Review Reports - Statistical Analysis and Data Envelopment Analysis to Improve the Efficiency of Manufacturing Process of Electrical Conductors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript is a good start but requires revision before it is ready for publication. In particular, it is not clear that the methods in the manuscript address the challenges described in the introduction. Additionally, the clarity of the methodology and results sections can be greatly improved. Finally, the conclusions section needs major revision to connect the results to the original problem of interest.

Please reference the attached file for specific, by-section feedback.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please reference the attached file for specific, by-section feedback.

A: Thank you for your comments. The Methodology and Indtroduction, and Concusion sections have been clarified.

Title/Abstract/Keywords

The content of the manuscript was not what I expected it to be based on the abstract, and some modest revision can alleviate this potential source of confusion for other readers.

In Line 3, the opening importance is stated to be replacement of imports and improvement of costs. These topics are discussed in the introduction but do not receive any treatment in the bulk of the manuscript or in the conclusion.

This is understandable because trade imbalance and cost issues are complex, multifaceted challenges that are well beyond the scope of this research. Therefore, it is important to appropriately manage the reader’s expectations from the beginning.

A: Thank you for your comments. In the Introduction and Conclusions have been added comments regarding the cost issues in order to show o the readers the economical impact.

In Line 9-10, six factors are identified that might influence performance. This implies a 6-Factor ANOVA. However, the only ANOVA performed is a single-factor ANOVA with five levels. It is not clear how the six factors listed contribute to the analysis.

A: Thank you for your comments. In the Methodology Section the reference for ANOVA method and the list of the 6 values are discoused.

A modest re-write of the abstract may be beneficial to the reader:

1-3 sentences on high-level topic and importance; why was the research conducted?

Description of methodology; what did you do?

Most important findings; how did your results address the problem?

A: We appreciate the revision. In the new version of the abstract we are answering these 3 questions.

Section 1: Introduction

Lines 42-43 prepare the reader for a list of causes, and Lines 44-51 contain that list. This information needs justification in the form of a citation. How do we know that the listed reasons are correct?

A: Thank you for your comments. We included the reference [xx] to support the statement.

The large paragraph, composed of Lines 26-65, is difficult to read. Consider breaking into smaller paragraphs or placing Figure 1 in the middle to break it up into more digestible pieces.

This section is missing a transition from the general topic / problem to how this research addresses the problem. It is also helpful to provide the reader with a high-level organization of the paper.

A: Thank you for your comments. We attended your comment by adding a soft transition from the general topic to the specific problem.

Section 2: Theoretical Framework

Section 2.1 appears out of place and may be better aligned with Section 1: Introduction.

The citation approach in Section 2.2 needs work. Line 113 cites 7 publications simultaneously for a single sentence. Additionally, throughout the manuscript, blocks of articles are cited in a manner such that it is not clear which elements are taking from which articles. This is not a good practice. It should be clear to the reader where to go to find justification for cited material.

A: Thank you for your comments. We tried to specify the reference which contains the right information to be cited.

Section 4: Methodology

It is not clear how Table 2 relates to the data in Table 3. Is Table 2 depicting a format, as stated in the caption, or is it displaying actual data collected?

If it displays actual data collected, how was this data used in the analysis? It is not clear.

A: Thank you for the review. We reesteuctured the information on T2 and T3 to make it clearest.

Sections 4.4 and 4.4.1 are not clear. What are the DMUs for this research? How many DMUs are there? What are the input and output data? What weights were used? This needs to be explained.

A: Thank you for the review. These information is described in Section XX.

Section 5: Results

Figure 4 is not clear. Lines 205-206 identify Figure 4 as the ANOVA results; based on the graphs, it appears rather to be Minitab output on validations of ANOVA assumptions.

A: Thank you for the review. F4 has been modified to clarify the results of the experiments.

Same feedback regarding citations. Articles 31-39 are cited throughout this section; it is preferable to cite specific articles for specific statements as opposed to a set of 9 articles repeatedly.

A: Thank you for the review. Some of the references has been delated, since those were not of high impact of the research.

Is there a reason why the die-nozzle should have an effect on volume produced or volume of scrap? It is likely that there are other factors that account for the significant result in Table 8. If there are theoretical reasons to attribute the differences in volume and scrap to die-nozzle, then those reasons should be discussed.

A: Thank you for the review. There are not theoretical reasons to discouse

Figure 5 is not clear. The axes on the graph are not the same scale as Table 3B, which is identified in Line 228 as the source of the data.

A: Thank you for the review. F4 has been modified to clarify the results of the experiments.

It is not clear where the regression equations in Table 9 come from. The coefficient of determination values are so high that there may be some mathematical relationship between the dependent and independent variables, making the results somewhat trivial. For example, the R-Squared value for Scrap in Line A indicates that the model perfectly predicted every data point (R-Squared = 100%). That is an unlikely occurrence.

A: Thank you for the review. F4 has been modified to clarify the results of the experiments.

Table 12 column headers need to be proofread for spelling

A: Thank you for the review. Spelling was checked.

Process capacity indices in Section 5.5 appear here for the first time – no discussion in Section 2: Theoretical foundations or in Section 4: Methodology

A: Thank you for the review. We added along the paper the process capacity.

The data in Table 12 appears odd. In the ‘PPM in’ column, the 3DND has only 75 but the next smallest is 18931. That is a massive discrepancy that needs to be discussed. A similar phenomenon is seen in Table 13.

A: Thank you for the review. Spelling was checked.

Section 6: Conclusions

This section appears to simply restate results. There needs to be discussion of how the work contained in the manuscript addresses the main challenges discussed in the introduction.

A: Thank you for the review. We are highlighting the challenges achieved in the Conclusion section.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments to the authors:

The paper presents statistical analysis (SA) and data envelopment analysis (DEA) to improve the efficiency of manufacturing process by using various standard statistical methods (ANOVA, Tukey test and Linear Regression). With the use of the Minitab software 18 ®, the DEA procedure is planed and the SA is performed. It is demonstrated that the DEA model can clarify the efficiency of the die-nozzle models. It is insisted in the conclusion of the paper that there are many applications along the line of the DEA in the fields of finance, health, service and education in the future.

I can judge that the contents of the paper might be fair for the data handling within the framework of the DEA based on the Minitab software. Although, (a) there are redundant expressions in the contents; (b) it is quite difficult to find the INNOVATIVE QUALITY or the IMPACT of the results obtained in the present paper, the content of the paper may be evaluated as a regular standard report on a DEA analysis after minor revision.

(1) Please polish your English to elucidate the contents.

(2) In, page 14, line6, ……. and 4DNK, which It is different because different criteria are used. Please correct to readable form.

(3) Tables and related explanations are redundant. Please rearrange into more compact forms.

(4) Figure 6 is redundant.

(5) In conclusion of the paper, it is difficult to understand the true meaning in the last 4 lines.

Minor comment to references

(1) There are many typos in references.

(2) Also, the format of references is not unified.

Please check again carefully.

Author Response

Please polish your English to elucidate the contents.

A: Thank you for the review. The English language was checked.

In, page 14, line6, ……. and 4DNK, which It is different because different criteria are used. Please correct to readable form.

A: Thank you for the review. This issue was corrected.

Tables and related explanations are redundant. Please rearrange into more compact forms.

A: Thank you for the review. The tables were fixed in order to clarify the information.

Figure 6 is redundant.

A: Thank you for the review. The fig. 6 was delated.

In conclusion of the paper, it is difficult to understand the true meaning in the last 4 lines. A: We rewrote the ideas of the conclusions...

Minor comment to references

(1)There are many typos in references.

A: Thank you for the review. A general review was done.

(2)Also, the format of references is not unified.

A: Thank you for the review. We homogenized the style of references.

Please check again carefully.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, I do not believe that this manuscript is suitable in its present form for publishing. In addition to the attached file, consider the following high-level observations:

(1) The research performed is a statistical analysis of die-nozzles with models determined based on country of origin. However, the problem stated at the outset of the manuscript is the challenge faced by Mexico regarding import of tool, mold and die suppliers. The research does not address the problem.

(2) Methodologically, the manuscript does not make a sufficiently convincing case that the significant results achieved are not on the basis of confounding factors. The authors acknowledge that there is not a theoretical reason to link die-nozzle with volume produced or volume of scrap. However, ANOVA was performed using die-nozzle as the single factor and volume produced and volume of scrap as response variables. The significant result achieved (Table 8) may be due to something completely unrelated.

(3) Editing for grammar and flow is essential; a significant copy/paste error resulted in several duplicated lines in Section 1.

Overall, while not suitable for publication in its current form, the authors are encouraged to resubmit as a fresh manuscript. The process of scholarly publication is difficult, and all feedback is provided with the desire to help improve the manuscript and professionally assist the author(s).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The changes do not address the intent of the feedback. The initial feedback was provided because the paper introduces topics that the research does not address. The reader is introduced to the challenge of Mexico’s need for tooling, mold, and die suppliers (Line 30). Industrial policy is mentioned (Line 31) as is a need for process and quality analysis (Line 33). However, the actual research conducted (described in Lines 50-53) is a statistical comparison of die-nozzle manufacturers from different countries of origin. The authors need to show how the research performed addresses the stated problem of interest.

Thank you for your observation. In the new version, we attempt to show how the research performed addresses the stated problem from manufacturing. We have made adjustments in the introduction and the methodology section.

Line 48-50 (“The motivation of the study… manufacture of electrical conductors”) needs to be revised for grammar.

Thank you for your review. We are sorry for the mistake; the full paper was check by a native speaker.

There is a major editing error – Lines 53-61 (“The main problem… United States, Australia, and Japan”) are repeated in Lines 61-69.

Thank you for your comment. We are sorry for the mistake; the full paper was check by a native speaker.

Editing error in Line 78. Compare to Lines 42-43 of original version.

Thank you. We are sorry for the mistake, we corrected it.

Thank you for your comment. In the new version, In the new version of the manuscript, we have adjusted and corrected the details.

Correction not made. Lines 44-51 from the original submission appear, with some slight modification, in Lines 78-83 of the revised manuscript, still with no citation.

Thank you. We are sorry for that, we rewrote by citing.

The large paragraph, composed of Lines 26-65, is difficult to read. Consider breaking into smaller paragraphs or placing Figure 1 in the middle to break it up into more digestible pieces.

Thank you for your comment. We have removed details to clarify the proposed study since the introduction.

Thank you for your observation. In the introduction section, we are telling how the paper is organized: We have reorganized the section methodology and the section presentation of results.

Corrections did not meet the intent of the original feedback. It is helpful, at the end of the introduction section, to walk the reader through what to expect in the remainder of the paper. Something to the effect of, “Section 2 contains … Section 3 contains … etc.”.

Thank you for your comment. This is responded in the previous statement.

Initial feedback still stands – Figure 4 is not displaying ANOVA results; it is displaying plots used to validate ANOVA assumptions.

Thank you for your comment. This figure is changed.

Figure 5 is not clear. The axes on the graph are not the same scale as Table 3B, which is identified in Line 228 as the source of the data.

Thank you for your comment. In your second round, you said, “Feedback not addressed – author response is copied/pasted from different feedback.”. We are sorry for the confusion, we corrected these issues.

Thank you for your comment. In the second round of the revision, you said “Feedback not addressed – author response is copied/pasted from different feedback. The former Table 9 has been deleted.” We are sorry for the confusion. In the new version, we added figure 4 to clarify the methodology used and reorganize the results.