Discrepancy in efficiency scores due to sampling error in data envelopment analysis methodology: evidence from the banking sector

Discrepancy in efficiency scores due to sampling... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-890" }, "headline": "Discrepancy in efficiency scores due to sampling error in data envelopment analysis methodology: evidence from...", "datePublished": "2024-08-06T10:22:43", "dateModified": "2024-11-25T16:47:38", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Kishore L" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Geetha E" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Shivaprasad S P" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Sachin R Chandra" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Raksha Jain" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) methodology is considered the most suitable approach for relative performance efficiency calculation for banks as it is believed to be superior to traditional ratio-based analysis and other conventional performance evaluations. This study provides statistical evidence on the sampling error that can creep into performance evaluation studies using the DEA methodology. Inferences are drawn based on samples, and various preventive measures must be taken to eliminate or avoid sampling errors and misleading results. This study demonstrates the possibility of sampling error in DEA with the secondary data available in financial statements and reports from a sample set of banks. Methods The samples included 15 public sectors and five leading private sector banks in India based on their market share, and the data for calculating efficiencies were retrieved from the published audited reports. The sample data was collected from 2014 to 2017 because the banking sector in India witnessed a series of mergers of public sector banks post-2017, and the data after that would be skewed and not comparable due to the demonetization policy implementation and merger process-related consolidation implemented by the Government of India. The efficiency measures thus computed are further analyzed using non-parametric statistical tests. Results We found statistically significant discrepancies in the efficiency score calculations using DEA approach when specific outlier values. Evidence is provided on statistically significant differences in the efficiencies due to the inclusion and exclusion of particular samples in the DEA. Conclusion The study offers a novel contribution along with statistical evidence on the possible sampling error that can creep into the performance evaluation of organizations while applying the DEA methodology. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-890/v2", "name": "Discrepancy in efficiency scores due to sampling error in data envelopment..." } } ] } Home Browse Discrepancy in efficiency scores due to sampling error in data envelopment... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article L K, E G, S P S et al. Discrepancy in efficiency scores due to sampling error in data envelopment analysis methodology: evidence from the banking sector [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :890 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.153125.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Discrepancy in efficiency scores due to sampling error in data envelopment analysis methodology: evidence from the banking sector [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] Kishore L https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9024-0435 1 , Geetha E https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1346-7641 1 , Shivaprasad S P https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2253-6108 2 , Sachin R Chandra 1 , Raksha Jain 1 Kishore L https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9024-0435 1 , Geetha E https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1346-7641 1 , [...] Shivaprasad S P https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2253-6108 2 , Sachin R Chandra 1 , Raksha Jain 1 PUBLISHED 25 Nov 2024 Author details Author details 1 Department of Commerce, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India 2 School of Business, RV University, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560059, India Kishore L Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Geetha E Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Shivaprasad S P Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Sachin R Chandra Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Software, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Raksha Jain Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Manipal Academy of Higher Education gateway. Abstract Background Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) methodology is considered the most suitable approach for relative performance efficiency calculation for banks as it is believed to be superior to traditional ratio-based analysis and other conventional performance evaluations. This study provides statistical evidence on the sampling error that can creep into performance evaluation studies using the DEA methodology. Inferences are drawn based on samples, and various preventive measures must be taken to eliminate or avoid sampling errors and misleading results. This study demonstrates the possibility of sampling error in DEA with the secondary data available in financial statements and reports from a sample set of banks. Methods The samples included 15 public sectors and five leading private sector banks in India based on their market share, and the data for calculating efficiencies were retrieved from the published audited reports. The sample data was collected from 2014 to 2017 because the banking sector in India witnessed a series of mergers of public sector banks post-2017, and the data after that would be skewed and not comparable due to the demonetization policy implementation and merger process-related consolidation implemented by the Government of India. The efficiency measures thus computed are further analyzed using non-parametric statistical tests. Results We found statistically significant discrepancies in the efficiency score calculations using DEA approach when specific outlier values. Evidence is provided on statistically significant differences in the efficiencies due to the inclusion and exclusion of particular samples in the DEA. Conclusion The study offers a novel contribution along with statistical evidence on the possible sampling error that can creep into the performance evaluation of organizations while applying the DEA methodology. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Sampling Error; Performance Evaluation; Efficiency; Data Envelopment Analysis; Non-parametric Tests; Banking industry Corresponding Author(s) Kishore L ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Kishore L Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2024 L K et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: L K, E G, S P S et al. Discrepancy in efficiency scores due to sampling error in data envelopment analysis methodology: evidence from the banking sector [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :890 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.153125.2 ) First published: 06 Aug 2024, 13 :890 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.153125.1 ) Latest published: 25 Nov 2024, 13 :890 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.153125.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 Additional literature supporting the research gap and a summary of the review in a table (Table 1) is added in the literature review section highlighting the gap. Managerial and policy implications are added under the conclusion section. Additional references are also added. A new author was added. Additional literature supporting the research gap and a summary of the review in a table (Table 1) is added in the literature review section highlighting the gap. Managerial and policy implications are added under the conclusion section. Additional references are also added. A new author was added. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Katerina Fotova Čiković See the authors' detailed response to the review by Weng Hoe Lam READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Performance measurement and productivity improvement are vital for any organization as they help assess their performance and compare with benchmark organizations or set benchmarks to identify weak areas and opportunities for performance enhancement. 1 Among the various performance indicators, efficiency is crucial and frequently used as an assessment tool against comparative benchmarks. Banks operate in a highly competitive market, and efficiency evaluation helps identify areas for improvement and develop sustainable strategies for performance enhancement, leading to a better competitive position in the industry. Financial ratio-based evaluation is adopted widely in performance assessment, which can be misleading as the benchmarks are arbitrary. 2 This shortfall has increased the adoption of frontier performance evaluation methods across industries, including the banking sector. 3 , 4 One commonly used non-parametric technique is Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) in the banking industry. DEA is opined as the aptest approach for relative performance efficiency calculation for banks as DEA methodology is considered superior to traditional ratio-based analysis embraced for conventional performance evaluation. 4 However, inferences drawn with DEA methodology based on samples can lead to possible sampling error. 5 , 6 This study demonstrates the impact of such outlier samples that can skew the efficiency computed using DEA methodology with the secondary data available in financial statements and reports from a sample set of banks. The study offers a novel contribution along with statistical evidence on the possible sampling error that can creep into the performance evaluation of organizations while applying the DEA methodology. Literature review As per DEA methodology, the efficiency of any service process or system can be computed as a ratio of output to input. 7 Considering several inputs and outputs, the efficiency of each decision-making unit (DMU) can be written as (1) Efficiency of unit j = u 1 y 1 j + u 2 y 2 j + … … … v 1 x 1 j + v 2 x 2 j + … … … where u 1 is the weight given to the output 1, v 1 is the weight given to the input 1, x 1j is the amount of input from unit j, y 1j is the amount of output from unit j The model for efficiency computation considering the multiple outputs and multiple inputs based on the above is given by (2) max E m = ∑ j = 1 J v jm y jm ∑ i = 1 I u im x im subject to 0 ≤ ∑ j = 1 J v jm y jn ∑ i = 1 I u im x in ≤ 1 ; n = 1 , 2 , K , N v jm , u im ≥ 0 ; i = 1 , 2 , K , I ; j = 1 , 2 , K , J Where “E m is the efficiency of the mth DMU”, “y jm is the output of the mth DMU”, “v jm is the weight of the output”, “x im is the input of the mth DMU”, “u im is the weight of the input” and “y jn and x in are the j th output and i th input” Based on the Linear Programming problem technique, DEA computes efficiency with two assumptions of return to scale - constant and variable, 7 where constant return to the scale-based assumption of DEA is referred to as the overall technical efficiency. At the same time, variable returns to scale decompose overall technical efficiency into two components: pure technical efficiency and scale efficiency. 8 The available literature on the discrepancies that can happen in DEA methodology is very scant. Those discussions on variation in performance efficiency are primarily about sample size and the possible interpretation errors during decision-making. Zhang & Bartels 8 analyzed the variation in efficiency based on sample size using Monte Carlo Simulation. Using data from electricity distribution companies, they evaluated the efficiency and proved that the estimated mean technical efficiency decreases with increased sample size. The impact of sample size on the results of models involving non-discretionary variables was studied by Staat. 8 Smith 5 discussed the model misspecification in DEA, specifically when the sample size is insignificant. Banker and Chang 8 discussed the procedure to detect and remove the outliers in the DEA approach. However, their approach was to remove selected observations or samples. However, the variation that can creep in due to the inclusion and exclusion of a specific set of samples is not considered. While Johnson & McGinnis 6 focused on the mathematical model of inefficient outlier detection, Chen & Johnson 9 developed a mathematical model to detect efficient and inefficient outliers in efficiency computation. Though the DEA model is a robust tool for assessing the relative efficiency of a group of homogenous DMUs, the key limitation of traditional DEA models is their inability to distinguish between efficient DMUs. As Wichapa et al. 10 highlighted, cross-efficiency measurement offers a valuable extension to the standard DEA approach, enabling a more effective ranking of all DMUs and addressing this limitation. The methodological challenges in comparing different ranking datasets for DEA time-series efficient analysis 11 have been emphasized. Vaninsky 12 found the DEA model advantageous compared to other approaches in his study because the model was non-parametric. To overcome the inherent drawbacks of DEA, Jauhar and Pant 13 tried to develop an efficient system for traditional multi-criteria performance evaluation tools, and the study resulted in a more realistic outcome. Addressing the sampling error in DEA involves dealing with population distribution uncertainties, 14 multicollinearity, 15 and careful model selection. 16 Sampling errors in DEA can significantly impact the accuracy and stability of efficient estimates. This issue arises due to the population distribution uncertainty and input and output variables selection. The accuracy of DEA efficiency scores was questioned due to the uncertainty of the population distribution. This uncertainty can lead to misleading efficiency scores if not adequately addressed. 14 The choice of the DEA model and the selection of input and output variables are critical; selecting the most appropriate model can help reduce the impact of sampling error. 16 The study by Ahn et al. 17 evaluated whether the input-output specification used in DEA for banks aligns with the criteria banks use in decision-making. Four bank behavior models were applied to determine input and output factors in DEA studies. A comparison of these models with standard DEA models reveals pitfalls and the study found that these issues prevent conventional DEA models from accurately capturing bank behavior, making the result less reflective of actual performance. Charles and Díaz 18 have proposed an index that is a non-radial variation of traditional DEA scores, addressing common issues in DEA-based indexes, such as assigning unreasonable weights. Further, the authors recommended using a meta-frontier method to compare the competitive performances across different evaluation periods. Table 1 outlines the prior studies on sampling errors in Data Envelopment Analysis and identifies a few critical gaps in the literature, emphasizing the need for further investigation on whether sampling errors result in misleading results in performance evaluation. Table 1. Summary of literature review applying DEA methodology highlighting the research gap. Source Country of study Sample description Key findings Gaps identified 1 India The study included 42 companies operating in the OGP sector and forming part of the NSE 500 index The study found that about 38% are technically efficient as well as scale efficient, whereas about 62% are pure technically efficient. The study was limited to the OGP sector of India. 5 The UK The study examined 10,000 observations using Monte Carlo simulation to yield a series. The investigation revealed that the risk of misspecification is most consequential when simple models are incorporated with a small sample size. The study examined the impact of using a mis-specified DEA model on efficiency scores. However, significant differences in the efficiency scores were overlooked. 19 India The study included 27 PuSBs and 22 PrSBs, i.e., 49 banks' efficiency, have been measured. The study revealed that PuSBs outperformed PrSBs in all categories of efficiencies. The analysis was limited to measuring the OTE, PTE and SE of PuSBs and PrSBs from 2009 to 2010 and emphasized further empirical research in the field. 20 India The analysis included a sample of 44 banks operating in India. The study results found that slack and radial movements are crucial in efficiently utilizing resources. Lower technical efficiency and low performance lead to higher costs and increased customer service prices. The study focused on assessing the underutilization of public goods & resources and the resulting poor technical efficiency and components. 8 Germany The study included the original data for re-evaluation - which consists of 69 pharmacies. The study disclosed, through reanalysis of the original data, that the efficiency scores are significantly affected by variations in the sample size inherent in the model. The study was limited to demonstrating the effects of sample size on the results of models for non-discretionary variables through a reanalysis of the original study data. 9 Taiwan The analysis encompassed a series of mathematical observations across all four case studies. The model applications in the study indicated that the observations with low-efficiency estimates are not necessarily outliers. The study tried to develop a unified model to identify efficient and inefficient DEA outliers. Furthermore, the study stretched the need for empirical evidence on the DEA model. 11 Germany The study included 70 European universities with budget and staff input data for the period of 2011–2016. The analysis found no evidence of a specific index data issues for the application of ranking data in DEA efficiency analysis The primary attention of the study was analysing the methodological challenges specific to comparing different ranking datasets, particularly index-based versus additive data, for DEA Malmquist index time-series efficiency analysis. There is a significant amount of research on the performance evaluation of banks based on DEA. 2 – 4 , 21 – 28 These prior studies have given insight into the efficiency of the performance of private and public sector banks in different contexts. These studies using DEA methodology have computed the efficiency based on the sample data collected from financial reports and published reports, and inferences are made according to the efficiency output from DEA methodology. However, the sampling error that can creep into performance evaluation studies using DEA methodology needs to be addressed, as it often gives misleading results regarding the efficiency of sample organizations under study. More precisely, which decision-making units under study must be chosen as the sample in the survey? The DEA methodology is a relative efficiency evaluation technique, and it will lead to misleading extrapolation when proper samples are not considered. Therefore, the problem statement framed is “Do sampling errors result in misleading results in performance evaluation using DEA methodology? The study aims to critically analyze any significant difference in the efficiency scores due to the inclusion or exclusion of specific sample(s) in DEA methodology-based studies. State Bank of India (SBI) is the outlier to test the hypothesis, as stated below. Ho: “ There is no significant difference in the average efficiency scores between the two groups, SBI included and excluded, respectively.” Ha: “ There is a significant difference in the average efficiency scores between the two groups, SBI included and excluded, respectively.” Methods The performance efficiency scores of banks are calculated using DEA methodology. 7 The study sample comprises 20 selected banks in India, which include fifteen public sector and five leading private sector banks based on their market share. The data for analysis for all 20 banks were retrieved from the published audited reports and Profit & Loss statements of banks available on the respective bank websites. 29 The period of data collected is from 2014 to 2017 for all the 20 banks selected, which is before the demonetization policy implementation by the Government of India 30 and before the mergers of many public sector banks in India 31 so that the effects of such a major national-level policy implementation and mergers do not have any impact on the data analysis. Overall technical efficiency based on DEA methodology was computed with the input variables as total and employee expenses and net Non-Performing-Assets (NPAs), considering the two critical variables per the literature review: total income and operating profit as outputs. Efficiency was computed in two groups, with one group of DMUs including SBI (State Bank of India) and another group excluding SBI. SBI is selected for comparison sample as the values of all the variables for SBI considered in the study indicate it as an outlier and, hence, the most suitable sample to compare. The results were analyzed to study the efficiency distribution after the computation of performance efficiency scores of the DMUs. Further, the Mann-Whitney U test is adopted to test the differences in the average distribution between the two groups. 32 The free version of the DEAFrontier tool 32 was used to calculate efficiency scores using DEA methodology, and the open-source R programming software was used to perform the non-parametric hypothesis test. Data visualization was performed using Python open-source programming software. Results and Discussion The performance efficiency score was calculated using DEA methodology, with the SBI sample included and later excluded for comparative analysis. The histogram showing the performance efficiency of the samples – with SBI included and SBI excluded, as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 , respectively, indicates that the efficiency scores are not normally distributed. The box plot for the performance efficiency scores, with SBI included and SBI excluded, shown in Figure 3 , also confirms that the efficiency scores are not normally distributed. Figure 1. Performance efficiency distribution - SBI included. Figure 2. Performance efficiency distribution - SBI excluded. Figure 3. Box Plot for SBI included and excluded. Shapiro-Wilk Test is performed to check for normal data distribution, and the test results are shown in Table 2 . W-static and p-value for both SBI included and excluded confirm that the distributions are not typical. Skewness and Kurtosis measures also indicate that the efficiency of samples with SBI included having negatively skewed distribution and without SBI included as positively skewed. Table 2. Shapiro-Wilk Normality Test result. Measure SBI included SBI excluded W 0.77683 0.82856 p-value 2.2e −16 3.8392e −15 Skewness -1.29 1.19 Kurtosis 0.736 0..325 Since the data is abnormal, non-parametric tests are applied to test the hypothesis. The results of the Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples test are shown in Table 3 . The p-value is almost equal to 0 at a 0.05 significance level. Table 3. Mann-Whitney test for independent samples Test result. Minimum 25% Median 75% Maximum p-value SBI included 0.4492 0.8273 0.9800 1.000 1 5.34e −52 SBI excluded 0.0954 0.1986 0.3068 0.4923 1 Interpreting from Table 3 , Ho can be rejected, indicating that there is a statistically significant difference in efficiency distribution between the performance efficiency calculated with SBI included and excluded. Wilcoxon signed-rank test with continuity correction 33 , 34 was also performed to test the following hypothesis: H0: “There is no significant difference in the efficiency score calculated with SBI included and excluded.” Ha: “There is a significant difference in the efficiency score calculated with SBI included and excluded.” The p-value is almost 0 and is <0.05. Therefore, the authors fail to accept Ho, indicating a statistically significant difference in efficiency values computed with SBI and without SBI being considered in the sample. Spearman’s rank and Kendall Tau correlation tests are also conducted with the following hypotheses to increase the power of a statistical test. H0: “There is no association between the efficiency values” Ha: “There is a significant association between the efficiency values” According to Spearman’s rank correlation test, the p-value is almost 0.3671 and >0.05. Also, rho is very negligible, 0.06. Therefore, we fail to reject Ho, indicating no statistically significant association between the efficiency values computed with SBI and those without SBI being considered in the sample. Per the Kendall Tau correlation test, the p-value is almost 0.3165 and >0.05. Also, tau is very negligible, 0.048. Therefore, we fail to reject Ho, indicating no statistically significant association between the efficiency values computed with SBI and those without SBI being considered in the sample. The correlation plot and bar diagram shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5 , respectively, also confirm the absence of any association between the efficiency values computed with SBI and those without SBI being considered in the sample. Figure 4. The correlation plot of SBI included and excluded. Figure 5. Bar diagram of SBI included and excluded. Therefore, inclusion and exclusion of a sample result in significant variation in the efficiency computed, which in statistical terms is sampling error. Blind consideration of sample units for performance efficiency computation will result in misleading results, flawed interpretations, and erroneous decisions. Before calculation of efficiency using DEA methodology, the box-and-whisker plot for one of the variable Employee Expenses with the outlier SBI included, as shown in Figure 6 , along with basic descriptive statistical measures, can help to identify the outliers that can result in efficiency computation errors due to sampling. The box-and-whisker with SBI excluded, as shown in Figure 7 , shows how the variables are distributed in a range that allows comparison and efficiency evaluation to be more realistic. Figure 6. Box-and-whisker plot with SBI included. Figure 7. Box-and-whisker plot with SBI excluded. Conclusion The relative efficiencies were calculated in two groups; one group included SBI as a DMU, and the other excluded SBI. The efficiencies thus calculated were tested for significant change in the average efficiency between the groups. The study provides statistical evidence on the sampling error that can creep into performance evaluation studies' DEA methodology. In practice, inferences were made based on samples, and various preventive measures must be taken to eliminate or avoid sampling error and related misleading results. The study offers a novel contribution along with statistical evidence on the possible sampling error that can creep into the performance evaluation of organizations due to the inclusion or exclusion of specific samples in the relative performance evaluation computation using DEA. The study also discussed how box-and-whisker can help quickly to identify the possible outlier that can cause skewed efficiency scores due to sampling error. The sampling error in DEA can significantly influence efficiency estimates' accuracy, leading to poorly addressed results. Decision makers should be cognizant of potential biases in efficiency results caused by sampling errors; therefore, considering enhanced models is crucial to achieving more accurate measurements and, thus, enabling effective resource allocation. Policymakers must establish measures to ensure more reliable efficiency evaluations, including measurement error corrections in DEA models. Also, supporting research focused on advanced DEA models that account for sampling errors can lead to better-informed policy decisions and enhance operational efficiency across various sectors. The study was limited only to major and selected sample banks. Future studies can consider all types of banks to get a holistic picture of the banking industry performance benchmark and outlier impacts. Future studies can adopt other relevant non-parametric tests and thus increase the statistical power to confirm the findings. Ethical approval and consent Ethical approval and consent were not required. Data availability Underlying data The underlying data of the variables used for performance efficiency score calculation is taken from the audited reports of banks published on the respective bank websites and accessible to the public since the sample companies are registered and listed. For example, the data of SBI Bank is available in the PDF format reports published in the link https://sbi.co.in/web/investor-relations/reports . The user can navigate and select the appropriate year to download the reports in PDF format and retrieve data as required. The links for accessing other sample banks are given below. https://www.canarabank.com/pages/audited-and-unaudited-financial-results https://www.iob.in/Financial_perf https://karnatakabank.com/investors/quarterly-results https://ucobank.com/financial-results-2014-15 https://centralbankofindia.co.in/en/node/219217 https://www.idbibank.in/idbi-bank-analyst-presentation.aspx https://www.unionbankofindia.co.in/english/financial-result.aspx https://bankofindia.co.in/financial-result https://www.bankofbaroda.in/shareholders-corner/financial-reports/financial-report-q4-2022-23 https://www.hdfcbank.com/personal/about-us/investor-relations/financial-results https://www.icicibank.com/about-us/qfr https://www.axisbank.com/shareholders-corner/financial-results-and-other-information/quarterly-results https://www.kotak.com/en/investor-relations/financial-results/quarterly-results.html?source=website https://www.yesbank.in/about-us/investor-relations/financial-information/financial-results For easy access, the data collected from the reports of all the sample banks considered for the study are consolidated and made available in the Figshare repository per the details below. Figshare: Audited reports data, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26046277 . 35 This project contains the following data: • Audited reports data in xlsx file format containing the data required for analysis taken from the banks website. Audited reports data” file contains all the data taken from audited reports that are required for analysis. • Quarterly performance efficiency scores calculated based on the data from audited reports. “Quarterly efficiency score” file contains the calculated performance efficiency scores using DEAFrontier software. Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). Software availability The free version DEAFrontier tool, available at https://www.deafrontier.net/deafree.html , was used to calculate performance efficiency scores using DEA methodology. The open-source R programming software, available at https://cran.r-project.org/bin/windows/base/ , was used for the non-parametric hypothesis test. References 1. Saxena P, Saxena RR, Sehgal D: Efficiency evaluation of the energy companies in CNX 500 Index of the NSE, India using data envelopment analysis. Benchmarking. 2016; 23 (1): 113–126. Publisher Full Text 2. Sathye M: Efficiency of banks in a developing economy: The case of India. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2003; 148 (3): 662–671. Publisher Full Text 3. Ray SC, Das A: Distribution of cost and profit efficiency: Evidence from Indian banking. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2010; 201 (1): 297–307. Publisher Full Text 4. Saha A, Ravisankar TS: Rating of Indian commercial banks: a DEA approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2000; 124 (1): 187–203. Publisher Full Text 5. Smith P: Model misspecification in Data Envelopment Analysis. Ann. Oper. Res. 1997; 73 : 233–252. Publisher Full Text 6. Johnson AL, McGinnis LF: Outlier detection in two-stage semiparametric DEA models. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2008; 187 (2): 629–635. Publisher Full Text 7. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E: Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1978; 2 (6): 429–444. Publisher Full Text 8. Staat M: The Effect of Sample Size on the Mean Efficiency in DEA: Comment. J. Prod. Anal. 2001; 15 (2): 129–137. Publisher Full Text 9. Chen W-C, Johnson AL: A unified model for detecting efficient and inefficient outliers in data envelopment analysis. Comput. Oper. Res. 2010; 37 (2): 417–425. Publisher Full Text 10. Wichapa N, Khanthirat W, Sudsuansee T: A Novel Gibbs Entropy Model Based upon Cross-Efficiency Measurement for Ranking Decision Making Units. Math. Model. Eng. Probl. 2022; 9 (2): 390–396. Publisher Full Text 11. Klumpp M: The Index Number Problem with DEA: Insights from European University Efficiency Data. Educ. Sci (Basel). 2018; 8 (2): 79. Publisher Full Text 12. Vaninsky AY: Environmental Efficiency of Electric Power Industry of the United States: A data Envelopment Analysis Approach. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. Eng. 2008; 1 (1): 55–61. 13. Jauhar SK, Pant M: Integrating DEA with DE and MODE for sustainable supplier selection. J. Comput. Sci. 2017; 21 : 299–306. Publisher Full Text 14. Vaseei M, Daneshmand-Mehr M, Bazrafshan M, et al. : A network data envelopment analysis to evaluate the performance of a sustainable supply chain using bootstrap simulation. J. Eng. Res. 2024; September : 1–12. Publisher Full Text 15. Kalita JK, Iyer GR, “EFFECTS OF MULTICOLLINERITY IN DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS (DEA) MODELS OF PRODUCT MARKET EFFICIENCY,” Proceedings of the 1995 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2014; pp. 185–191. 16. Öztürk E, Bal H: Ranking the Airports with Data Envelopment Analysis and Canonical Correlation Analysis. Gazi Univ. J. Sci. 2017; 30 (2): 237–245. 17. Ahn H, Le MH: An insight into the specification of the input-output set for DEA-based bank efficiency measurement. Manag. Rev. Q. 2014; 64 : 3–37. Publisher Full Text 18. Charles V, Díaz G: A Non-radial DEA Index for Peruvian Regional Competitiveness. Soc. Indic. Res. 2017; 134 (2): 747–770. Publisher Full Text 19. Puri J, Yadav SP: Performance evaluation of public and private sector banks in India using DEA approach. Int. J. Oper. Res. 2013; 18 (1): 91–121. Publisher Full Text 20. Kumar S, Raina S: Performance measurement of Indian banking sector: a cross-section perspective. Int. J. Bus. Glob. 2024; 37 (2): 210–236. Publisher Full Text 21. Geetha E, Kishore L, Shivaprasad SP: Quarterly performance benchmarking of Selected Banks in India - A DEA approach. Int. J. Pure Appl. Math. 2017; 117 (20). Special Issue. 22. Gulati R, Kumar S: Assessing the impact of the global financial crisis on the profit efficiency of Indian banks. Econ. Model. 2016; 58 : 167–181. Publisher Full Text 23. Bapat D: Efficiency for Indian public sector and private sector banks in India: Assessment of impact of global financial crisis. Int. J. Bus. Perform. Manag. 2012; 13 (3–4): 330–340. Publisher Full Text 24. Narayanaswamy T, Muthulakshmi AP: Productivity and cost efficiency of commercial banks in India. Indian J. Financ. Jan. 2016; 10 (1): 8–27. Publisher Full Text 25. Kaur J, Pathak N, Aggarwal S: Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) in measuring the performance of public sector banks in India. Sustainability and Equity: Economic Democracy and Social Empowerment. Jan. 2024; pp. 231–243. 26. Khan A, Ahmad A, Shireen S: Ownership and performance of microfinance institutions: Empirical evidences from India. Cogent Econ. Financ. 2021; 9 (1). Publisher Full Text 27. Venugopal SK: Loan Portfolio Management and Bank Efficiency: A Comparative Analysis of Public, Old Private, and New Private Sector Banks in India. Economies. Apr. 2024; vol. 12 (4): Publisher Full Text 28. Kumar S, Gulati R: Evaluation of technical efficiency and ranking of public sector banks in India: An analysis from cross-sectional perspective. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2008; 57 (7): 540–568. Publisher Full Text 29. Audited reports data. Accessed: Jun. 16, 2024. Reference Source 30. Rajendra Kumar R: Demonitization and its effect on life of common people in India. Indian J. Econ. Dev. 2016; 4 (11). 31. Singh S, Das S: Impact of post-merger and acquisition activities on the financial performance of banks: A study of Indian private sector and public sector banks. Espacios. 2018; 39 (26). 32. DEA Software. Accessed: Jun. 13, 2024. Reference Source 33. Hollander M, Wolfe DA, Chicken E: Nonparametric statistical methods.2015. Publisher Full Text 34. Wilcoxon F: Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods. Biom. Bull. Dec. 1945; 1 (6): 80. Publisher Full Text 35. Kishore L, Shivaprasad SP, Geetha E: Audited reports data. [Dataset]. figshare. 2024. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 06 Aug 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Department of Commerce, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India 2 School of Business, RV University, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560059, India Kishore L Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Geetha E Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Shivaprasad S P Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Sachin R Chandra Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Software, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Raksha Jain Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 25 Nov 2024, 13:890 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.153125.2 version 1 Published: 06 Aug 2024, 13:890 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.153125.1 Copyright © 2024 L K et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article L K, E G, S P S et al. Discrepancy in efficiency scores due to sampling error in data envelopment analysis methodology: evidence from the banking sector [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :890 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.153125.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 25 Nov 2024 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Hadad Y. Reviewer Report For: Discrepancy in efficiency scores due to sampling error in data envelopment analysis methodology: evidence from the banking sector [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :890 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.174428.r360607 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-890/v2#referee-response-360607 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 14 Feb 2025 Yossi Hadad , Sami Shamoon College of Engineering, Beer-Shvea, Israel Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.174428.r360607 The study addresses performance evaluation using DEA methodology (CCR model): The impact of sampling errors. As highlighted in the article, the focus on statistical evidence and examination of outliers fills a critical gap in the literature. Statistical methods, including the ... Continue reading READ ALL The study addresses performance evaluation using DEA methodology (CCR model): The impact of sampling errors. As highlighted in the article, the focus on statistical evidence and examination of outliers fills a critical gap in the literature. Statistical methods, including the Mann-Whitney U test, Wilcoxon signed rank test, and correlation analyses, are used, adding credibility to the findings. The inclusion of private and public sector banks from India ensures a reasonable sample diversity. At the same time, the period before significant policy changes (e.g., demonetization and mergers) minimizes extraneous noise in the data. Practical contribution: Identifying outliers using visual tools such as box and whisker plots is a practical contribution that practitioners can quickly implement. A discussion of the implications for decision-makers and policymakers highlights the real-world applicability of the study. The article provides new insights into how the inclusion or exclusion of specific decision-making units (DMUs) can bias efficiency calculations. Comments and Suggestions for Authors: 1) The paper requires rewriting and editing. The contribution of the manuscript was not clear. A strong competitive analysis is needed. What are the contributions to research by writing your manuscript? Make the exposition tight and clear (right now, it is meandering and redundant, particularly in the first part of the paper). The background is not well organized. It would be better if the authors first explained the motivation for their study, then discussed the problem statement, and finally reviewed the relevant studies. 2) In the conclusions section, the authors should provide a general interpretation of the rustles, the unique contributions of the paper, limitations of the research, managerial implications, and the impact that the paper might have on future research and on policy decisions. 3) Page 1- Change equations 1) and 2) to the following formulation: 4) It is important to note that: Model (1) - The CCR model (Charnes et al., 1978) assumes that the production function exhibits constant returns-to-scale (RTS). The BCC developed by Banker, Charnes, and Cooper (BCC model) adds an additional constant variable, , in order to permit variable returns-to-scale. 5) An explanation should be provided as to why you used the CCR model rather than the BCC model. 6) The authors should add the following paragraph: “The study focuses exclusively on Indian banks, which limits the generalizability of findings to other countries or industries with different operational contexts (limited generalizability). Although the study examines key input and output variables (e.g., total revenue, operating profit, total expenses), it is possible that adding variables such as customer satisfaction or adoption of digital banking could provide a more holistic assessment of efficiency (narrow scope of analysis). This is simplistic and mainly involves identifying outliers using descriptive statistics and visualization. It is possible that using a BCC model rather than a CCR model, adding constraints on the weights (a non-Archimedean quantity) could provide deeper insights into the impact of outliers. Although non-parametric tests are appropriate given the distribution of the data, additional statistical techniques could have been applied to strengthen the findings. A broader set of banks in multiple countries or regions can increase the external validity of the findings. Combining advanced DEA techniques: using methods such as bootstrapped DEA or stochastic DEA (see, for example, Olesen & Petersen, 2016). or ranking methods using DEA (see, for example, Hadad, &. Hanani,2011). Including dynamic variables (e.g., year-over-year growth) and non-financial factors (e.g., environmental and social governance indicators) can add depth to the efficiency analysis." Add to the References: Olesen, O. B., & Petersen, N. C. (2016 [Ref-1]). Stochastic data envelopment analysis—A review. European journal of operational research , 251 (1), 2-21. ‏ Hadad, Y., & Hanani, M. Z. (2011 [Ref-2]). Combining the AHP and DEA methodologies for selecting the best alternative. International journal of logistics systems and management , 9 (3), 251-267. ‏ Nguyen, H. O., Nguyen, H. V., Chang, Y. T., Chin, A. T., & Tongzon, J. (2016 [Ref-3]). Measuring port efficiency using bootstrapped DEA: The case of Vietnamese ports, Maritime Policy and Management. 43(5), 644–659.) Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No References 1. Olesen O, Petersen N: Stochastic Data Envelopment Analysis—A review. European Journal of Operational Research . 2016; 251 (1): 2-21 Publisher Full Text 2. Hadad Y, Hanani M: Combining the AHP and DEA methodologies for selecting the best alternative. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management . 2011; 9 (3). Publisher Full Text 3. Nguyen H, Nguyen H, Chang Y, Chin A, et al.: Measuring port efficiency using bootstrapped DEA: the case of Vietnamese ports. Maritime Policy & Management . 2016; 43 (5): 644-659 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), work-study, ranking methods I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Hadad Y. Reviewer Report For: Discrepancy in efficiency scores due to sampling error in data envelopment analysis methodology: evidence from the banking sector [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :890 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.174428.r360607 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-890/v2#referee-response-360607 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 06 Aug 2024 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Lam WH. Reviewer Report For: Discrepancy in efficiency scores due to sampling error in data envelopment analysis methodology: evidence from the banking sector [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :890 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.167974.r325801 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-890/v1#referee-response-325801 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 09 Oct 2024 Weng Hoe Lam , Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kampar, Malaysia Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.167974.r325801 The study offers a novel contribution along with statistical evidence on the possible sampling error that can creep into the performance evaluation of organizations while applying the DEA methodology. Kindly refer to the following comments for improvement. 1)Please include ... Continue reading READ ALL The study offers a novel contribution along with statistical evidence on the possible sampling error that can creep into the performance evaluation of organizations while applying the DEA methodology. Kindly refer to the following comments for improvement. 1)Please include the managerial and policy implications section 2)Please include the state-of-the-art table in the literature review section to show the research gap Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Statistical modeling, Operations Research I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Lam WH. Reviewer Report For: Discrepancy in efficiency scores due to sampling error in data envelopment analysis methodology: evidence from the banking sector [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :890 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.167974.r325801 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-890/v1#referee-response-325801 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 10 Oct 2024 Kishore L , Department of Commerce, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India 10 Oct 2024 Author Response Dear reviewer, Thanks for the review and comments. We will include implications in addition to tabulating the literature review highlighting the gap in the revision. Thanking once ... Continue reading Dear reviewer, Thanks for the review and comments. We will include implications in addition to tabulating the literature review highlighting the gap in the revision. Thanking once again. Regards Kishore L Dear reviewer, Thanks for the review and comments. We will include implications in addition to tabulating the literature review highlighting the gap in the revision. Thanking once again. Regards Kishore L Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 10 Oct 2024 Kishore L , Department of Commerce, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India 10 Oct 2024 Author Response Dear reviewer, Thanks for the review and comments. We will include implications in addition to tabulating the literature review highlighting the gap in the revision. Thanking once ... Continue reading Dear reviewer, Thanks for the review and comments. We will include implications in addition to tabulating the literature review highlighting the gap in the revision. Thanking once again. Regards Kishore L Dear reviewer, Thanks for the review and comments. We will include implications in addition to tabulating the literature review highlighting the gap in the revision. Thanking once again. Regards Kishore L Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Čiković KF. Reviewer Report For: Discrepancy in efficiency scores due to sampling error in data envelopment analysis methodology: evidence from the banking sector [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :890 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.167974.r325798 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-890/v1#referee-response-325798 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 30 Sep 2024 Katerina Fotova Čiković , University North, Koprivnica, Croatia Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.167974.r325798 The topic is well formulated, relevant to the area of interest and related to an important and current subject on global level. The abstract is well worded and provides a short, clear and effective introduction to the paper. ... Continue reading READ ALL The topic is well formulated, relevant to the area of interest and related to an important and current subject on global level. The abstract is well worded and provides a short, clear and effective introduction to the paper. Methodology is extensively introduced and each step of the process is presented. There are too many figures. I wonder if they are all beneficial? However, there is a need for sample clarification. How did you come up with this sample? What was the selection process of the banks entering the sample? The analyzed period is somewhat questionable (it is a period almost 7 years ago, and it may not be relevant anymore). Do not use "we", "our" in the text. Instead, use 3rd person singular. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Finance, banking sector, M&A, DEA I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Čiković KF. Reviewer Report For: Discrepancy in efficiency scores due to sampling error in data envelopment analysis methodology: evidence from the banking sector [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :890 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.167974.r325798 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-890/v1#referee-response-325798 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 01 Oct 2024 Kishore L , Department of Commerce, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India 01 Oct 2024 Author Response How did you come up with this sample? What was the selection process of the banks entering the sample? Response to the above 2 query: The study sample comprises ... Continue reading How did you come up with this sample? What was the selection process of the banks entering the sample? Response to the above 2 query: The study sample comprises 20 selected banks in India, which include fifteen public sector and five leading private sector banks. This was done to have representation of public as well as private sector banks in the same. And therefore, as mentioned in the methodology section which I quote " The study sample comprises 20 selected banks in India, which include fifteen public sector and five leading private sector banks based on their market share", the selection was based on their market share. Hope the explanation is satisfactory. The analyzed period is somewhat questionable (it is a period almost 7 years ago, and it may not be relevant anymore). Response to the above query: The period of data collected is from 2014 to 2017 for all the 20 banks selected. This period was selected because there was two national-level major policy implemented in India - one on Demonetization and another was the merger of many banks. Due to demonetization and mergers there was an overhaul in the banks and also after the mergers the balance sheet is consolidated due to which the data after these policy implementations will not be suitable to empirically prove our hypothesis. And therefore, as mentioned in the methodology section which I quote "The period of data collected is from 2014 to 2017 for all the 20 banks selected, which is before the demonetization policy implementation by the Government of India [23] and before the mergers of many public sector banks in India [24] so that the effects of such a major national-level policy implementation and mergers do not have any impact on the data analysis", we decided to use the data before these major reforms. Hope the explanation is satisfactory. Do not use "we", "our" in the text. Instead, use 3rd person singular. Response to the above suggestion: Completely agree to your suggestion. The correction will be incorporated in the revision. Thanks for the review. How did you come up with this sample? What was the selection process of the banks entering the sample? Response to the above 2 query: The study sample comprises 20 selected banks in India, which include fifteen public sector and five leading private sector banks. This was done to have representation of public as well as private sector banks in the same. And therefore, as mentioned in the methodology section which I quote " The study sample comprises 20 selected banks in India, which include fifteen public sector and five leading private sector banks based on their market share", the selection was based on their market share. Hope the explanation is satisfactory. The analyzed period is somewhat questionable (it is a period almost 7 years ago, and it may not be relevant anymore). Response to the above query: The period of data collected is from 2014 to 2017 for all the 20 banks selected. This period was selected because there was two national-level major policy implemented in India - one on Demonetization and another was the merger of many banks. Due to demonetization and mergers there was an overhaul in the banks and also after the mergers the balance sheet is consolidated due to which the data after these policy implementations will not be suitable to empirically prove our hypothesis. And therefore, as mentioned in the methodology section which I quote "The period of data collected is from 2014 to 2017 for all the 20 banks selected, which is before the demonetization policy implementation by the Government of India [23] and before the mergers of many public sector banks in India [24] so that the effects of such a major national-level policy implementation and mergers do not have any impact on the data analysis", we decided to use the data before these major reforms. Hope the explanation is satisfactory. Do not use "we", "our" in the text. Instead, use 3rd person singular. Response to the above suggestion: Completely agree to your suggestion. The correction will be incorporated in the revision. Thanks for the review. Competing Interests: Nil Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 01 Oct 2024 Kishore L , Department of Commerce, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India 01 Oct 2024 Author Response How did you come up with this sample? What was the selection process of the banks entering the sample? Response to the above 2 query: The study sample comprises ... Continue reading How did you come up with this sample? What was the selection process of the banks entering the sample? Response to the above 2 query: The study sample comprises 20 selected banks in India, which include fifteen public sector and five leading private sector banks. This was done to have representation of public as well as private sector banks in the same. And therefore, as mentioned in the methodology section which I quote " The study sample comprises 20 selected banks in India, which include fifteen public sector and five leading private sector banks based on their market share", the selection was based on their market share. Hope the explanation is satisfactory. The analyzed period is somewhat questionable (it is a period almost 7 years ago, and it may not be relevant anymore). Response to the above query: The period of data collected is from 2014 to 2017 for all the 20 banks selected. This period was selected because there was two national-level major policy implemented in India - one on Demonetization and another was the merger of many banks. Due to demonetization and mergers there was an overhaul in the banks and also after the mergers the balance sheet is consolidated due to which the data after these policy implementations will not be suitable to empirically prove our hypothesis. And therefore, as mentioned in the methodology section which I quote "The period of data collected is from 2014 to 2017 for all the 20 banks selected, which is before the demonetization policy implementation by the Government of India [23] and before the mergers of many public sector banks in India [24] so that the effects of such a major national-level policy implementation and mergers do not have any impact on the data analysis", we decided to use the data before these major reforms. Hope the explanation is satisfactory. Do not use "we", "our" in the text. Instead, use 3rd person singular. Response to the above suggestion: Completely agree to your suggestion. The correction will be incorporated in the revision. Thanks for the review. How did you come up with this sample? What was the selection process of the banks entering the sample? Response to the above 2 query: The study sample comprises 20 selected banks in India, which include fifteen public sector and five leading private sector banks. This was done to have representation of public as well as private sector banks in the same. And therefore, as mentioned in the methodology section which I quote " The study sample comprises 20 selected banks in India, which include fifteen public sector and five leading private sector banks based on their market share", the selection was based on their market share. Hope the explanation is satisfactory. The analyzed period is somewhat questionable (it is a period almost 7 years ago, and it may not be relevant anymore). Response to the above query: The period of data collected is from 2014 to 2017 for all the 20 banks selected. This period was selected because there was two national-level major policy implemented in India - one on Demonetization and another was the merger of many banks. Due to demonetization and mergers there was an overhaul in the banks and also after the mergers the balance sheet is consolidated due to which the data after these policy implementations will not be suitable to empirically prove our hypothesis. And therefore, as mentioned in the methodology section which I quote "The period of data collected is from 2014 to 2017 for all the 20 banks selected, which is before the demonetization policy implementation by the Government of India [23] and before the mergers of many public sector banks in India [24] so that the effects of such a major national-level policy implementation and mergers do not have any impact on the data analysis", we decided to use the data before these major reforms. Hope the explanation is satisfactory. Do not use "we", "our" in the text. Instead, use 3rd person singular. Response to the above suggestion: Completely agree to your suggestion. The correction will be incorporated in the revision. Thanks for the review. Competing Interests: Nil Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 06 Aug 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 2 (revision) 25 Nov 24 read Version 1 06 Aug 24 read read Katerina Fotova Čiković , University North, Koprivnica, Croatia Weng Hoe Lam , Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kampar, Malaysia Yossi Hadad , Sami Shamoon College of Engineering, Beer-Shvea, Israel Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Hadad Y. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 14 Feb 2025 | for Version 2 Yossi Hadad , Sami Shamoon College of Engineering, Beer-Shvea, Israel 0 Views copyright © 2025 Hadad Y. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The study addresses performance evaluation using DEA methodology (CCR model): The impact of sampling errors. As highlighted in the article, the focus on statistical evidence and examination of outliers fills a critical gap in the literature. Statistical methods, including the Mann-Whitney U test, Wilcoxon signed rank test, and correlation analyses, are used, adding credibility to the findings. The inclusion of private and public sector banks from India ensures a reasonable sample diversity. At the same time, the period before significant policy changes (e.g., demonetization and mergers) minimizes extraneous noise in the data. Practical contribution: Identifying outliers using visual tools such as box and whisker plots is a practical contribution that practitioners can quickly implement. A discussion of the implications for decision-makers and policymakers highlights the real-world applicability of the study. The article provides new insights into how the inclusion or exclusion of specific decision-making units (DMUs) can bias efficiency calculations. Comments and Suggestions for Authors: 1) The paper requires rewriting and editing. The contribution of the manuscript was not clear. A strong competitive analysis is needed. What are the contributions to research by writing your manuscript? Make the exposition tight and clear (right now, it is meandering and redundant, particularly in the first part of the paper). The background is not well organized. It would be better if the authors first explained the motivation for their study, then discussed the problem statement, and finally reviewed the relevant studies. 2) In the conclusions section, the authors should provide a general interpretation of the rustles, the unique contributions of the paper, limitations of the research, managerial implications, and the impact that the paper might have on future research and on policy decisions. 3) Page 1- Change equations 1) and 2) to the following formulation: 4) It is important to note that: Model (1) - The CCR model (Charnes et al., 1978) assumes that the production function exhibits constant returns-to-scale (RTS). The BCC developed by Banker, Charnes, and Cooper (BCC model) adds an additional constant variable, , in order to permit variable returns-to-scale. 5) An explanation should be provided as to why you used the CCR model rather than the BCC model. 6) The authors should add the following paragraph: “The study focuses exclusively on Indian banks, which limits the generalizability of findings to other countries or industries with different operational contexts (limited generalizability). Although the study examines key input and output variables (e.g., total revenue, operating profit, total expenses), it is possible that adding variables such as customer satisfaction or adoption of digital banking could provide a more holistic assessment of efficiency (narrow scope of analysis). This is simplistic and mainly involves identifying outliers using descriptive statistics and visualization. It is possible that using a BCC model rather than a CCR model, adding constraints on the weights (a non-Archimedean quantity) could provide deeper insights into the impact of outliers. Although non-parametric tests are appropriate given the distribution of the data, additional statistical techniques could have been applied to strengthen the findings. A broader set of banks in multiple countries or regions can increase the external validity of the findings. Combining advanced DEA techniques: using methods such as bootstrapped DEA or stochastic DEA (see, for example, Olesen & Petersen, 2016). or ranking methods using DEA (see, for example, Hadad, &. Hanani,2011). Including dynamic variables (e.g., year-over-year growth) and non-financial factors (e.g., environmental and social governance indicators) can add depth to the efficiency analysis." Add to the References: Olesen, O. B., & Petersen, N. C. (2016 [Ref-1]). Stochastic data envelopment analysis—A review. European journal of operational research , 251 (1), 2-21. ‏ Hadad, Y., & Hanani, M. Z. (2011 [Ref-2]). Combining the AHP and DEA methodologies for selecting the best alternative. International journal of logistics systems and management , 9 (3), 251-267. ‏ Nguyen, H. O., Nguyen, H. V., Chang, Y. T., Chin, A. T., & Tongzon, J. (2016 [Ref-3]). Measuring port efficiency using bootstrapped DEA: The case of Vietnamese ports, Maritime Policy and Management. 43(5), 644–659.) Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No References 1. Olesen O, Petersen N: Stochastic Data Envelopment Analysis—A review. European Journal of Operational Research . 2016; 251 (1): 2-21 Publisher Full Text 2. Hadad Y, Hanani M: Combining the AHP and DEA methodologies for selecting the best alternative. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management . 2011; 9 (3). Publisher Full Text 3. Nguyen H, Nguyen H, Chang Y, Chin A, et al.: Measuring port efficiency using bootstrapped DEA: the case of Vietnamese ports. Maritime Policy & Management . 2016; 43 (5): 644-659 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), work-study, ranking methods I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Hadad Y. Peer Review Report For: Discrepancy in efficiency scores due to sampling error in data envelopment analysis methodology: evidence from the banking sector [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :890 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.174428.r360607) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-890/v2#referee-response-360607 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Lam W. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 09 Oct 2024 | for Version 1 Weng Hoe Lam , Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kampar, Malaysia 0 Views copyright © 2024 Lam W. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The study offers a novel contribution along with statistical evidence on the possible sampling error that can creep into the performance evaluation of organizations while applying the DEA methodology. Kindly refer to the following comments for improvement. 1)Please include the managerial and policy implications section 2)Please include the state-of-the-art table in the literature review section to show the research gap Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Statistical modeling, Operations Research I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 10 Oct 2024 Kishore L, Department of Commerce, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India Dear reviewer, Thanks for the review and comments. We will include implications in addition to tabulating the literature review highlighting the gap in the revision. Thanking once again. Regards Kishore L View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Lam WH. Peer Review Report For: Discrepancy in efficiency scores due to sampling error in data envelopment analysis methodology: evidence from the banking sector [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :890 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.167974.r325801) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-890/v1#referee-response-325801 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Čiković K. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 30 Sep 2024 | for Version 1 Katerina Fotova Čiković , University North, Koprivnica, Croatia 0 Views copyright © 2024 Čiković K. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The topic is well formulated, relevant to the area of interest and related to an important and current subject on global level. The abstract is well worded and provides a short, clear and effective introduction to the paper. Methodology is extensively introduced and each step of the process is presented. There are too many figures. I wonder if they are all beneficial? However, there is a need for sample clarification. How did you come up with this sample? What was the selection process of the banks entering the sample? The analyzed period is somewhat questionable (it is a period almost 7 years ago, and it may not be relevant anymore). Do not use "we", "our" in the text. Instead, use 3rd person singular. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Finance, banking sector, M&A, DEA I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 01 Oct 2024 Kishore L, Department of Commerce, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India How did you come up with this sample? What was the selection process of the banks entering the sample? Response to the above 2 query: The study sample comprises 20 selected banks in India, which include fifteen public sector and five leading private sector banks. This was done to have representation of public as well as private sector banks in the same. And therefore, as mentioned in the methodology section which I quote " The study sample comprises 20 selected banks in India, which include fifteen public sector and five leading private sector banks based on their market share", the selection was based on their market share. Hope the explanation is satisfactory. The analyzed period is somewhat questionable (it is a period almost 7 years ago, and it may not be relevant anymore). Response to the above query: The period of data collected is from 2014 to 2017 for all the 20 banks selected. This period was selected because there was two national-level major policy implemented in India - one on Demonetization and another was the merger of many banks. Due to demonetization and mergers there was an overhaul in the banks and also after the mergers the balance sheet is consolidated due to which the data after these policy implementations will not be suitable to empirically prove our hypothesis. And therefore, as mentioned in the methodology section which I quote "The period of data collected is from 2014 to 2017 for all the 20 banks selected, which is before the demonetization policy implementation by the Government of India [23] and before the mergers of many public sector banks in India [24] so that the effects of such a major national-level policy implementation and mergers do not have any impact on the data analysis", we decided to use the data before these major reforms. Hope the explanation is satisfactory. Do not use "we", "our" in the text. Instead, use 3rd person singular. Response to the above suggestion: Completely agree to your suggestion. The correction will be incorporated in the revision. Thanks for the review. View more View less Competing Interests Nil reply Respond Report a concern Čiković KF. Peer Review Report For: Discrepancy in efficiency scores due to sampling error in data envelopment analysis methodology: evidence from the banking sector [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :890 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.167974.r325798) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-890/v1#referee-response-325798 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Discrepancy in efficiency scores due to sampling...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-890/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-890/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-890/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('L K et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-890/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-890", templates : { twitter : "Discrepancy in efficiency scores due to sampling error in data.... L K et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/13-890/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/153125/174428") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "174428"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "356253": 0, "356252": 0, "360607": 5, "356255": 0, "360606": 0, "356254": 0, "356251": 0, "356250": 0, "343333": 0, "360613": 0, "325796": 0, "343332": 0, "360612": 0, "325797": 0, "360615": 0, "325798": 20, "360614": 0, "325799": 0, "360609": 0, "356257": 0, "325792": 0, "360608": 0, "356256": 0, "325793": 0, "360611": 0, "356259": 0, "325794": 0, "360610": 0, "356258": 0, "325795": 0, "325800": 0, "325801": 15, "351949": 0, "349133": 0, "351948": 0, "349132": 0, "351951": 0, "349135": 0, "351950": 0, "349134": 0, "351945": 0, "349129": 0, "351944": 0, "351947": 0, "349131": 0, "351946": 0, "349130": 0, "349140": 0, "351953": 0, "351952": 0, "349139": 0, "349138": 0, "354269": 0, "354268": 0, "354271": 0, "354270": 0, "354265": 0, "354267": 0, "354266": 0, "354273": 0, "354272": 0, "354274": 0, "358645": 0, "358644": 0, "358647": 0, "358646": 0, "358641": 0, "358643": 0, "358642": 0, "358649": 0, "358648": 0, "358650": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "25958a86-98d1-442c-96ff-e5f3d2a134ae"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });