A Second Chance for Failed Projects Using Data Envelopment Analysis Based on Project Attractiveness Factors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a computer aided study of select road construction projects in Indonesia. The projects are evaluated using data envelopement analysis, which also helps suggest improvements to them. 

Still, with the real estimates of future conditions, forecasts indicate economic losses to investors, even though the analysis indicates that improvements to the projects would somewhat improve the overall economic performance. 

Then random perturbations are made to the original input data showing a case where the analysis could help make the overall project portfolio profitable over a 30-year span. This resembles a sensitivity analysis in its approach, while such analysis is not fully pursued in this study. 

The Abstract and Discussion sections summarize the contents well and I will not repeat those here. 

As the content appears consistent and correct, the methodology sound (although the work could be expanded in several directions), the presentation is overall good, and the language clear and precise and linguistically correct, I will recommend accepting this paper for publication with only minor corrections. 

I list the minor corrections I have in mind next. 

L 37 remove comma after long hyphen

L 66 provide the expanded "Decision-Making Units" explanation for the abbreviation DMU. 

L 106  add a space before parentheses

L 117  datum is singular, data is plural:  data are limited...   Please go through all places with the word "data" and ensure it is treated as indicating plural

L 143 add "that" between "ensures" and "the"

L 222 author names should not be in all caps, same in Reference list at the end

L 294  Consider referring the readers to equation 5 for the LP form of equation 2

L 302  Replace "Both" with "The"

L 383 Replace "to determine" with "as"

L 390  Replace "Both the IRR" with "The IRR"

Table 1.  As these are correlations, they can be indicated with - / 0 / + to cut the excessive size of the table. 

L 484  delete the second "are" 

L 551   Table 2 does NOT present NPV etc.  Either delete claim or add those to the table. L 569 regarding Table 3 similarly !

L 571 delete "below" 

L 660  Replace "may be divided"  with "is structured"

L 698-699 should read "as when compared with other DMUs it totals 13 high lambda values in its column." 

Consider putting Tables 10 and 11 to appendices or supplementary data. You don't really expect any reader to read these... 

L 749  Replace ". Estimating that" with a comma ", "

I consider all of the above edits minor, but they will clearly improve the presentation to a more polished state. Provided the authors make these edits I do not need to see the revised version before acceptance. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see comment in the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

PFA

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Herewith I accept the revision of the paper and hence recommend it to be published. Thank you