-->PONE-D-24-38083-->-->Bridging gaps in EU public sector performance assessment: An analytical approach based on PLS perspective-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Taran,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please revise the paper according to the recommendations of the reviewer. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 09 2024 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,

Valentina Diana Rusu, PhD

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. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

4. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

5. 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: This paper addresses an interesting topic related to the EU public sector performance assessment. I acknowledge the amount of work invested in preparing the manuscript and consider it significantly contributes to the scientific literature. I would only suggest to the author(s) to enhance the policy implications of own findings and limitations / future research directions, both could be augmented.

Reviewer #2: Journal: PLOS ONE

Article title: Bridging gaps in EU public sector performance assessment: An analytical approach

based on PLS perspective

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-24-38083

General Comments:

This article studies the dynamics of public sector performance across European Union (EU) countries through a comprehensive methodological framework. The authors use European Public Sector Performance Index, a novel approach that employs Partial Least Squares (PLS) econometric modelling and cluster analysis to evaluate public sector performance from 2007 to 2021. The authors reached the conclusion that significant determinants of performance, including governance factors like control of corruption, rule of law, and government effectiveness, as well as economic indicators such as Inflation and social factors like equity of access to healthcare services and education spending,.

Overview:

The paper is very well written and the empirical work does appear to be carefully and correctly done. The research question is very good and it does make a sufficient new contribution to the literature to be suitable for the PLOS ONE ONLY after MINOR revisions.

In fact, the literature on the dynamics of public sector performance across European Union (EU) is quite new.

The contribution of the paper is the analysis of European Public Sector Performance Index, a novel approach that employs Partial Least Squares (PLS) econometric modelling and cluster analysis to evaluate public sector performance from 2007 to 2021.

The paper is very interesting, and in my view, it needs to be significantly improved to reach the standard required for publication in this journal.

Specific Comments:

1. Title: quite long; try to reduce to one sentence (can be removed: An analytical approach

based on PLS perspective)

2. Abstract: very large; try to reduce with the present results from the article

3. Introduction: NOVELTY + results (better explanation); very short, increase to maximum to 2 pages

4. Methodology: why the authors use only these indicators into the model and only these countries? Present some theoretical explanations for these indicators

5. Explain the construction of the model used for analysis.

6. Discussions: at least 2 pages; separate from the conclusions

General considerations: the idea of the article is very good, and the construction of the article is sometimes very detailed and technical. The authors MUST improve the methodology and discussions, and change the article accordingly. I ONLY recommend this article be published in PLOS ONE after MINOR revisions (methodology and discussion).

**********

-->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.-->

-->PONE-D-24-38083R1-->-->Crossing Chasms: A PLS Approach to EU Public Sector Performance Assessment-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Taran,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: -->--> -->-->Please consider the recommendations the reviewer made and change your paper accordingly.-->-->

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 09 2025 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,

Valentina Diana Rusu, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

-->2. 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

-->4. 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

-->5. 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

-->6. 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 #2: Journal: PLOS ONE

Article title: Crossing Chasms: A PLS Approach to EU Public Sector Performance Assessment

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-24-38083R1

Dear Author (s);

Dear Editor,

The manuscript has been revised for better interpretations according to the suggestions of the reviewer(s) by including the information required.

The author(s) change the interpretations, results, methodology, and conclusions accordingly, and therefore, the paper is much improved now. The author(s) reduces considerably the article, references, and diversifies the articles cited.

I recommend that this article be published in PLOS ONE.

Congratulations!

Reviewer #3: Congratulations on your acceptance! Your hard work has paid off, and this is a moment to celebrate. Well done!

Reviewer #4: The study "Bridging gaps in EU public sector performance assessment:An analytical approach based on PLS perspective", dealing with the complexity of European public sector performance by integrating the governance, economic and social pillars with an innovative methodology, provides a state-of-the-art perspective on the influence of transparent and accountable governance structures.

My specific recommendations and observations on this study are:

1. In the introductory section: a) Including recent data or statistics illustrating the current situation of public sector performance; these could provide a stronger justification for the necessity of the study and the chosen methodology b) Although the paper already includes several references, adding a critical discussion on the limitations of previous studies or different perspectives in the literature could more clearly emphasize the original contribution of this study

2. The "Materials and Methods" section is well structured and detailed, providing a good description of the empirical methods used in the study. However, a few improvements could be made to complete and clarify the methodological approach: a) Justification of the Selection of Indicators; b) Details on the validation of the PLS model.

4. The Results section presents a detailed and well-structured analysis of European public sector performance using composite indicators and PLS models. Aspects that could be improved or added to complete the section are a) Adding a short introduction reminding the purpose and importance of this analysis in the broader context of the study. This would help to anchor the results within the research objectives of the study; b) Why "Control of Corruption" is considered a major determinant compared to other variables and how these specific variables were chosen for the PLS model; c) It would be useful to include more direct comparisons with previous studies, highlighting how the current results contribute to the existing literature and what new insights they offer.

5. In the Conclusions Section the findings on digital economy factors are interesting, but it would be useful to explore further why these issues did not have a significant impact in the governance pillar and what this might mean for future research and policy implementation.

**********

-->7. 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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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.-->

Crossing Chasms: A PLS Approach to EU Public Sector Performance Assessment

PONE-D-24-38083R2

Dear Dr. Taran,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Valentina Diana Rusu, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

-->2. 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 #5: Yes

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

-->4. 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 #5: Yes

**********

-->5. 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 #5: Yes

**********

-->6. 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: After thoroughly reviewing the revised manuscript and the authors' responses, I am happy to report that they have effectively addressed the issues raised. The revisions have significantly improved the manuscript's clarity, coherence, and overall quality.

Specifically, the authors have successfully incorporated the suggested changes, clarified any ambiguous points, and strengthened the argument and evidence supporting their findings. The revised manuscript greatly enhances its contribution to the field, and I strongly recommend its publication in its current form.

Reviewer #5: Review for: Crossing Chasms: A PLS Approach to EU Public Sector Performance Assessment manuscript.

Dear Editor, Dear Authors,

Considering the previous reviews and suggestions, the revised version of the manuscript PONE-D-24-38083R2, entitled "Crossing Chasms: A PLS Approach to EU Public Sector Performance Assessment" is significantly improved, and it includes all the changes required.

Here are my personal remarks:

•Abstract section – clear and concise, it encompasses the aim of the paper, the main findings, together with the novelty of the paper.

•Introductory section – very well and clearly structured, especially for the research question as well as the novelty part, which is explained using five discussion points to prove the contribution in the field. This first section also provides a systematic bibliometric analysis as well as a brief literature review based on relevant papers for the topic of public sector performance. Moreover, all four research hypotheses are also presented at the end of this section.

•Material and methods section – good structure and explanation of the applied methods. The selection of the employed variables is well argued, as well as the data processing and the steps for the econometric framework.

•Results section – clear and structured presentation of the obtained results, both for the components of EU pillars as well as for the clustering part.

Only one remark here:

(lines 637-640)“Fig. 6 presents the results from a Partial Least Squares (PLS) model for the governance pillar of the European public sector, where the influence of 7 variables on governance is examined. The first five determinants collectively explain 90.14% of the variance within the model.”

The authors mention here (lines 637-640) that the influence of 7 variables is examined for the governance pillar, however, Fig. 6 provides the analysis of 9 determinants of governance. Please correct that in the manuscript.

•Discussion section – main results are emphasized again, together with a comparative and tabular presentation of the obtained performance scores, both on the governance, economic, social, and overall performance scores, which provides clarity. This section also compares the main results with other papers in the field.

•Conclusions – a bit too long; however they provide a very good explanation of the obtained results in relation to the research hypotheses. Implications, together with limitations are also stated.

I recommend that this manuscript be published, and I would like to congratulate the authors on their work throughout the manuscript's improvement stages.

Congratulations!

**********

-->7. 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 #5: No

**********