Improved Evaluation of Cultivation Performance for Maize Based on Group Decision Method of Data Envelopment Analysis Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract:

The first sentence of the abstract is meaningless.

In abstract, CCS term is used which is not defined, how could a reader judge that has been referred to Charnes-Cooper-Rhodes model of DEA (data envelopment analysis).

No-where in the abstract, authors have mentioned the number of decision making units (DMUs) under maize cultivation was considered.

 

Abstract lacks any data, only description information in given.  

Abstract need to be re-written, clearly stating the introduction, methodology followed, hypothesis tested, results and the conclusion of the study.

 

Introduction

Authors are advised to re-write the introduction section, while clearly stating what are the lacking, research objectives, state-of the-art of previous work done. It seems as authors have not consulted the literature published earlier. The following are some of the good studies which needs to be included to strengthen the introduction and discussion section.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.05.147

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120680

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.02.169

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101453

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01521-x

Mohammadi, A., Rafee, S., Jafari, A., Dalgaard, T., Trydeman, M., Keyhani, A., Mousavi-Avval, A., & Hermansen, E. (2013). Potential greenhouse gas emission reductions in soybean farming: A com[1]bined use of life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 54, 89–100.

Mohammadi, A., Rafee, S., Jafari, A. M., Keyhani, A., Dalgaard, T., Trydeman, M., Nguyen, T., Borek, R., & Hermansen, E. (2014). Joint life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis for the benchmarking of environmental impacts in rice paddy production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 521–532.

Mohammadi, A., Rafee, S., Mohtasebi, S. S., Mousavi-Avval, S. H., & Rafee, H. (2011). Energy ef[1]ciency improvement and input cost saving in kiwifruit production using Data Envelopment Analy[1]sis approach. Renewable Energy, 36, 2573–2579.

Mousavi-Avval, S. H., Rafee, S., Jafari, A., & Mohammadi, A. (2011). Optimization of energy con[1]sumption for soybean production using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) approach. Applied Energy, 88, 3765–3772.

Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., Abdi, R., Rafee, S., & Montaker, H. G. (2014a). Optimization of energy required and greenhouse gas emissions analysis for orange producers using data envelopment analysis approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 311–317.

Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., Abdi, R., Rafee, S., & Taromi, K. (2014b). Applying data envelopment analysis approach to improve energy efciency and reduce greenhouse gas emission of rice production. Engineering in Agriculture Environment Food, 7(4), 155–162.

Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H., Qasemi-Kordkheili, P., Kouchaki-Penchah, H., & Riahi-Dorcheh, F. (2016). Applying optimization techniques to improve of energy efciency and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions of wheat production. Energy, 103, 672–678.

 

Results

The units of kg/hm2 needs to be changed to kg/ha or Mg/ha. There is a need of more clear comparison between the treatments.

 

Discussion

Discussion needs to be supportive of the results presented. This section needs through revision and required to be related to the results of the study.

Conclusion

Conclusion section should be revised to reflect the results of the study.  

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We greatly thank the reviewers for supporting our study. All the comments are insightful in making our manuscript better. The responses to all the comments are as follows,

 

1. Abstract:

The first sentence of the abstract is meaningless.

Authors’ response: We agree this. The background/introduction section of abstract has been re-written.  

 

In abstract, CCS term is used which is not defined, how could a reader judge that has been referred to Charnes-Cooper-Rhodes model of DEA (data envelopment analysis).

Authors’ response: Thanks for pointing this out. We have added full name of CCR. See line26-27.

 

No-where in the abstract, authors have mentioned the number of decision making units (DMUs) under maize cultivation was considered.

Authors’ response: Thanks for pointing this out. We have added DMU part into abstract.

 

Abstract lacks any data, only description information in given.  

Abstract need to be re-written, clearly stating the introduction, methodology followed, hypothesis tested, results and the conclusion of the study.

Authors’ response: We agree. The abstract has been re-written to make it clearer. See line23-25;34-35.

 

2. Introduction

Authors are advised to re-write the introduction section, while clearly stating what are the lacking, research objectives, state-of the-art of previous work done. It seems as authors have not consulted the literature published earlier. The following are some of the good studies which needs to be included to strengthen the introduction and discussion section.

Authors’ response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have summary more previous work including the recommended literatures. The introduction section has been re-written to make the structure clearer, which include what are the lacking, research objectives, and state-of the-art of previous work done. See line 67-119.

 

3. Results. The units of kg/hm2 needs to be changed to kg/ha or Mg/ha. There is a need of more clear comparison between the treatments.

Authors’ response: Thanks for pointing this out. kg/hm2 has been changed to Mg/ha. See line 166,178,337-338,369-370,387,408,418,422,428,431,446.

We also added one paragraph of the comparison between the treatments.

 

4. Conclusion. Conclusion section should be revised to reflect the results of the study.  

Authors’ response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have re-written conclusion to reflect the results of the study.  See line 559-579.

 

All edits are tracked in the revised manuscript to facilitate further review. We hope that we have addressed all the comments satisfactorily and look forward to hearing from you about the status of our manuscript. If you need any additional information, please feel free to contact us.

 

Sincerely,

 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 This paper studies Improved Evaluation of Cultivation Performance for Maize Based on Group Decision Method of Data Envelopment Analysis Model. This method determined the most effective cultivation measure. Further independent validation showed that the final optimal cultivation measures fall in the range of expected cultivation measures. A novel method termed as Group decision method of Data Envelopment Analysis (GDM-DEA) is proposed to detect the improvement of evaluation performance and tested in the measurements of maize cultivation. The GDM-DEA model is capable of better evaluating cultivation performance. There are some weaknesses that should be addressed in this paper. Therefore, I suggest the authors resubmit it after a major revision. My suggestions are as follows:

1.  I strongly suggest that the paper be proofread and reread meticulously again, particularly regarding the spelling and grammatical mistakes.

2. In Fig 1, you provided a flowchart to explain the Graphical abstract of the suggested new GDM-DEA model  This section must provide a concise and clear explanation of the suggested approach. Although the flowchart is beneficial, it’s also important to outline the methodology behind this new approach. Please add at least one paragraph in this section and explain more. 

3. Following the mathematical model is difficult due to a few notational mistakes. As an example, following subsections 2-4 for the CCR model and the newly suggested model are difficult. Please simplify more.

4. In 2-4-2 you explain your new model and you mentioned GDM-DEA adds a new DMU Average decision unit.

Please explain more. What is the main advantage of adding a new average decision unit? 

5. In line 168 you mentioned:

 "DMU is not GDM-DEA effective" 

Please edit this part. It should be better to mention: DMU is ineffective in the GEM-DEA model.

6.  The paper should be revised to include the following DEA-related recent references. Please add the following references:

-  Energy auditing and data envelopment analysis (DEA) based optimization for increased energy use efficiency in wheat cultivation (Triticum aestium L.) in north-western India

-  A novel artificial intelligent approach: Comparison of machine learning tools and algorithms based on optimization DEA Malmquist productivity index for eco-efficiency evaluation

-  Optimization of energy consumption using data envelopment analysis (DEA) in rice-wheat-green gram cropping system under conservation tillage practices

-  A novel machine learning approach combined with optimization models for eco-efficiency evaluation

- Improving Energy Efficiency of Barley Production Using Joint Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Optimization Approach

- Developing a novel integrated generalised data envelopment analysis (DEA) to evaluate hospitals providing stroke care services

- Spatial correlation among cultivated land intensive use and carbon emission efficiency: A case study in the Yellow River Basin, China

- A novel hybrid parametric and non-parametric optimisation model for average technical efficiency assessment in public hospitals during and post-COVID-19 pandemic

- Assessing the eco-efficiency of complex forestry enterprises using LCA/time-series DEA methodology

- Dynamic performance assessment of hospitals by applying credibility-based fuzzy window data envelopment analysis

7. Figure 2 is a picture. Please improve the quality of Figure 2. Meanwhile, the title for figure 2 is about one paragraph. Please reduce this figure title and add the explanation to your text.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for supporting our work and the very helpful comments to bring additional clarity to our paper. The comments are addressed as follows:

 

1.  I strongly suggest that the paper be proofread and reread meticulously again, particularly regarding the spelling and grammatical mistakes.

Authors’ response: Thanks for the suggestions. The whole manuscript has been carefully checked, particularly in the spelling and grammatical mistakes.

 

2. In Fig 1, you provided a flowchart to explain the Graphical abstract of the suggested new GDM-DEA model  This section must provide a concise and clear explanation of the suggested approach. Although the flowchart is beneficial, it’s also important to outline the methodology behind this new approach. Please add at least one paragraph in this section and explain more. 

Authors’ response: We agree that the flowchart is not enough to explain the methodology of new method in the most effective cultivation measure determination. We have added another paragraph to explain the detail about this new method. (Line 199-207)

 

3. Following the mathematical model is difficult due to a few notational mistakes. As an example, following subsections 2-4 for the CCR model and the newly suggested model are difficult. Please simplify more.

Authors’ response: We agree that this section need to be improved. We have re-written this section to revise the mistakes and make it easier to understand. (Line 208-254, model (1) ,255-257)

 

4. In 2-4-2 you explain your new model and you mentioned GDM-DEA adds a new DMU Average decision unit. Please explain more. What is the main advantage of adding a new average decision unit? 

Authors’ response: We have added several sentences to explain the advantage of adding a new average decision unit. (Line 260-270,273-380)

 

5. In line 168 you mentioned:

 "DMU is not GDM-DEA effective" 

Please edit this part. It should be better to mention: DMU is ineffective in the GEM-DEA model.

Authors’ response: Thanks for pointing this out. We have revised it. (Line 293-294)

 

6. The paper should be revised to include the following DEA-related recent references. Please add the following references:

Authors’ response: Thanks for the suggestions. We have added these references. (Line 67-119)

 

7. Figure 2 is a picture. Please improve the quality of Figure 2. Meanwhile, the title for figure 2 is about one paragraph. Please reduce this figure title and add the explanation to your text.

Authors’ response: Thanks for pointing this out. We have improved the quality of Fig. 2. The title of fig. 2 have been simplified. (Line 359,361-366)

 

All edits are tracked in the revised manuscript to facilitate further review. We hope that we have addressed the comments satisfactorily and look forward to hearing from you about the status of our manuscript. If you need any additional information, please contact us.

 

Sincerely,

 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors answered all my comments, and this version is acceptable for publication.