Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 12, 2022
Decision Letter - Thanh Ngo, Editor

PONE-D-22-34058Congestion in Multi-Function Parallel Network DEAPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lotfi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 08 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Thanh Ngo, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article entitled “Congestion in multi-function parallel network DEA”, was very well written. I recommend accepting it, however, I leave some recommendations to be observed, only in the section - Introduction.

In the last paragraph of the introduction, the numbering of the sections has been written in the correct sequence. However, the next section should appear as “2. Preliminaries” and not with the numbering “1. Preliminaries”.

Therefore, the numbering of ALL sections and subsections must be readjusted.

Reviewer #2: The author insight the congestion status of DMUs is one of the most significant topics in the DEA literature. I consider the problem of congestion interesting before performing the DEA analysis, however it is convenient that you mention a little the part of the tools used to run the proposed model, and present the data used since in the tablets you can only see figures and output boxes.

The DEA is mentioned in the literature review, but with the problem of congestion it is recommended to assess the technical inadequacy, but in this case the Stochastic Frontier Analysis SFA is more recommended (see suggested reference), I suggest that the author make an assessment at the regard. line 17-32

I suggest the following bibliography. So I would like that you add more references may 40 or 45.

[1] Zuniga Gonzalez CA and Jaramillo-Villanueva JL. Frontier model of the environmental inefficiency effects on livestock bioeconomy [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research 2022, 11:1382 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.128071.1)

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

PONE-D-22-34058

Title: Congestion in Multi-Function Parallel Network DEA

Dear Dr. Thanh Ngo,

Thank you so much for your time and efforts. We would like to sincerely appreciate the reviewers for carefully reviewing the manuscript and for their insightful comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have incorporated these suggestions in the revised version and have addressed all the issues pointed out in the review report. All the mentioned comments along with their associated responses are described below.

Finally, please note that all the changes/revisions made in the revised manuscript have been highlighted.

Yours sincerely,

Farhad Hosseinzadeh Lotfi

Response to the comments of Reviewer #1

(Comments) The article entitled “Congestion in multi-function parallel network DEA”, was very well written. I recommend accepting it, however, I leave some recommendations to be observed, only in the section - Introduction.

In the last paragraph of the introduction, the numbering of the sections has been written in the correct sequence. However, the next section should appear as “2. Preliminaries” and not with the numbering “1. Preliminaries”.

Therefore, the numbering of ALL sections and subsections must be readjusted.

� The reviewer is absolutely right. We appreciate his/her comment for pointing it out. The numbering of all sections and subsections has been readjusted in the revised section. Now, the first section appears as “1. Introduction” and other sections have been numbered after it from Number 2. All the changed numbers are highlighted in the revised version.

Response to the comments of Reviewer #2

(Comments) The author insight the congestion status of DMUs is one of the most significant topics in the DEA literature. I consider the problem of congestion interesting before performing the DEA analysis, however it is convenient that you mention a little the part of the tools used to run the proposed model, and present the data used since in the tablets you can only see figures and output boxes.

� We really appreciate the reviewer's efforts to provide valuable comments for improving the scientific level of the manuscript. About this comment, it should be noted that all the proposed models are linear programming problems that can be easily solved with existing software such as GAMS or MATLAB. However, according to the opinion of the respected reviewer and to clarify the matter for the readers, a part entitled "Remark 3.1" has been added to the manuscript on Page 9. In addition, two proposed models in the numerical example were discussed in more detail, which can be seen highlighted on Pages 15 and 16. If there is still any shortcoming, we will be grateful if you can guide us to correct it.

(Comments) The DEA is mentioned in the literature review, but with the problem of congestion it is recommended to assess the technical inadequacy, but in this case the Stochastic Frontier Analysis SFA is more recommended (see suggested reference), I suggest that the author make an assessment at the regard. line 17-32 I suggest the following bibliography. So I would like that you add more references may 40 or 45.

[1] Zuniga Gonzalez CA and Jaramillo-Villanueva JL. Frontier model of the environmental inefficiency effects on livestock bioeconomy [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research 2022, 11:1382 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.128071.1)

� Again, we are very grateful for the constructive suggestion of the reviewer. We agree with his/her opinion. Accordingly, we dedicated the first paragraph of the manuscript to introduce the SFA and its applications. In this paragraph it has been mentioned that SFA is utilized to analyze the technical inefficiency in the framework of production functions, and, its main advantages are its capacity to accommodate statistical noise, such as measurement error, and its parametric specification of the technology, allowing standard statistical tests to be used. Moreover, regarding this issue, 5 new references (i.e. References [26], [27], [35], [41], and [42]) have been added to the manuscript by using the suggested reference. In the following, it has been mentioned that SFA is sensitive to a priori assumptions and requires a pre-specification of the functional form; then, for this reason, the non-parametric Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) method can be used to measure the efficiency of homogenous Decision-Making Units (DMUs) without needing any specification of the functional form of the production function. All added parts have been highlighted.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Thanh Ngo, Editor

Congestion in Multi-Function Parallel Network DEA

PONE-D-22-34058R1

Dear Dr. Lotfi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Thanh Ngo, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Thanh Ngo, Editor

PONE-D-22-34058R1

Congestion in Multi-Function Parallel Network DEA

Dear Dr. Lotfi:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Thanh Ngo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .