Query regarding BWM-ISM study
pranshi patel
Dear Sir and members,
I am seeking your guidance on how to address a few reviewer comments on my manuscript. In my study, I initially applied the Best–Worst Method (BWM) to 15 factors. Based on the ranking obtained from the BWM analysis, I then carried out Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) on the top 9 ranked factors. For collecting the BWM/ISM data, 25 experts were approached, out of which 10 experts participated.
The reviewer has raised the following concerns, and I would be very grateful for your suggestions on how to best address them:
1. Address potential bias from the 60 % non-response.
2. Rerun ISM with all 15 sub-criteria and show whether the hierarchy meaningfully changes. (How to tackle this, as I have not collected experts' responses on the remaining 6 factors?)
3. Transitivity adjustments in the reachability matrix need a reproducible audit trail (e.g. a table of forced 1’s).
4. Common-method and confirmation-bias safeguards (e.g. Delphi rounds, separate validation interviews) should be explained.
5. Tables and figures communicate rankings and the five-level ISM structure clearly, but effect sizes and robustness tests are missing.
6. Only 10 of 25 invited experts participated. The authors must justify panel sufficiency.
I would greatly appreciate any advice, examples, or references on how these comments can be handled.