The Impact of Airport Managerial Type and Airline Market Share on Airport Efficiency

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper deals with the impact of airport managerial type and airline market structure on airport efficiency and proposes a method to estimate the efficiency.

The paper is interesting but sometimes it is difficult to read. One of the main reasons of this difficulty is the lack of explanation of some concepts when they are introduced. For example, the concept of efficiency is explained only in chapter 3. I think that in the introduction few words should be spent to explain what efficiency is. In addition many acronyms are used and the meaning is provided only later. Already in the abstract, there are some unexplained acronyms: the meanings are at lines 307 and 309, after the reader has read 7 pages.

The reader can appreciate the undoubted value of the article only in the discussion, that is written very well.

It is not clear which data have been collected

Finally, some minor remarks.

Line 270-271: Close the parenthesis

Line 299: Appendix 1 is mentioned, but it is missing

Line 319: The second part of the acronym DEA-VRS is explained next. Do you need to use VSR here?

Line 324-325: Authors write: “DEA models assess efficiency in two ways: input-oriented models and output-oriented models.” I think they could explain what the difference between the two approach is.

Line 331: what does DMU mean?

Figure 1: indicate the variables on the axes

Table 6: explain the meaning of the asterisk on some numbers

Author Response

We wish to thank you for the valuable comments on our paper.

For more detailed responses, please refer to the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations upon your separating out these key aspects of airport performance.  Your approach will be highly useful for those planning the future of airports.

I found that there were ongoing issues with grammar e.g. tense and singular/plural, but that such issues were not a 'fatal flaw'.  You might sit down with an expert in English and have them explain the small changes required for perfection.

In addition I am recommending to the Editors that you address the following issues before the paper is published:

1. Ln 56-57 'enjoyed greater technical and pure technical efficiency,' does not make sense.  Please rewrite for clarity.
2. Ln 61 'emphasizing' rather than 'emphasized'.
3. Lns 78 - 84 There seems to be considerable repetition here and poszsibly some of the content is assertion by the authors rather than evidence from academic sources.  Rewrite and condense.
4. Lns 104 - 107 - It is not clear whether this is evidence from journals or the assertions of the authors. Clarify.
5. Lns 140 - 144 - Similarly this passage could be from the literature or the thoughts of the authors.  Make clear.
6. Lns 182 - 187 - Make clear whether this is the work of others or is an argument developed by the authors.
7. Ln 189 - 'efficiency' is mentioned and it occurred to me, rang warning bells, that nothing had been said in the paper about what was considered efficiency (how it might be measured).  That concernn should have been anticipated.  I suggest that in the Introduction you have a small paragraph of 2 or three sentences explaining how you will measure efficiency, and what your methods will be.
8. Ln 203 - 'this paper' is not clear in that it could be Chang's or this paper that I am reviewing.  make clear.
9. Ln 216 - Did you intend 'also so strong'?
10. Lns 225 - 228 This is the first mention of an aspect of your research methods. You should use this in the Introduction to explain the data source of your methods.  This content would appear to be something you report in your Results or Discussion.
11. Ln 242 - did you intend to use the word 'inappropriate'?
12. Ln 257 - 'positive association'.
13. Ln 361 - 'Variables'.
14. Ln 374 - 'holding business model'.  Do you mean 'group managerial model'?
15. Ln 377 - 'governmental structure'. Governmental means pertaining to the government.  Do you mean 'managerial type'?
16. Lns 566-567 - I don't believe that any of your research examined the reasons.  You may have introduced that by citing two authors but you must also acknowledge that here.

Author Response

We wish to thank you for the valuable comments on our paper.

For more detailed responses, please refer to the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx