The Relationship between Transportation Industry Efficiency, Transportation Structure, and Regional Sustainability Development in China: Based on DEA and PVAR Models
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
please see the attachment
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a well written and constructed paper on a topic worthy of investigation. I have the following minor comments to make:
- The equations outlined in section 3 research methods, are missing a more detailed/descriptive nomenclature for the notion used in the equations, which would assist the reader with intepreting the formulae used. For those unfamiliar with DEA, it makes it more difficult for the reader to interpret the model.
- The use of turnover in section 3.2 to reflect transportation volume seems incorrect, turnover would usually relate to money/revenue taken. But in the paper I turnover does not appear to be used in this sense. Perhaps another more appropriate term could be used?
- The description of table 2 (page 10) should come before the table, not after.
- First sentence in section 5.2 "According to the current situation of each region, formulate plans...", does not make sense, I think there could be some words missing, or it needs rephrasing.
- While the policy recommendations are welcome in this paper, more reflection on how the results produced influence the recommendations would be a good addition.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This work uses a panel vector autoregressive model to analyze the relationship between the transportation efficiency, transportation structure, and regional economic development.
After review, the following questions were raised:
1. The main contribution of the paper should be highlighted and emphasized. It would be great if the drawbacks and gaps of literature are clear and, particularly, how the proposed approach aims at filling these gaps.
2. The abstract should briefly display the results of the research.
3. It is better to make a more comprehensive literature review in the form of a table (matrix) so that the reader is more confident with the contribution of this research.
4. The performance required presenting in more quantitative manner
5. Improve the English writing/editing of the manuscript. There are many grammatical mistakes throughout the manuscript.
6. Add more results to validate the proposed work and compared those with the existing analysis/work. Moreover, the computational effort and accuracy of the proposed work should be compared with a benchmark method and other existing work to justify its effectiveness.
7. Explain in brief how the present paper differs from the published ones.
8. Present the proof of sensitivity and robustness formulations/analysis of the proposed work and validation.
9. It is necessary that the authors should illustrate/present the details of the proposed work, modeling/design and data of the studied power system, system constraints/data/parameters, etc. Moreover, state the system constraints, in other words, the upper and the lower boundaries of the optimization algorithm/system variables, etc.
10. What are the limitations and disadvantages of the proposed work?
The overall innovation of the study is lacking, and the authors need to dig into other interesting ideas.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have made sufficient modifications according to the modification comments.
