Application of Logistic Regression to Analyze The Economic Efficiency of Vehicle Operation in Terms of the Financial Security of Enterprises

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is interesting and relevant but need some more work.

1. The abstract needs to be more informative to include some spoecific implications.

2. The introduction needs to contextualize the isue of economic efficiency in the context of research.

3. The context is SMEs in Poland and FMCG goods industry which was not discussed at all.

4. What is the theoretical underpinning for the model developed?

5. Review of the literature are dated and how were the important variables identified?

6. Tables and figures need to be more professionally presented.

7. Table 3 should also include the significance of the correlation.

8. Would it better for the authors to run the model with a leave one out or holdout sample to see if their predictions are better than chance?

9. The discussion is missing comparison with the literature.

10. There should be a discussion of implications that has been identified from this study and which stakeholders will benefit from the findings?

11. References need to be udpated.

Language is acceptable generally.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

firstly, we would like to thank you very much for Your valuable suggestions and insightful observations regarding our paper. We’ve tried hard to incorporate all Your suggestions in our revision of the article. Additionally, below you will find answers to the questions you had after reading the first version.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The following are the strengths of the paper

1. The article has a clear objective of analysing the economic efficiency of vehicle operation in transportation enterprises, particularly in terms of financial security, which provides a focused direction for the study.

2. The article employs a rigorous methodology involving critical analysis of literature, mathematical modeling using a logistic regression, and inference, which enhanced the credibility of the findings.

3. The findings offer practical insights for transportation enterprises, especially SMEs in the FMCG industry, by identifying factors influencing profitability and suggesting strategies for improving efficiency.

4. The study conducts a detailed analysis of transport orders executed by SMEs, providing empirical evidence to support the conclusions drawn from the regression analysis.

5. The article identifies a research gap regarding the availability of low-cost analytical tool for transport fleet management in SMEs, highlighting an area for potential future research and industry development.

The authors are informed to clarify/justify the following issues. 

1. The study focuses specifically on SMEs in the FMCG industry in Poland, limiting the generalizability of findings to other sectors or large enterprises within the transportation industry. Clarify 

2. Kindly Provide information on the size or representativeness of the dataset used for analysis, raising questions about the reliability and validity of the results.

3. The paper examines the impact of the month of order execution on profitability, it does not give the underlying reasons for these variations. Kindly clarify the same

4. The article does not explicitly discuss the limitations of the study, such as potential biases in data collection or assumptions made in the modeling process, which could affect the interpretation of results and the robustness of conclusions. Provide more information on the same. 

Very Good. Minor editing is required. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

firstly, we would like to thank you very much for Your valuable suggestions and insightful observations regarding our paper. We’ve tried hard to incorporate all Your suggestions in our revision of the article. Additionally, below you will find answers to the questions you had after reading the first version.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic of this research is interesting and adequately designed.  I think the manuscript title matches the aim of the paper. The introduction is clear since it clarifies the research gap and focuses on it. The jump from what is in the research, what is uncovered, and what the paper aims to cover (research gap) is evident in the manuscript.  The structure of the paper is good, but some issues need to be addressed before publication.

1.              The authors must specify in the abstract the analysed period.

2.              The authors must justify in the paper the choice of the country, the method and the period.

3.              The discussion section needs to extended.  The authors must interpret the results obtained in the context of similar studies that confirm or refute their results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

firstly, we would like to thank you very much for Your valuable suggestions and insightful observations regarding our paper. We’ve tried hard to incorporate all Your suggestions in our revision of the article. Additionally, below you will find answers to the questions you had after reading the first version.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have clarified all the questions/queries raised in the previous review along with 

Good

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
we would like to thank you very much for Your valuable suggestions and insightful observations regarding our paper that undoubtedly enriched it in terms of content.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript was improved by the authors who took into account the recommendations of the reviewers, but additional adjustments are necessary

The insertion of references in the introductory section.

Line 132 – Please pay attention to the text ”there a number of 132 studies on the study of” – same word twice in this sentence

In section3, present in the introduction several studies that used the  logistic regression model for the same topic.

The discussions section must be extended considerable in order to present the results in the context of similar studies.

Please used additional references for different parts of the paper in order to sustain different statements.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

please find in attachment our response to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

I recommend the authors to expand the discussion section and use additional references. In this section, the authors must interpret the results obtained in the context of similar studies that confirm or not the results of the conducted study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

one more time, we would like to thank you very much for Your valuable suggestions and insightful observations regarding our paper. We’ve tried hard to incorporate all Your suggestions in our revision of the article.

We have added a reference to two further articles regarding the assessment of the profitability of transport orders. Our literature review showed that there are not many studies in the area we analyzed, but in the text we referred to several similar studies which, regardless of the method used, confirm our results (a line from 399 was added in the Discussion section). We hope this will be sufficient.

Best regards, 

Małgorzata Grzelak