Geethanjali Sanikommu Reviewer
04 Apr 2025 11:15 PM

Missing Model Visualization
- The paper claims to propose a “data governance-maturity model” tailored to Indian financial institutions, but the model itself is not presented as a framework, diagram, or structured taxonomy. This is a key contribution and should be clearly defined, visualized, and described (e.g., stages, dimensions, evaluation metrics).
Methodological Transparency
- The analysis references ML model performance (e.g., accuracy of 85% for credit scoring) and maturity levels (e.g., low/moderate/high), but does not clarify the data sources, evaluation method, or sample size. How was accuracy computed? Were these findings based on simulations, interviews, case studies, or third-party benchmarking?
Consistency of Maturity Labels
- Terms like "data maturity," "compliance readiness," and "cloud integration" are labeled as “Low/Moderate/High” in tables. Consider defining these quantitatively or qualitatively in a supplementary section or appendix to enhance interpretability and consistency across readers.
Regulatory Implications
- While the paper covers compliance (RBI, SEBI, IRDAI), there is room to expand on policy recommendations or regulatory gaps observed—especially around emerging technologies (e.g., AI explainability in credit scoring, data localization in cloud adoption, regulatory sandboxes for fintechs).
Innovation vs. Risk Tradeoff
- Fintechs are highlighted as innovative but weak in compliance. A more balanced discussion of tradeoffs (e.g., how regulators can support innovation without compromising oversight) would enrich the policy relevance of the work.
Geethanjali Sanikommu Reviewer
04 Apr 2025 11:12 PM