PONE-D-23-15310Public sector’s efficiency as a reflection of governance quality, an European Union studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dinca,

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 Sep 09 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,

Javier Cifuentes-Faura

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. 

Additional Editor Comments:

You should take into account all the comments from the reviewers.

I also recommend you update the recent literature on public sector efficiency and DEA. You can cite in your paper the following ones:

Cifuentes-Faura, J., Benito, B., Guillamón, M. D., & Faura-Martínez, Ú. (2023). Relationship between Transparency and Efficiency in Municipal Governments: Several Nonparametric Approaches. Public Performance & Management Review, 46(1), 193-224.

Trabelsi, N., & Boujelbene, Y. (2022). Public Sector Efficiency and Economic Growth in Developing Countries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1-20.

Ríos, A. M., Guillamón, M. D., Cifuentes‐Faura, J., & Benito, B. (2022). Efficiency and sustainability in municipal social policies. Social Policy & Administration, 56(7), 1103-1118.

Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., Bisogno, M., & Vaia, G. (2022). Public-Sector Accounting Reforms and Governmental Efficiency: A Two-Stage Approach. The International Journal of Accounting, 57(04), 2250017.

[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: Partly

**********

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: Dear Authors,

Congratulations for your interesting research. I have some suggestions on how to make your text more attractive

The introduction needs redrafting. The main problem is the epistemological structure (why the article was conceived and how the study was developed). I suggest the following structure of objectives: (i) research gap; (ii) research question; (iii) purpose of the article; (iv) intermediate objectives ; (v) assumptions or hypo; and (vi) research method. This structure must appear in the introduction.

I propose not to describe what parts the article contains in turn. This is obvious.

The research gap (Literature review) must be created by a systematic literature review that provides 'holes' in the state of knowledge on the topic. I believe that a full review should not be done, but an analysis of about 5-8 studies on the topic under discussion. You can find some examples, which will show the relevance of the issue, as it is indeed a topic of current, relevant research. At the end of the justification you should write something like: According to what we were able to find, there are no studies referring and reporting on ... With this you have therefore proven that the issue is relevant, and you have also proven that your study does indeed fill a research gap.

Reviewer #2: The novel features of the research (methods, variables used etc) have to be better explained in the introduction. It is not clear the added value of this paper compared with previous research in the field.

The two-stages of the empirical analysis are meaningful and complement each other. The description of the methodological features of both methods is concise, but orients the reader especially if he is already familiarized with these methods.

However, I feel that the main drawback of this analysis lies in the variables' selection process. In both cases (input and output variables for DEA, respectively explanatory variables for the quartile regression) there is no convincing substantiation of the choice of these particular variables. Why these and not others ? What is their informational content, their theoretical/intuitive relationship with the dependent variables ?

For example, the choice of input and output variables included in the DEA model specification is highly influencing the computation of the efficiency scores. Any variable change may significantly alter the scores and hence the efficiency status of a country. This part of the study needs to be better explained, in order to support the reliability and soundness of the findings.

The figures in the Annexes have no title.

**********

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.

Public sector’s efficiency as a reflection of governance quality, an European Union study

PONE-D-23-15310R1

Dear Dr. Dinca,

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,

Javier Cifuentes-Faura

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Congratulations

Reviewers' comments: