DEA-Bootstrapping Analysis for Different Models of Spanish Port Governance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper refers to the DEA-Bootstrapping analysis of the Spanish port system.

The shortcomings noted in the work, which the authors of the article must take into account:

1. In addition to the theoretical basis, the introduction should provide a detailed analysis of the existing scientific and professional literature, in order to clearly emphasize the scientific contribution of the paper. The part of the text in the chapter "Methodology" related to the review of the scientific literature needs to be moved to the introduction. After that, it is necessary to restructure the chapter "Introduction" in such a way as to present in detail the state of the art of the research field, clearly state the goal of the research as well as the scientific contribution of the research.
2. Formulas used in the paper that are not the original scientific contribution of this research need to be referenced. From the text it can be concluded that the formulas were taken from other sources, but then the question arises what exactly is the scientific contribution of this research?
3. It is necessary to study the template of the journal which refers to the definition of the method of citation. It primarily refers to the referencing of figures and tables.
4. In the chapter "Methodology" it is not clear what your scientific contribution is in terms of improving existing scientific achievements. What has been methodologically improved? What is the difference between your research and the one already conducted? Since the citation is half done, the same cannot be clearly read from the text.
5. Formulas are not cited and numbered. Images are not numbered or properly cited. The tables are not made according to the instructions in the template.
6. The results and discussion again lack a poor definition of scientific contribution. The discussion should provide a comparison of the existing scientific literature and your research in order to clearly state the improvements in relation to the existing scientific knowledge.
7. The paper needs to be textually restructured and it is necessary to clearly point out what is new, innovative in research as well as what are the future guidelines of the research that arise from the acquired knowledge.

Author Response

1.Final paragraphs have been added in this section that try to improve the article according to the comments of the reviewer. The development of the literature is also explained in Table 1, chronologically ordered with the most relevant events in the field and related to the article.

2.Gil Ropero has been referred to, from which the formulas obtained from his Doctoral Thesis have been extracted.

"What is the difference between your research and the one already conducted? -> The difference is that this article shows and analyses with a series of inputs and outputs representative of the port business the current efficiency in the Spanish Port Authorities and compares them with two proposals for governance models that are formed by the union of these Port Authorities. What the reader sees is that a reform in the Spanish model of governance would benefit the efficiency of the system, as has been done in other countries such as Italy.

3 and 5. The references and formats of the Tables and Figures have been changed, inserting the quotations in the text of these. The Tables have been put in Table format, not as images.

6. No studies of governance model proposals based on efficiency with the selected inputs and outputs have been carried out. Other authors have only mentioned the possible change in the governance model, giving conclusions without a theoretical basis or productive data; they can only have been based on economic models.

7. Guidelines have been added to future conclusions that defend our research. Making the reader see that at the discretion of the researcher and with the data obtained, it can be carried out.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Direct comparison of ports is not the optimal path, the article compares ports, but they are different. Such a comparison is possible for port groups by region, it is recommended to mark it in the introduction and summary.
2. Direct comparisons are possible for specific terminals, as noted on lines (83-90), (98-104), 118-123), (142-146) and elsewhere, so without the introduction of weighting factors for specific ports according to their characteristics, port comparisons are not accurate. It is recommended to note this in the article.
3. Line 176. Incomplete formula, it is recommended to write the right side of the formula.
4. Formulas are recommended to be numbered.
5. It compares the operations and revenues of port administrations and it is unclear whether only revenues from port tolls or stevedoring are included, it is recommended to adjust.

Author Response

1-2. The purpose of the research in the development of the introduction has been explained, making it clear that the aim is not to analyse port to port by its characteristics, but to give the reader a vision of the possibility of proposing a new model of Spanish port governance, based on efficiency data (AED) that can be observed to be improving, and to make the reader think of the possibility of change with such good results.

3. Line 176, the incorrectly worded formula has been corrected and a paragraph added after the formulation explaining the oriented AED model.

4. The formulas have been numbered.

5. It has been explained that the revenues of the port authority are mostly the fees they charge (90%).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors included most of the remarks in the text. Technical shortcomings are still visible (tables are not made according to the template).