The NGDOs Efficiency: A PROMETHEE Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have carefully reviewed your work and find the idea and results to be very promising. However, before proceeding with the review, I have a fundamental question that requires clarification:

1. What makes your research novel?

I have come across a similar idea in the PhD thesis (a thesis that was published three years ago) of one of the researchers. Additionally, the plagiarism detection service, ithenticate (MDPI), has flagged a 19% similarity rate in your manuscript. 

Thanks.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript needs improvement and detailed attention. For example, check Table 1, which writes WEITGH.

Author Response

Comment 1

“I have carefully reviewed your work and find the idea and results to be very promising”.

Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your careful reading of our paper and the insightful comments and suggestions that you make.

Comment 2

“However, before proceeding with the review, I have a fundamental question that requires clarification: What makes your research novel?”

Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comment. There are several aspects that make our research novel. The most relevant would be three. The first is an extensive review of the literature on the subject. The second and totally unique, as far as we know, is the comparison of the three agencies: the Spanish, the European and the American, and this gives a great international projection to our research. And the third, and we understand that it is fundamental, is the application for the first time of the Promethee technique to this type of data, which is a very novel approach.

Comment 3

“I have come across a similar idea in the PhD thesis (a thesis that was published three years ago) of one of the researchers. Additionally, the plagiarism detection service, ithenticate (MDPI), has flagged a 19% similarity rate in your manuscript”.

Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for the considerable remark. However, there is a clear explanation to that and there is not plagiarism at all.

Three years ago, the public defense of the thesis entitled “Eficiencia de las ongd: indicadores y estudio mediante el análisis de rendimiento de promethee” took place. In the Spanish university system there are two well differentiated processes. One is the moment of the defense and public reading of a doctoral thesis (which does not imply its publication because there are theses that are not published as research articles) and the other one is the moment of publication in a scientific journal. The thesis was written by one of the authors (the second author) and directed and supervised by the first author. The thesis remains unpublished and during this time a process of revision and improvement of the text and empirical studty has been carried out.

What is being done now is the publication of the thesis in a scientific journal and for this publication the fundamental part has been chosen, which is the empirical application of Promethee and the comparison, for the first time at world level, of the three agencies: the Spanish, the European and the American. But so far it is an unpublished thesis so this process is legitimate. It is the author's own doctoral work that is published without any plagiarism at all.

 

We hope that this explanation about the Spanish doctoral system explains the circumstance mentioned by the reviewer

Comment 4

“The manuscript needs improvement and detailed attention. For example, check Table 1, which writes WEITGH”.

Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback. We have reviewed the entire text in great detail and we have corrected any possible errors, such as the one you point out in Table 1.

Finally, we would like to sincerely thank you for your comments, which we have incorporated in their entirety in this new version of the work and which we believe they have substantially improved the research for which we are very grateful.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your submission.

This paper examines NGDO efficiency. The paper presents an interesting topic. My feedback suggests specific areas in which you can further strengthen your current submission:

The introduction is not very engaging. It needs to be more explicit about why this paper is needed and what is missing in the existing knowledge. Why are the indicators collected from donors’ regulations more interesting/ accurate/ adequate?

I believe it would be interesting to add theoretical and practical implications, either in the discussion or conclusion section. The conclusion section is quite short. Additionally, it does not include limitations and future research.

Generally, the paper makes a meaningful contribution.

This concludes my feedback. I hope it is helpful.

Author Response

Comment 1

“Thank you for your submission. This paper examines NGDO efficiency. The paper presents an interesting topic. My feedback suggests specific areas in which you can further strengthen your current submission”.

Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you very much for your careful reading of our paper and the insightful comments and suggestions that you make.

Comment 2

“The introduction is not very engaging. It needs to be more explicit about why this paper is needed and what is missing in the existing knowledge. Why are the indicators collected from donors’ regulations more interesting/ accurate/ adequate?”

Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback. We have tried to improve the introduction by making it more engaging. We have explicitly explained the unique contribution of this research and what it brings to the state of knowledge about NGOs. On the other hand, we have explained in detail in the introduction why the indicators collected from donors' regulations are more adequate.

All these changes are differentiated in color in the new text for easy recognition by the reviewer. We thank you for your comments to improve the introduction, which is a fundamental part of the work.

Comment 3

“I believe it would be interesting to add theoretical and practical implications, either in the discussion or conclusion section. The conclusion section is quite short. Additionally, it does not include limitations and future research”

Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for this considerable remark. We acknowledge the importance of including limitations and future research.

To address this, we have changed the conclusion section that was quite short. In the new conclusion section of this new version of the paper we have included theoretical and practical implications of our research. Moreover, limitations of the work and future research proposals are included in the new conclusion section.

All these changes are differentiated in color in the new text for easy recognition by the reviewer.

Comment 4

“Generally, the paper makes a meaningful contribution. This concludes my feedback. I hope it is helpful”

Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your positive comment. Your report and suggestions have been very helpful for us and we think that this new version of our paper is much better thanks for your contribution. This is much appreciated.

Finally, we would like to sincerely thank you for your comments, which we have incorporated in their entirety in this new version of the work and which we believe they have substantially improved the research for which we are very grateful.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, thanks for the detailed response. I have no other comments.

Well done!