Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Notes:

1. Line 71: perhaps instead of Ecopais it should be Extra.

2. Line 122: need ¨ before the formula?

3. Line 125: possibly extra quotes ”.

4. Type the formula after line 132 and the explanatory elements of the formulas in the formula editor, for example, MathType in accordance with the rules of the journal. In the explanations for the symbol they write, for example,

r - Pearson Coefficient;

n - number of the pairs of the stock;

Σxy - sum of products of the paired stocks;

Σx - sum of the x scores;

Σy - sum of the y scores;

Σx² - sum of the squared x scores;

Σy² - sum of the squared y scores.

5. Lines 55, 56 character p in italics.

6. Table 1 looks cumbersome. It can be between the lines of the table 1-2 pt, and the text in the lines with one interval?

 

7. Figure 1. Signature in Spanish. The text in the picture is not clear. Can be centered category labels?

8. Table 2. Maybe set 1-2 pt between the rows of the table, and the text in the rows should be spaced at one interval? And center the columns?

9. Figure 2. Figure caption and captions in Spanish.

10. Figures 3-7. Captions on the drawings in Spanish.

11. Lines 228, 245, 258, 271, 282 character p in italics.

12. In your article, the decimal part is separated by a dot, and in the tables by a comma. Traditionally, articles in English use a period as a separator. Maybe in the text and figures in large numbers, separate thousands and millions with a space?

13. It may be in tables 3-7 that the values of the correlation coefficients be presented in the form, for example, 0.536.

14. Table 6 footnote in Spanish.

15. In Figures 2, 6, the inscriptions are arranged vertically, and in Figures 3-5, the inscriptions are tilted. Can be done uniformly?

 General recommendation: carefully proofread the entire text of the article and the list of references for compliance with the requirements of the journal and the correctness of the presentation of numbers. Don't forget to translate the sentences in Spanish into English. It's possible that I missed something.

Author Response

Dear reviewer.- We send for your consideration the correct version of the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper the Authors  examine the use of fuels by each of the business sectors and their relationship with productivity by Ecuadorian companies.

The manuscript is interesting, fits well with the aim of the "Sustainability" Journal, but considering the large number of inaccuracies, it is opinion of the reviewer that it can be published after the following major revisions.

(1) In the first line of table 1 it says 'Actividad', please translate into English.

(2) It is the reviewer's opinion that table 1 could be replaced by a bulleted list

(3) On line 122, there are two dots before '????????????". Please check and correct if necessary.

(4) On line 125, before [18, p. 93] there are two superscripts. Please check and correct. Please check the entire paper and correct any other typing errors

(5) In lines 142 and 143 the "2" is a superscript

(6) Lines 139-143 are redundant. It is the reviewer's opinion that it is unnecessary to specify "sum of..." as there is already the symbol for summation. Instead, the authors should indicate what x and y are.

(7) Line 163 states 'Table 1', but in the present version of the paper, Table 1 is already stated in line 113. Please check also considering note (2) of this revision.

(8) In the first line of the table on page 5, it is unnecessary to state "Quantity of" each time. Indicate in the caption that you are referring to quantities

(9) Please align the texts on the vertical axis of the graph in figure 1

(10) The caption in Figure 1 should be translated into English

(11) On line 175, check the numbering of the tables

(12) In the first line of the table on page 7, it is unnecessary to state "Quantity of" each time. Indicate in the caption that you are referring to quantities. Please also align the lines better (see for example 'Education')

(13) The caption in Figure 2 should be translated into English

(14) Figures 2, 3, 5, 7: Translate all the text into English

(15) Figure 6 is missing in the numbering of the figures. Please check and/or renumber the figures.

(16) Tables 3,4,5,6 are not clear. In addition, some writings have to be translated into English.

(17) Non-English words are present in the refernces (e.g. En línea). Please translate into English.

(18) The reference list is mainly composed of items in the national language. It might be useful to add papers or books on this topic written in English, or, where possible, to cite books in the English edition.

Finally, it is requested to check carefully that there are no non-English sentences in the paper, and the correct numbering of tables and figures.

According to what said above, the reviewer’s opinion is that the manuscript can be accepted for publication after the described major revisions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer.- We send for your consideration the correct version of the article

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a new thinking with novelty but presentation and data interpretation needs more comprehensiveness and discussion needs to be holistic with reference to GHG emision. More scientific evidences can be discussed with reference to available scientific literature. Overall an impressive work. i have put my my suggestions in the sticky note embedded in the body of the manuscript itself. Please refer to those. Conclusion needs more soundness based on your data with relating hydrocarbon fuel use efficiency, productivity and GHG emission.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer.- We send for your consideration the correct version of the article

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The article is a statistical data analysis, the topic is interesting, but I think the article has many shortcomings. - The introduction is interesting, the authors emphasized the purpose of their work, which is an advantage. - The methodology should be improved, it is described chaotically, it should be more scientific. - The results are discussed, but they lack a deeper analysis of the causes and shortcomings of the existing state of affairs. - The discussion is like a chapter, but it does not exist in the classic form, i.e. reference to other data, results - maybe from other countries, etc. Moreover, there are many typing errors, the data presented in the tables and figures are illegible. I believe that the article still needs to be refined and should not be published in its present form.

Author Response

Dear reviewer.- We send for your consideration the correct version of the article

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper was revised, in accordance with the reviewer’s response.

Text and Figures editing style was revised following the reviewer's indications. 

However, there are still some suggestions that the reviewer gives to make the paper better. 

In particular:

(1) On page 4, lines 138-140, the reviewer suggests writing the questions in indirect form, i.e. without the question mark and without the interrogative intonation.

(2) In Table 5 probably missing two zeros (Pearson correlation 0.103 Sig. bilateral 0.695).

(3) The sentence written under table 7 is not in English. Please read the entire paper carefully and check that there are no words or phrases written in non-English language.

According to what said above, the reviewer’s opinion is that the manuscript can be accepted for publication after these minor revisions.

Author Response

Distinguished reviewer, thank you again for your time and in advance for our extended commitment. The improvement in listening to your suggestions has been substantial.

All complaints have been solved

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The article has been corrected to a large extent, but there are still many editing errors, which it is surprising that the authors, when sending the corrected version, do not pay attention to. There are no subscripts when writing chemical compounds, the caption for Table 7 is in a different language. In terms of editing, there are many glaring errors. But if the article is accepted, it must be corrected before publication anyway. In terms of content I have no comments, I recommend that in the future more attention to care and aesthetics of the article as a whole.   

Author Response

Distinguished reviewer, thank you again for your time and in advance for our extended commitment. The improvement in listening to your suggestions has been substantial.

All complaints have been solved

Author Response File: Author Response.docx