Efficiency Analysis of Oil Refineries Using DEA Window Analysis, Cluster Analysis, and Malmquist Productivity Index
, Mauro Lizot 2, Hugo Siqueira 3, Paulo Afonso 4 and Flavio Trojan 3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
We are pleased to submit the Response to Reviewers of the manuscript sustainability-2545108- “Efficiency Analysis of Oil Refineries using DEA Window Analysis, Cluster Analysis and Malmquist Productivity Index”.
We appreciated the constructive criticisms from the reviewers. We have addressed each of their concerns, highlighted in red color in the manuscript text and responses in the attached file. We believe that the manuscript is substantially improved after making the suggested edits. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission, and we are available to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.
Sincerely yours,
Flavio Trojan. Corresponding author.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is clear, easy to read, and well structured. The level of scientific rigor is apparent, and the attention to detail concerning every aspect of the approach is appreciated. I have a few minor remarks that the authors might consider.
1. What is the research hypothesis of the experiments? What do the authors expect to find in the study? The research questions should be indicated in the manuscript and substantiated.
2. The resolution of Figures 1 and 2 does not meet the MDPI requirements, it should be 300 dpi or higher. It should also be noted that the rest of the drawings are made at a high level.
3. The citations and references should be formatted according to MDPI style.
4. Line 253. The expression (t = 1,2,...,t) is ambiguous.
5. Line 255. The indexes of DMUnt and xtn should be consistent.
6. In lines 253-256, index t is used for time periods. But in the next lines, another symbol k is responsible for that.
7. What does the prime symbol mean in model (3)?
8. Xt and Yt used in model (3) are not properly defined. Model (3) should be written using the designations introduced above.
9. In Figure 2, the output-oriented BCC model is mentioned. However, the proposed model (3) is input-oriented.
10. The DEA dataset should be described in more detail. Simple statistics (mean, mode, average, variance, etc.) should be provided.
11. Line 332. The DEA model is usually called output-oriented.
12. The research needs a separate Discussion section. According to the Sustainability journal rules, the research manuscript should contain the Discussion section, where authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies and the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible, and the limitations of the work should be highlighted. The future research directions are not indicated in the paper either.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
We are pleased to submit the Response to Reviewers of the manuscript sustainability-2545108- “Efficiency Analysis of Oil Refineries using DEA Window Analysis, Cluster Analysis and Malmquist Productivity Index”.
We appreciated the constructive criticisms from the reviewers. We have addressed each of their concerns, highlighted in red color in the manuscript text and responses in the attached file. We believe that the manuscript is substantially improved after making the suggested edits. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission, and we are available to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.
Sincerely yours,
Flavio Trojan. Corresponding author.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, many thanks for your paper, it was a pleasure for me to review it. To my mind the article is very interesting and has an important contribution to the development of the research area.
What I would like to recommend is to extend the conclusion, to make it more understandable and concise.
thanks and best regards
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
We are pleased to submit the Response to Reviewers of the manuscript sustainability-2545108- “Efficiency Analysis of Oil Refineries using DEA Window Analysis, Cluster Analysis and Malmquist Productivity Index”.
We appreciated the constructive criticisms from the reviewers. We have addressed each of their concerns, highlighted in red color in the manuscript text and responses in the attached file. We believe that the manuscript is substantially improved after making the suggested edits. We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission, and we are available to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.
Sincerely yours,
Flavio Trojan. Corresponding author.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper presents an analysis over 8 years of the efficiency of 12 Brazilian oil refineries performed by using DEA Window Analysis, Cluster Analysis and Malmquist Index. The goal is to provide information for long-term production planning.
The paper is organized in a logical manner and fits the journal topics.
The state of art covers the main results in the field, including the authors’ own results (references 6, 23 and 24).
The passive forms are better in academic papers than the active use of “we”.
The authors should check and correct the typos (analysis. And then, he Window Analysis …, ex-pressed .., a long .., etc.)
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 4,
We are pleased to submit the Response to Reviewers of the manuscript sustainability-2545108- “Efficiency Analysis of Oil Refineries using DEA Window Analysis, Cluster Analysis and Malmquist Productivity Index”. We appreciate the time and attention of the reviewers in reviewing our paper. We look forward to hearing from you regarding any further questions and comments you may have.
Sincerely yours,
Flavio Trojan.
Corresponding author.
Your Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper presents an analysis over 8 years of the efficiency of 12 Brazilian oil refineries performed by using DEA Window Analysis, Cluster Analysis and Malmquist Index. The goal is to provide information for long-term production planning.
Response: Thank you very much for your time and attention in evaluating our work.
The paper is organized in a logical manner and fits the journal topics.
Response: Thank you very much for your time and attention in evaluating our work and for your comments about it.
The state of art covers the main results in the field, including the authors’ own results (references 6, 23 and 24).
Response: Thank you for this comment!
The passive forms are better in academic papers than the active use of “we”.
Response: Thank you for this comment! We correct the use of “we” in sentences where it appeared.
The authors should check and correct the typos (analysis. And then, he Window Analysis …, ex-pressed .., a long .., etc.).
Response: Thank you for calling attention to it! We revised and corrected all typos in the sentences in which they appeared.
Reviewer 5 Report
The paper is well written and structured. Revisions have been taken into account.
English can be improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 5
We are pleased to submit the Response to Reviewers of the manuscript sustainability-2545108- “Efficiency Analysis of Oil Refineries using DEA Window Analysis, Cluster Analysis and Malmquist Productivity Index”. We appreciate the time and attention of the reviewers in reviewing our paper. We look forward to hearing from you regarding any further questions and comments you may have.
Sincerely yours,
Flavio Trojan.
Correponding author.
Your Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper is well written and structured. Revisions have been taken into account. English can be improved
Response: Thank you very much for your time and attention in evaluating our work and your words. We revised the English language, trying to improve where possible. We hope it was enough to improve the understanding of the text.
