.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 5 Comments
Point 1: Introduction Section: Shift the detailed discussion of the research hypothesis to the literature review section, where it is more traditionally placed and where you can substantiate it with prior studies. Use the introduction to clearly outline the problem statement, significance, and research questions.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. I have changed it in Introduction Section: the paragraph becomes more concise and only outlines the problem statement, significance, and research question.
Point 2: Literature Review and Hypothesis: After presenting and discussing relevant studies, clearly define your research hypothesis. This would provide a smooth transition and create a clear link between existing studies and your contribution. Ensure the hypothesis is not just placed, but is derived from gaps or unanswered questions that arise from your review.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion, I have moved the hypothesis argument into the literature review.
Point 3: Language and Clarity: After restructuring, revisit the entire manuscript to ensure flow and consistency. Engage a colleague or professional service to review for language clarity and correctness.
Once again, I appreciate your dedication to refining your manuscript. These recommendations aim to further enhance the organization and flow of your paper, ultimately presenting your valuable research in the best light.
Response 3: Thank you for your kindness, correction, and suggestion. That’s completely true that my paper has now improved significantly.
Point 4: Given the prior concern regarding the English language, it’s crucial that after making these adjustments, the manuscript undergoes another round of meticulous proofreading. Consider employing a professional language editing service if you haven't already.
Response 4: Thank you very much for your suggestion. At this moment, I have corrected the English and hopefully, the language is now getting easy to read.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
Dear Author,
I have revisit the reverse version of the manuscript.
I think you need to restructure the introduction and include results of your findings and your contributions to literature.
Also, the grammar used needs to be improved. You cannot use personal pronoun in an academic writing.
Check your equations for proper adjustment and redraft the discussion of findings.
Best of luck
The present English is not sufficient for academic publications.
The author used personal pronoun throughout the article.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 6 Comments
Point 1: I think you need to restructure the introduction and include results of your findings and your contributions to literature. Also, the grammar used needs to be improved. You cannot use personal pronoun in an academic writing.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion and correction. I have changed and restructured the introduction by moving the hypothesis argument into a literature review and stating as a literature argument to answer the hypotheses. I have changed the personal pronouns as well. Thank you again for your correction. It improves my paper.
Point 2: Check your equations for proper adjustment and redraft the discussion of findings.
Response 2: Thank you for your correction, I have checked it thoroughly and now the equation should be inline with Word.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 5 Report
Thank you for your revisions.
N/A
Author Response
Point 1: Thank you for your revisions.
Response 1: You are very welcome. I can say that there is no further revision. Thank you for your kindness.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
The author needs to rewrite the paper and remove personal pronoun.
The equations is still not corrected.
The language of the article needs to be change from personal pronoun.
Author Response
Point 1: The author needs to rewrite the paper and remove personal pronoun.
Response 1: Thank you for your correction and sharp eye like an eagle. I really appreciate your suggestion, I admit I have missed the words in the text as your suggestion. Now, I have revised the text. To correct this issue, I have been assisted by my wife and son to check the personal pronouns in the text, because I was unable to check it properly. I have corrected it line by line, and it has improved significantly; again, thank you. I highlighted the last revision using yellow so you can see the changes on almost every page.
Point 2: Check your equations for proper adjustment and redraft the discussion of findings.
Response 2: Thank you for the correction. Yes, you are correct in Section Material and Methods. There were several wrong equations mentioned, so I have revised it properly, thank you for your suggestion
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
