Towards More Effective Strategic Performance and Efficiency Measures in Portuguese Public Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted manuscript addresses a topical issue, focusing on the key factors for the effectiveness of HEI's and assessing the results of their impact on the region/regional development. Some recommendations that are essential for the theoretical and methodological framework can be made regarding the submitted manuscript:

Introduction: The recommendation is for a more in-depth presentation of the relevance of the issue under consideration and a clear definition of the subject and object of the study, the main objective and research tasks, and the research thesis/hypothesis. It is advisible to indicate the research approaches and methods used.

Methodology: The recommedation is to clearly outline the methodology of the research process and the methodological tools used, in accordance with the subject and object of the assessment (to be specified in the Introduction) and the pre-established research thesis/hypothesis to be specified in the Introduction). There is a lack of clarity regarding the general population and the sample (only the number of respondents and their affiliation are specified, witch is extremely insufficient), as well as regarding the design of the research tools (an appendix is specified, with has not been provided for review by the reviewer, but even if it were available, it would be good to outline it more clearly in the text in order to nsure the representativeness of the sample.

Conclusion: The conclusion can be improved by presenting the relevant summaries in accordance with the thesis/hypothesis, the research tasks, and the main objective achieved.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Dear Reviewer, we appreciate all constructive comments and suggestions for improvement, which deserve our utmost attention. All modifications are marked in red in the manuscript.

Comment 1: Introduction: The recommendation is for a more in-depth presentation of the relevance of the issue under consideration and a It is advisible to indicate the research approaches and methods used.

Response 1: Bearing in mind the content of Comments 1, the introduction has undergone comprehensive revision. The following aspects have been emphasised: the analytical dimension of the literature review; the theoretical framework and gaps; a precise delineation of the subject and object of the study; a clear definition of the main objective and research tasks (see pages 1 to 3). We also included a research question.

Comment 2: Methodology: The recommendation is to clearly outline the methodology of the research process and the methodological tools used, in accordance with the subject and object of the assessment (to be specified in the Introduction) and the pre-established research thesis/hypothesis to be specified in the Introduction). There is a lack of clarity regarding the general population and the sample (only the number of respondents and their affiliation are specified, witch is extremely insufficient), as well as regarding the design of the research tools (an appendix is specified, with has not been provided for review by the reviewer, but even if it were available, it would be good to outline it more clearly in the text in order to ensure the representativeness of the sample.

Response 2: According to comment 2, the following text was inserted on page 6:

“To this end, a meeting was held with 11 researchers, a multidisciplinary group from the fields of management and economics, education, and psychology. These researchers are closely related to the subject under investigation because they were involved in a project that examined the effectiveness and effects of HEIs on the quality of life in the regions where they are situated.

These researchers were part of a project studying the efficiency and impact of HEIs on the quality of life in the regions where they are located and are therefore closely linked to the topic under study. At this meeting, it was decided that the semi-structured interview script would be used with 20 relevant Portuguese individuals. These individuals were purposively selected for their extensive professional experience and direct or indirect involvement with the phenomenon under study. The sample included mayors of regional authorities, municipalities, presidents of regional business and commercial associations, hospital administrators, active and retired higher education lecturers, presidents of banking institutions, presidents of higher education institutions (HEIs), company administrators and consultants, key cultural stakeholders, and presidents of HEI student associations and alumni organisations.

We use a purposive non-probability sample. Purposive sampling focuses on selecting participants who possess characteristics associated with the research study [38], as is the case. This type of sampling allows a targeted selection of participants who are particularly knowledgeable or experienced in the area of interest, thereby providing rich, relevant data [39]. This method is also time- and cost-efficient, as it eliminates the need to sample a large number of people at random [40]. The main criticism is its lack of generalisation, since the sample may not be representative of the general population [41]. Following an initial telephone or email contact to confirm availability, individual interviews were scheduled in either a face-to-face or online format and conducted between June and December 2019. The sample consisted of 85% men and 15% women, most of whom were aged between 51-60 years (45%), followed by participants aged 41–50 years (25%), over 61 years (25%), and 21–30 years (5%).”

In accordance with this, the section "Limitations and future studies" has also been amended, and now reads as follows (see pag. 17/18):

“The MICMAC method presents some limitations that must be acknowledged. Given its qualitative nature, subjectivity necessarily affects the analysis because there is no clear-cut interpretation of the results because they rely on how participants under-stand the relationships between variables. In this context, it is also important to con-sider that the assumptions underlying stakeholders' assessments, such as contextual factors, may have shaped their opinions. However, it is important to highlight the care taken in selecting participants and interviewees who are directly involved in the management of HEIs and in the direction and administration of regional authorities and municipalities, to reinforce the legitimacy of the interpretations obtained.

Another limitation concerns the purposive sampling strategy, which was restricted to the Portuguese context, thus preventing the generalisation of the findings to other populations or higher education systems. Nevertheless, the proposed indicators were based on studies conducted in other countries and international contexts, which opens the door for future research to develop a prospective analysis grounded in a transnational strategic roadmap for HEI efficiency, thereby allowing the robustness and transferability of the model presented here to be tested.”

Comment 3: Conclusion: The conclusion can be improved by presenting the relevant summaries in accordance with the thesis/hypothesis, the research tasks, and the main objective achieved.

Response 3: Considering the reviewer's comment, “Conclusions” section was reformulated (see page 16).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is timely and relevant, and the intention to combine prospective analysis with the assessment of HEI efficiency is conceptually promising. The work demonstrates considerable effort in consolidating indicators, conducting interviews, and applying the MICMAC method. However, several aspects require clarification and strengthening to enhance the manuscript’s scientific rigor, conceptual coherence and methodological transparency.

1. Theoretical framing and contextualization

Although the literature review is extensive, it often becomes descriptive and somewhat repetitive, which makes it difficult to clearly identify the conceptual gaps that your study aims to fill. The manuscript claims innovation by combining prospective analysis with HEI efficiency assessment, yet this contribution is not fully articulated.

It would be beneficial to refine theoretical framing so that it highlights the specific shortcomings or debates in the existing literature that justify this approach. Strengthening the analytical dimension of the literature review, rather than cataloguing previous studies, would make the contribution more explicit and the narrative more cohesive.

2. Research design and methods

The study presents broad objectives, but the absence of explicit research questions or hypotheses weakens the logical structure of the investigation. Clarifying the guiding questions would help readers understand the rationale behind each methodological step. Additionally, key methodological choices require further justification: the criteria for selecting the 20 interviewees, how their perspectives represent different stakeholder groups, and how potential biases (e.g., all participants being from the same national context) were mitigated. The process of consolidating the evaluations from the 11 researchers and the reasoning behind the inclusion or exclusion of indicators also merit clearer explanation. Integrating a more detailed discussion of methodological limitations would strengthen the credibility of the approach.

3. Discussion of findings

In several sections, the discussion tends to reiterate descriptive elements rather than interpret the findings in depth. At certain moments, the narrative suggests causal implications that the data and the MICMAC method cannot fully support. Enhancing the analytical depth of the discussion, by linking results systematically to existing theories, contrasting them with alternative explanations, and exploring the implications and boundaries of each finding, would greatly improve the manuscript. It would also be helpful to explicitly question the assumptions underlying stakeholders’ evaluations and to consider how contextual factors may have shaped their views.

4. Presentation of results

The MICMAC diagrams and tables contain valuable information, yet the interpretation of their patterns, clusters and indicator movements remains limited. Some of the tables in the appendix duplicate material already presented, which could be streamlined to improve readability. In addition, the integration of qualitative data from interviews is not sufficiently explained: the procedures for coding or synthesizing the responses and how they informed indicator selection should be made more explicit. Strengthening the narrative interpretation of the diagrams will help readers understand not just what the results are, but what they mean.

5. References

The manuscript includes many relevant references, but some are either outdated or integrated without clear analytical purpose. Strengthening the relationship between each citation and the argument it supports will improve coherence. It would also be beneficial to incorporate more recent studies on HEI performance evaluation, internationalization and post-pandemic strategic transformations, as these themes are mentioned but not consistently anchored in contemporary scholarship.

6. Conclusions and Implications

The conclusion restates several points from earlier sections and does not yet provide a concise synthesis of the study’s contribution. Some managerial implications appear to extend beyond what the empirical findings can substantiate. The conclusions would be strengthened by focusing on what the study contributes theoretically and practically, while clearly distinguishing evidence-based implications from more speculative recommendations. A more explicit articulation of limitations and realistic directions for future research would also enrich the final section.

Overall, the manuscript addresses an important topic and has the potential to make a meaningful contribution. By refining the theoretical framing, clarifying the methodological approach, strengthening the analytical interpretation of results and tightening the conclusions, the study could become significantly more robust and impactful.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is generally clear and the manuscript is understandable; however, several sections would benefit from improved flow and readability. Some sentences are long or densely structured, which can obscure key ideas and make the argumentation harder to follow. A light but careful language edit, focusing on clarity, conciseness and smoother transitions, would help ensure that the research is communicated with the precision and coherence expected by the journal.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate all constructive comments and suggestions for improvement, which deserve our utmost attention. All modifications are marked in red in the manuscript.

Comment 1: Theoretical framing and contextualization

Although the literature review is extensive, it often becomes descriptive and somewhat repetitive, which makes it difficult to clearly identify the conceptual gaps that your study aims to fill. The manuscript claims innovation by combining prospective analysis with HEI efficiency assessment, yet this contribution is not fully articulated.

It would be beneficial to refine theoretical framing so that it highlights the specific shortcomings or debates in the existing literature that justify this approach. Strengthening the analytical dimension of the literature review, rather than cataloguing previous studies, would make the contribution more explicit and the narrative more cohesive.

Response 1:  Taking into account the suggestion provided by the reviewer, the literature review was downsized, having become less descriptive and repetitive (see pages 1 to 4). The sections: “Introduction”, and “Determinants of HEIs efficiency”; have undergone comprehensive revision. The following aspects have been emphasised: the analytical dimension of the literature review; the theoretical framework and gaps; a precise delineation of the subject and object of the study; and a clear definition of the main objective and research tasks. Adding to the previous, in the “Introduction” section, a research question was included.

Comment 2: Research design and methods

The study presents broad objectives, but the absence of explicit research questions or hypotheses weakens the logical structure of the investigation. Clarifying the guiding questions would help readers understand the rationale behind each methodological step. Additionally, key methodological choices require further justification: the criteria for selecting the 20 interviewees, how their perspectives represent different stakeholder groups, and how potential biases (e.g., all participants being from the same national context) were mitigated. The process of consolidating the evaluations from the 11 researchers and the reasoning behind the inclusion or exclusion of indicators also merit clearer explanation. Integrating a more detailed discussion of methodological limitations would strengthen the credibility of the approach.

Response 2: The introduction has undergone a comprehensive revision. The following aspects have been emphasised: the analytical dimension of the literature review; the theoretical framework and gaps; a precise delineation of the subject and object of the study; a clear definition of the main objective and research tasks; and the inclusion of a research question (see pages 1 to 4).

Also “Methodological Design” (see pags. 5 and 6) and “Limitations and Futur Studies” (see pages 17 and 18) sections have been modified considering the reviewer's suggestions.

Comment 3: Discussion of findings

In several sections, the discussion tends to reiterate descriptive elements rather than interpret the findings in depth. At certain moments, the narrative suggests causal implications that the data and the MICMAC method cannot fully support. Enhancing the analytical depth of the discussion, by linking results systematically to existing theories, contrasting them with alternative explanations, and exploring the implications and boundaries of each finding, would greatly improve the manuscript. It would also be helpful to explicitly question the assumptions underlying stakeholders’ evaluations and to consider how contextual factors may have shaped their views.

Response 3: Taking into account the reviewer's comment, the section "Results and discussion" has been reordered and completed (see pages 8 to 15). Also, the “Limitations and future studies” section has been modified accordingly (see page 17).

Comment 4: Presentation of results

The MICMAC diagrams and tables contain valuable information, yet the interpretation of their patterns, clusters and indicator movements remains limited. Some of the tables in the appendix duplicate material already presented, which could be streamlined to improve readability. In addition, the integration of qualitative data from interviews is not sufficiently explained: the procedures for coding or synthesizing the responses and how they informed indicator selection should be made more explicit. Strengthening the narrative interpretation of the diagrams will help readers understand not just what the results are, but what they mean.

Response 4: According to the reviewer's comment, the complete structure of the "Results and discussion" section, has been reordered and completed (see pages 8 to 15).

Comment 5: References

The manuscript includes many relevant references, but some are either outdated or integrated without clear analytical purpose. Strengthening the relationship between each citation and the argument it supports will improve coherence. It would also be beneficial to incorporate more recent studies on HEI performance evaluation, internationalization and post-pandemic strategic transformations, as these themes are mentioned but not consistently anchored in contemporary scholarship.

Response 5: When reorganising the ‘Introduction’ (pages 1 to 3) and the section ‘Determinants of HEIs efficiency’ (pages 3 to 5), new and more recent references were integrated with a clear analytical purpose, namely:

Li, Y.; Liu, X.; Hu, N.; Li, X. Research on the Relationship between Key Risk Factors of University Emergencies Based on ISM-MICMAC. PLoS One 2025, 20 (2 February), doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0317656.

Serrano, O. M. E.; Miranda González, F. J.; Mourato, J. A. B. Determinants of the Effectiveness of Quality Assurance Systems and Institutional Performance in Higher Education. Cogent Education 2025, 12 (1), doi:10.1080/2331186X.2025.2581411.

Asadi, S.; Allison, J.; Iranmanesh, M.; Fathi, M.; Safaei, M.; Saeed, F. Determinants of Intention to Use Simulation-Based Learning in Computers and Networking Courses: An ISM and MICMAC Analysis. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 2024, 71, 6015–6030, doi:10.1109/TEM.2024.3374517.

Tajik, O.; Golzar, J.; Noor, S. Purposive Sampling. International Journal of Education and Language Studies 2024, No. 2.

Dhirasasna, N.; Suprun, E.; Macaskill, S.; Hafezi, M.; Sahin, O. A Systems Approach to Examining Phd Students’ Well-Being: An Australian Case. Systems 2021, 9 (1), doi:10.3390/SYSTEMS9010017.

Etikan, I.; Musa, S. A.; Alkassim, R. S. Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics 2016, 5 (1), 1, doi:10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11.

Palinkas, L. A.; Horwitz, S. M.; Green, C. A.; Wisdom, J. P.; Duan, N.; Hoagwood, K. Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 2015, 42 (5), 533–544, doi:10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y.

Tiwari, R. K. Identification of Factors Affecting Reverse Chain Performance in Relation to Customer Satisfaction Using ISM Modelling & MICMAC Analysis. Uncertain Supply Chain Management 2013, 1 (4), 237–252, doi:10.5267/j.uscm.2013.08.005.

Baltar, F.; Brunet, I. Social Research 2.0: Virtual Snowball Sampling Method Using Facebook. Internet Research 2012, 22 (1), 57–74, doi:10.1108/10662241211199960.

Cunha, M.; Rocha, V. On the Efficiency of Public Higher Education Institutions in Portugal: An Exploratory Study. FEP Working Papers 2012, No. 468, 30.

Horta, H. The Role of the State in the Internationalization of Universities in Catching-up Countries: An Analysis of the Portuguese Higher Education System. Higher Education Policy 2010, 23 (1), 63–81, doi:10.1057/hep.2009.20.

 Comment 6: Conclusions and Implications

The conclusion restates several points from earlier sections and does not yet provide a concise synthesis of the study’s contribution. Some managerial implications appear to extend beyond what the empirical findings can substantiate. The conclusions would be strengthened by focusing on what the study contributes theoretically and practically, while clearly distinguishing evidence-based implications from more speculative recommendations. A more explicit articulation of limitations and realistic directions for future research would also enrich the final section.

Overall, the manuscript addresses an important topic and has the potential to make a meaningful contribution. By refining the theoretical framing, clarifying the methodological approach, strengthening the analytical interpretation of results and tightening the conclusions, the study could become significantly more robust and impactful.

Response 6:  Following the reviewer's suggestions for improvement, the “Conclusions” (page 16), “Contributions and Implications” (page 16) and “Limitations” (page 17) sections, were reformulated.

Comment 7: Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is generally clear and the manuscript is understandable; however, several sections would benefit from improved flow and readability. Some sentences are long or densely structured, which can obscure key ideas and make the argumentation harder to follow. A light but careful language edit, focusing on clarity, conciseness and smoother transitions, would help ensure that the research is communicated with the precision and coherence expected by the journal.

Response 7: The document was all reviewed and submitted using the tool Grammarly: Pro AI Writing Assistant, that checks and improves  writing for grammar, spelling, punctuation, clarity, tone, and academic style.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your paper so far is a good foundation for contributing to the literature regarding HEI efficiency. Here are my comments: 

• In lines 44-45 you refer to exponents, but I do not know what you mean. Explaining this is advised.
• Excluding the last paragraph, does Section 1 (Introduction) reflect literature reviewing Portuguese HEIs? This should be made clear.  
• Table 3 makes it clear what the inputs and outputs are that you have labeled in Figure 1. However, the narrative needs to be explained further in Section 4. Referring to clusters and O/I’s is too confusing. Figure 2 is also confusing as it does not tell a story of the actual outputs and inputs. In fact, revisiting Figures 1-4 to ensure they visually tell a story, as well as supplementing them with a meaningful narrative, is strongly encouraged. Figure 5 and the supplemental narrative is much more impactful. 
• Improving Section 4 will likely make your Conclusion solid. However, I would elaborate more on what your findings mean in a more narrative way. 
• Finally, give your study is focused on Portuguese institutions, I would include that in your title. 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate all constructive comments and suggestions for improvement, which deserve our utmost attention. All modifications are marked in red in the manuscript.

Comment 1: In lines 44-45 you refer to exponents, but I do not know what you mean. Explaining this is advised.

Response 1: With the rewriting of the introduction, this word has disappeared.

Comment 2: Excluding the last paragraph, does Section 1 (Introduction) reflect literature reviewing Portuguese HEIs? This should be made clear.  

Response 2: The entire introduction has been rewritten, emphasising why Portuguese HEIs should be studied (See page 2, line 58), including renowned authors who study the subject of higher education in Portugal, such as:

Serrano, O. M. E.; Miranda González, F. J.; Mourato, J. A. B. Determinants of the Effectiveness of Quality Assurance Systems and Institutional Performance in Higher Education. Cogent Education 2025, 12 (1), doi:10.1080/2331186X.2025.2581411.

Pedro, E. M.; Alves, H.; Leitão, J. In Search of Intangible Connections: Intellectual Capital, Performance and Quality of Life in Higher Education Institutions. High Educ (Dordr) 2020, 1–20, doi:10.1007/s10734-020-00653-9.

Pedro, E.; Leitão, J.; Alves, H. The Intellectual Capital of Higher Education Institutions: Operationalizing Measurement through a Strategic Prospective Lens. Journal of Intellectual Capital 2019, 20 (3), 355–381, doi:10.1108/JIC-07-2018-0117.

Cerdeira, L.; Cabrito, B. G.; Mucharreira, P. R. O Crescimento Do Ensino Superior No Portugal Democrático: Evolução Da Pós-Graduação e Da Produção Científica. EccoS – Revista Científica 2019, No. 51, e14974, doi:10.5585/eccos.n51.14974.

Heitor, M. Higher Education, Research and Innovation in Portugal; Manuel Heitor Minister for Science, Tech-nology and Higher Education, Portugal, 2018.

Heitor, M.; Horta, H. Democratizing Higher Education and Access to Science: The Portuguese Reform 2006–2010. Higher Education Policy 2014, 27 (2), 239–257, doi:10.1057/hep.2013.21.

Cunha, M.; Rocha, V. On the Efficiency of Public Higher Education Institutions in Portugal : An Exploratory Study. FEP Working Papers 2012, No. 468, 30.

 Comment 3: Table 3 makes it clear what the inputs and outputs are that you have labeled in Figure 1. However, the narrative needs to be explained further in Section 4. Referring to clusters and O/I’s is too confusing. Figure 2 is also confusing as it does not tell a story of the actual outputs and inputs. In fact, revisiting Figures 1-4 to ensure they visually tell a story, as well as supplementing them with a meaningful narrative, is strongly encouraged. Figure 5 and the supplemental narrative is much more impactful. 

Response 3: Taking this comment into account, the entire "Results and discussion" section has been reformulated (see pages 8 to 15), with emphasis on Figure 5 (see pages 14 and 15), so that the narrative is much more meaningful and understandable.

 Comment 4: Improving Section 4 will likely make your Conclusion solid. However, I would elaborate more on what your findings mean in a more narrative way. 

Response 4: In accordance with this comment and as suggested by the reviewer, section 5, “Conclusions” has also been rewritten, focusing more on the significance of the findings in a more narrative mode.

 Comment 5: Finally, give your study is focused on Portuguese institutions, I would include that in your title. 

Response 5: In accordance with the reviewer's suggestion, the title now includes the word 'Portuguese', as follows: “Towards More Effective Strategic Performance and Efficiency Measures in Portuguese Public Higher Education”

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has improved substantially following the revision, and the authors have addressed the majority of the reviewer’s comments in a careful and constructive manner. The theoretical framing is now clearer, the research question is explicitly stated, the methodological design is better explained, and the discussion shows a more analytical and interpretative orientation. Overall, the study presents a coherent and relevant contribution to the literature on strategic performance and efficiency in higher education institutions.

However, a small number of issues still require attention before final acceptance.

First, regarding ethical statements, there is an inconsistency that must be corrected. The manuscript reports the use of semi-structured interviews with 20 stakeholders, which constitutes research involving human participants. However, the Ethics Statement and related declarations currently state that the study did not involve human participants and that ethical approval and informed consent are not applicable. These statements should be revised to accurately reflect the study design, in line with the journal’s ethical requirements and applicable national or institutional regulations.

Second, although the quality of English has improved, the manuscript would still benefit from a light language edit. The English is generally clear, but some sections, particularly those with long or dense sentences, could be further refined to improve flow, conciseness, and readability. A careful final language revision would help ensure that the arguments are communicated with maximum clarity and precision.

Finally, while the results and discussion are now better structured and more interpretative, the authors may wish to consider slightly tightening some passages where implications or recommendations extend beyond what is directly supported by the empirical findings. Minor adjustments in wording would help maintain a clear distinction between evidence-based conclusions and forward-looking or speculative insights.

In conclusion, the manuscript addresses an important topic and now meets the journal’s standards in terms of originality, methodological soundness, and scholarly contribution. Once the minor issues outlined above are addressed, the paper will be suitable for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We value all helpful feedback and recommendations for enhancements, which merit careful consideration. In the document, all changes are shown in red.

Comment 1:

First, regarding ethical statements, there is an inconsistency that must be corrected. The manuscript reports the use of semi-structured interviews with 20 stakeholders, which constitutes research involving human participants. However, the Ethics Statement and related declarations currently state that the study did not involve human participants and that ethical approval and informed consent are not applicable. These statements should be revised to accurately reflect the study design, in line with the journal’s ethical requirements and applicable national or institutional regulations.

Response 1: Taking into account the reviewer's comment, the ethical statement, the Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process, and the Informed Consent Statement, have been amended to read as follows:

Ethical statement: This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Formal approval from a research ethics committee was not required because the study did not involve vulnerable populations or the collection of sensitive personal data.

Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process: Generative AI was utilized exclusively to enhance language clarity and grammar. The authors carefully reviewed and revised all content as necessary and accept full accountability for the publication’s final content.

Informed Consent Statement: Participation was entirely voluntary, all participants provided in-formed consent before taking part, and responses were collected anonymously without re-questing sensitive personal information.

Comment 2:

Second, although the quality of English has improved, the manuscript would still benefit from a light language edit. The English is generally clear, but some sections, particularly those with long or dense sentences, could be further refined to improve flow, conciseness, and readability. A careful final language revision would help ensure that the arguments are communicated with maximum clarity and precision.

Response 2: Taking into account the reviewer's comment, a review of the English was carried out through the MDPI’ services.  See certificate in the appendix (Non-published Material).

Comment 3: Finally, while the results and discussion are now better structured and more interpretative, the authors may wish to consider slightly tightening some passages where implications or recommendations extend beyond what is directly supported by the empirical findings. Minor adjustments in wording would help maintain a clear distinction between evidence-based conclusions and forward-looking or speculative insights.

Response 3: To maintain a better difference between conclusions based on data and prospective or hypothetical insights, some wording changes were made, as indicated (see pages 14 and 15).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While you enhanced the narrative regarding your figures, I do believe Figures 2 and 3 distract from your manuscript. Additionally, in your narrative regarding the figures you do not provide specific names of inputs and outputs until Figure 5. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We value all helpful feedback and recommendations for enhancements, which merit careful consideration. In the document, all changes are shown in red.

Comment 1: While you enhanced the narrative regarding your figures, I do believe Figures 2 and 3 distract from your manuscript. Additionally, in your narrative regarding the figures you do not provide specific names of inputs and outputs until Figure 5. 

Response 1: Figures 2 and 3 complement Figures 1 and 4, respectively, and serve to provide a better visual understanding of the level of influence of each indicator.

As the names of the indicators are extremely long no caption has been added. Nevertheless, the following information has been added to the titles of images 1, 2, 3, and 4 in brackets after taking into account and incorporating the comment: "for Inputs and Outputs legend see Table 3, page 7."