Development of Performance Evaluation Indicators for Table Grape Packaging Units
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article was made at a high substantive level. The data sources used are reliable. The research methods were selected correctly. It is worth noting that the calculations and interpretation of the results were presented in a satisfactory manner. I also have no objections to the conclusions presented at the end of the article. I would also like to draw your attention to the potential for practical application of the content of the article, including research results and conclusions.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The article was made at a high substantive level. The data sources used are reliable. The research methods were selected correctly. It is worth noting that the calculations and interpretation of the results were presented in a satisfactory manner. I also have no objections to the conclusions presented at the end of the article. I would also like to draw your attention to the potential for practical application of the content of the article, including research results and conclusions.
Response 1:
We thank the reviewer for his/her encouraging words and positive assessment of our work. Also, we have added in lines 455-459:
Considering the potential for the practical application of the method, this work can be extended to other business groups or cooperatives of table grape producers, in different regions. In addition, it is possible to extend the method to other types of production units, for example producers of cheese, milk, wine or coffee, so as to improve the management of units.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The work looks overall interesting and quite innovative, and the topic is rather original and, in my opinion, quite unexplored. The manuscript looks clear and coherent in the aims and scopes. Hypotheses may need to be clarified and better explicated in the methodological part.
I would suggest to improve methodology literature by adding some reference about studies conducted by Daraio, Simar, Mastromarco and Toma, which are relevant authors on efficiency and DEA models.
Finally, I would recommend to speak much more about possible limitations in the conclusive spots of the manuscript. A more detailed abstract on methodological approach would be desirable.
Language looks fine, but a further reading will be better. The paper looks suitable for publication after a minor revision.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: The work looks overall interesting and quite innovative, and the topic is rather original and, in my opinion, quite unexplored. The manuscript looks clear and coherent in the aims and scopes. Hypotheses may need to be clarified and better explicated in the methodological part.
Response 1:
We thank the reviewer for his/her encouraging words and positive assessment of our work. Also, we have added, after figure 1, in lines 59-63, the hypotheses of our work.
The following hypothesis are proposed:
Null hypothesis: Most or all of the performance indicators are expressed in a correlated way to assess the performance objectives of TGPUs.
Alternative hypothesis: Most or all of the performance indicators are not expressed in a correlated way to assess the performance objectives of TGPUs.
In Table 6 the significance matrix of the correlations was added.
Due to the modification in the Table, its explanatory text was changed in lines 416-424:
It was observed that the quality indicator was inversely proportional to the other indicators, with emphasis on the speed indicator, whose correlation was -0.86
The significance values indicated lower results for pairs with greater correlation. Depending on this data, the two largest correlation pairs Q_I / S_I (-0.86) and C_I / S_I (0.7) obtained the lowest values of significance (0.0002) and (0.008), as well as the only results below 1%. Thus, the alternative hypothesis with a significance level of 1% was confirmed by statistical tests that showed correlation only in the pairs Q_I / S_I_ and C_I / S_I. Although the S_I indicator correlates with the two indicators mentioned above, its importance comes from the independence from the other indicators.
Point 2: I would suggest to improve methodology literature by adding some reference about studies conducted by Daraio, Simar, Mastromarco and Toma, which are relevant authors on efficiency and DEA models.
Response 2:
We added, in lines 184-186, contributions of these authors about DEA models:
In addition, other contributions have been proposed to these models, such as the introduction of a conditional to some external-environmental variables [31] and how time affects the process of catching up [32].
and, in line 207, a reference of another study about DEA [42]. Therefore, the following references were added:
- Daraio, C.; Simar, L. Conditional nonparametric frontier models for convex and nonconvex technologies: a unifying approach. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 2007, 28, 13-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-007-0049-3;
- Mastromarco, C.; Simar, L. Effect of FDI and time on catching up: new insights from a conditional nonparametric frontier analysis. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 2015, 30, 826-847.
- Toma. P.; Miglietta, P.P.; Zurlini, G.; Valente, D.; Petrosillo, I. A non-parametric bootstrap-data envelopment analysis approach for environmental policy planning and management of agricultural efficiency in EU countries. Ecological indicators, 2017, 98, 132-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.049.
and therefore other references were re-numbered in the manuscript.
Point 3: Finally, I would recommend to speak much more about possible limitations in the conclusive spots of the manuscript. A more detailed abstract on methodological approach would be desirable.
Response 3:
More details about the method adopted were inserted in lines 433-437, in the conclusions section:
The present method included the following steps: contextualization of TGPUs through a bibliographic survey; the selection of performance objectives by analyzing the most used ones; the choice of techniques to be used in the development of indicators through the investigation of existing techniques; and the calculation of indicators in the case study.
Possible limitations of the research work were added in lines 460-464
A possible limitation in the extension of the method to other processes concerns the selection of a sufficient number of DMU's, with similarity in the production process and in the operational records for the effective application of DEA and PCA. However, the limitation can be overcome by involving managerial actions in favor of planning data collection for the required applications.
Point 4: Language looks fine, but a further reading will be better. The paper looks suitable for publication after a minor revision.
Response 4:
Although we did a careful linguistic review of the manuscript before submission with professionals whose native language is English, we have now done a new linguistic review, and again with a professional whose native language is English. Also, we thank again the reviewer for his/her encouraging words and positive assessment of our work.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
