Efficiency Evaluation of the World’s Top Ten Seed Companies: Static and Dynamic Analysis in the Context of Global Consolidation and Sustainability Challenges
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview Report
Manuscript ID: sustainability-3552502
Paper Title: Efficiency Evaluation of the World's Top Ten Seed Companies: A Static and Dynamic Analysis in the Context of Low-Carbon Transformation and Sustainable Development
The study presents a comprehensive analysis of efficiency changes in the global seed industry using DEA and MPI methodologies. The following suggestions aim to enhance the clarity, depth, and impact of the research:
1. The authors must elaborate further on the assumptions underlying the DEA and MPI models. Specifically, provides a clearer distinction between the constant returns to scale and variable returns to scale assumptions and explains the implications of these assumptions on the interpretation of efficiency scores.
2. Consider incorporating external factors such as climate change, policy changes, and geopolitical risks in future efficiency analyses. These factors could significantly influence seed company performance but are not accounted for in the current model.
3. The authors must expand the discussion on how the findings can inform managerial strategies in seed companies. For example, provide actionable insights on optimizing R&D investment and resource allocation to enhance efficiency, especially under conditions of increasing returns to scale.
4. The authors must enrich the conclusion by including more detailed comments on the real-world implications of the efficiency scores. Highlight key takeaways regarding the role of technological innovation and scale expansion in shaping company performance.
5. Ensure that all references are formatted according to the journal's guidelines.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you and the three reviewers for their valuable comments and careful reading of the manuscript. We have carefully examined and addressed all the issues raised in the review comments. As a result, we hope you will find the manuscript is much improved and the revision is suitable for publication in Sustainability.
The major changes are summarized as follows:
- We rewrote the abstract in a clear and concise style.
- We have added a brief introduction to the research conclusions, research methods, research contributions, etc. in the introduction section.
- We have replaced those lengthy paragraphs with concise and logical ones.
- In the empirical results, we added some discussion, policy implications, and explanations.
- We have added numerous references and data to support our viewpoint
- We added the Discussion section before the conclusion.
We believe that our revisions effectively respond to the reviewer’s concerns. Thank you very much for your consideration and look forward to your positive response.
Sincerely,
Yongrok Choi
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthor study about world’s top ten seed producing companies from 2016 to 2022 and analyze about growing external uncertainties. Overall manuscript quality is good, paper can accept after major revision some comments are given below:
In the last part of abstract author include some quantitively result and describe it.
How does this study contribute to the existing literature on efficiency evaluation in the seed industry?
Does the methodology employed (DEA and MPI) sufficiently capture the efficiency dynamics in the context of large-scale mergers?
How well does the article justify the importance of balancing scale efficiency with technological innovation?
A decline in overall technical efficiency (OTE) for most firms after mergers. What factors could be responsible for this trend?
How does the study ensure the validity of the efficiency scores derived from the DEA model?
What specific policy recommendations can be drawn from this study for seed companies and policymakers?
Author should improve the figure quality. Draw the left, top and right axis.
Conclusion part is too long, author concise it.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you and the three reviewers for their valuable comments and careful reading of the manuscript. We have carefully examined and addressed all the issues raised in the review comments. As a result, we hope you will find the manuscript is much improved and the revision is suitable for publication in Sustainability.
The major changes are summarized as follows:
- We rewrote the abstract in a clear and concise style.
- We have added a brief introduction to the research conclusions, research methods, research contributions, etc. in the introduction section.
- We have replaced those lengthy paragraphs with concise and logical ones.
- In the empirical results, we added some discussion, policy implications, and explanations.
- We have added numerous references and data to support our viewpoint
- We added the Discussion section before the conclusion.
We believe that our revisions effectively respond to the reviewer’s concerns. Thank you very much for your consideration and look forward to your positive response.
Sincerely,
Yongrok Choi
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The topic of the article seems relevant. The main focus of the article is to analyze the complex relationships between the scale of assets, technological innovations and the efficiency of resource allocation. The authors analyze the efficiency of the ten largest global seed producing companies in the period from 2016 to 2022, when large-scale mergers and acquisitions of seed producing companies were observed. The authors conduct a comprehensive analysis of efficiency.
2. There are known works devoted to the analysis of various types of efficiency, as well as the analysis of the relationship between the scale and efficiency of seed producing companies. These works conduct analysis mainly during the second wave of mergers of seed producing companies. There are not enough works devoted to the analysis of the relationship between the scale and efficiency of seed producing companies during the third wave of mergers.
3. I believe that this study adds certain justification to the subject area of statistical and dynamic analysis of enterprise efficiency. We are talking about the use of Malmquist productivity indices (MPI) and data envelopment analysis (DEA) for static and dynamic analysis of various types of efficiency.
4. The article has some comments.
Firstly, I believe that the title of the article needs to be corrected. Different parts of the title are unevenly disclosed in the article. Efficiency assessment and application of statistical and dynamic analysis are shown in the article very well and clearly. At the same time, the second part of the title, namely the context of low-carbon transformation and sustainable development, is shown very poorly. It seems that this part of the title is artificially drawn. For example, the following title can be recommended: Efficiency Assessment of the World's Ten Largest Seed Companies: Static and Dynamic Analysis in the Context of Global Business Consolidation.
Secondly, the article lacks a literature review section. As a result, the reader cannot see the degree of study of this problem, cannot see the research gaps in the research problems.
Thirdly, a research article, as a rule, is aimed at confirming the research hypotheses. These hypotheses are formulated on the basis of the identified gaps or discontinuities in the research problems.
Fourthly, the article lacks a Discussion section. I recommend developing a Discussion section. I recommend analyzing the main results of the study. I also recommend conducting an analysis of the confirmation of the hypotheses and their verification with known works, as well as providing limitations on the use of the results. Some of this material is currently presented in the Conclusion section.
Fifthly, I recommend improving the abstract and making it more informative. Now it presents the results of the study in general terms. I recommend presenting the results of the study in a more specific way in the abstract, indicating their theoretical and practical significance.
5. The conclusions of the study contain a list of the obtained results. The results of the study are significant and do not raise questions.
6. The references are appropriate. These are scientific sources on the topic of the study. The article uses 51 scientific sources, a certain part of which represents research in recent years. I hope that when working through the literature review, the list of sources will be expanded.
7. All graphics and tables in the article are clear and appropriate. The article has very good graphics, which increases the perceptibility of the results. The research methods are described in the article well and are understandable to the reader.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you and the three reviewers for their valuable comments and careful reading of the manuscript. We have carefully examined and addressed all the issues raised in the review comments. As a result, we hope you will find the manuscript is much improved and the revision is suitable for publication in Sustainability.
The major changes are summarized as follows:
- We rewrote the abstract in a clear and concise style.
- We have added a brief introduction to the research conclusions, research methods, research contributions, etc. in the introduction section.
- We have replaced those lengthy paragraphs with concise and logical ones.
- In the empirical results, we added some discussion, policy implications, and explanations.
- We have added numerous references and data to support our viewpoint
- We added the Discussion section before the conclusion.
We believe that our revisions effectively respond to the reviewer’s concerns. Thank you very much for your consideration and look forward to your positive response.
Sincerely,
Yongrok Choi
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed some of the concerns raised fairly convincingly.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccepted
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article has been substantially revised. Almost all sections have been substantially revised. Almost all comments have been eliminated. The abstract has been completely revised. It has become very informative. The article formulates the purpose and hypotheses of the study. The research methodology section has been improved. A new Discussion section has been added. The Conclusion section has been completely revised. The list of sources has been revised.
