Analysis of the Influence of Fund Allocation and Sustainable Academic Efficiency Based on a Transformation of Public Goods in Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am relatively satisfied with this paper. I would recommend some corrections with language usage and, more evidently, with PLS-SEM. 

I would especially suggest to insert more technical details and explaining also for non-statisticians what PLS is and the implications for policy analysis.

Originality and novelty of the study can be also discussed a bit more.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some corrections needed.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: I am relatively satisfied with this paper. I would recommend some corrections with language usage and, more evidently, with PLS-SEM. I would especially suggest to insert more technical details and explaining also for non-statisticians what PLS is and the implications for policy analysis. Originality and novelty of the study can be also discussed a bit more.

Response: The proofreading has been done. The related PLS-SEM technical details have been reinforced in the Methodology section. The implications of this approach for policy analysis have been addressed in the Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies section. Finally, we added the following interpretation in the Conclusion section: “Since achieving sustainable higher education is a long-term goal, we know it needs many resources and partners to support it. Therefore, we hope that the original design and novel verified approaches in this case study can provide a helpful example to explore similar issues in higher education settings.”

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been successfully modified and from the evaluator's point of view can be published.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: The article has been successfully modified and from the evaluator's point of view can be published.

 Response:

Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

Although this paper is specific, it includes original data for higher education. However, I congratulate the authors to develop this paper especially for sub-title of “Limitations and suggestions for future studies” In such form, it can be said that this study not also related to Taiwan but it also can be important for higher education of the world.

 

Good lucks.

 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: Although this paper is specific, it includes original data for higher education. However, I congratulate the authors to develop this paper especially for sub-title of “Limitations and suggestions for future studies” In such form, it can be said that this study not also related to Taiwan but it also can be important for higher education of the world.

 

Good luck. 

Response:

Thank you.

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the new version of the manuscript "Analysis of the Influence of Fund Allocation and Sustainable Academic Efficiency Based on a Transformation of Public Goods in Higher Education." In retrospect, I have compared the current version of their paper with the first submission and noticed a paper with greater consistency and maturity. The authors have focused on a consistent and parsimonious measurement philosophy within a nonparametric statistical paradigm. I note that the comprehensive structural technique has the tests and parameters that guarantee a measured and reliable structural model. Likewise, it is possible to consider its results and discussions as reliable.

 

I thank the authors for their research and hard work.

Fraternally,

Reviewer

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: I have reviewed the new version of the manuscript "Analysis of the Influence of Fund Allocation and Sustainable Academic Efficiency Based on a Transformation of Public Goods in Higher Education." In retrospect, I have compared the current version of their paper with the first submission and noticed a paper with greater consistency and maturity. The authors have focused on a consistent and parsimonious measurement philosophy within a nonparametric statistical paradigm. I note that the comprehensive structural technique has the tests and parameters that guarantee a measured and reliable structural model. Likewise, it is possible to consider its results and discussions as reliable.

I thank the authors for their research and hard work.

Fraternally,

Reviewer

Response:

Your valuable suggestions provide opportunities for reinforcing the quality of this paper. Thank you.

Reviewer 5 Report (Previous Reviewer 5)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

The comments were addressed accordingly, therefore, I think the article can be published in the present form. However, I would recommend a last check out of grammar, spelling etc. 

Kind regards, 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: The comments were addressed accordingly, therefore, I think the article can be published in the present form. However, I would recommend a last check out of grammar, spelling etc.

Response:

Thank you. This paper is done by proofreading.

Reviewer 6 Report (Previous Reviewer 6)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am fine with the revisions 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: I am fine with the revisions.

Response:

Thank you.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good revision overall. I think the paper can be published with a minor external correction for language usage.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor corrections needed with an external reader

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors should pay some more attention in language and formats/editing. I am sure with a refined editing the ms will be even easier to read. I am open-minded with this kind of studies so my judgement is relatively positive, however, I would see:

1) a broader and detailed policy description of the target;

2) a broader literature review, with a focus overpassing the strict boundaries of the study area

3) Methodologies can be detailed more, technically speaking, in order to allow researchers to reproduce the approach in other socioeconomic contex.

4) I miss the novelty of the contribution and I urge authors to generalize more deeply their results to other contexts.

5) Future studies can be delineated at the end of the discussion debate.

Many thanks and good luck!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Needing intense revisions.

Author Response

1. We added related policy descriptions, for example, Competitive funding was attached to each of these projects, and funds were allocated under the philosophy of “pursuit of excellence.” Reforms in higher education have been shaped by neoliberal perspectives overwhelmingly. Moreover, higher education funding is a zero-sum game. The ATU risks creating a vicious cycle in which non-ATU institutions and their students are increasingly marginalized, especially in the case of private universities [51]……In contrast, the HESP highlighted egalitarianism as the key principle and aimed to secure students’ equal rights to education by promoting diversity in the higher education system [50].
2. We have modified the literature review section. From funding theories to examples of national-wide funding schemes, then prompt the HESP of the case country.
3. We have reorganized the Methodology section. Add related information about what are the reasons for selecting this research design and their testing sequences.
4. Thank you for your suggestion. We tried to reinforce the results in other contexts.
5. Future studies have been added at the end of the Discussion section.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article "Examining Sustainable Development in Higher Education through Specific Funding Allocations for Public Goods Transformation" is a very good contribution to the field of Higher Education knowledge. The text makes a remarkable introduction where the funding of different countries is pointed out. The topic it deals with is a topical one, as it addresses sustainability in higher education. To address it, in addition to relying on updated theoretical references, it makes use of examples that help to understand what is intended. Therefore, in terms of objectives, it is a well thought-out article. As far as the fieldwork is concerned, it follows the guidelines of the scientific community. The analysis is well developed and the results obtained are pertinently described. The conclusions are very interesting and allow other researchers to benefit from them, creating new avenues of research. The references used are almost seventy-five, a third of them corresponding to the last five years.

Therefore, from the reviewer's point of view, the contribution is a very good article that can be accepted without changes by the journal.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive comments on this paper. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author(s),

It is understood that this study burdened much work for author(s) in terms of both helding important issue and focused local. Because, authors focused to explore the effect of funding transformation for lifting the quality of teaching, research, and public goods in higher education in the Taiwan. Regarding the results, perhaps, the most interesting result might be increasing academic performance of supported universities as shown Figure 2-3. However, it may be gap in the paper to see solely article production as a development for universities. However, the paper commented well that a common good is a collective decision that involves the state, the market, and civil society. In addition, the other deduction in the paper seems right that higher education moved into a globally competitive era, through the question arose about putting public goods schemes to work in a neoliberal context. The result of effect of specific funding for public goods are significant in higher education seems important for both Taiwan and the other countries of the world. I join with the authors about that case study may provide a valuable reference when policy design considers theories and practice issues through transforming public goods for sustainable higher education.

I congratulate the authors achieving this study.

Good lucks.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Thanks for your positive comments. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted manuscript aims to analyze the influence of funding allocation on the efficiency of teaching, research, and the transformation of public goods in Taiwan. The issue of financing has been crucial to ensure sustainable actions in various facets, including in education. Therefore, the document guarantees academic relevance and relevance to the spirit of the journal Sustainability. However, I want to make a few comments to contribute to improving the manuscript.

 

1. Congruence matrix. As for the congruence matrix between your title, question, objective, assumptions, methodology, and findings, it might be more accurate.

Title: While seeking to be attractive, your title should pay attention to the essence of its variables. The concept of "sustainable teaching" is comprehensive; it could refer to the fulfillment of academic, didactic, and pedagogical purposes or to anthropological purposes of meaning in life. It seems that the degree's wording and its dependent and independent variables should be directly referenced: financing à academic efficiency. 

Summary:  In your summary, I recommend keeping the essence of the basic structure: justification, objective, method techniques, and results. The most severe structural problem is the structure of the objective, which includes at the beginning an aspect of the methodology. I recommend writing an objective in the most austere and essential way possible: infinitive verb + scope + variables + unit of analysis. Example: Analyze the influence of fund allocation and sustainable academic efficiency on Taiwan's higher education. Examining "specific funding schemes" is not an end of research but a means to an end. Therefore, it does not belong to the goal but to the methodology. 

Keywords: You must reframe your keyword terms after adjustments to your title and objective. This is to sustain the congruence of its critical apparatus. 

 

2. Introduction. The introduction presents a non-exhaustive but sufficient literature review to pose the research problem. Since the introduction should be read without considering that there is a summary, it is advisable to state the problem statement at the end of the introduction. 

Please express your research question and objective and delve into the method technique used. This may appear before the description of your capitulate.

 

3. Theoretical and empirical support of the hypotheses:  The hypothesis requires a seminal theory support supporting the variables' association. Especially for the modeling of structural equations (SEM), there must be strong support from empirical studies that support the constructs validated with SEM and the empirical support of the relationship between the variables for each hypothesis to be tested.

Authors should add a section after the "Literature Review" on  "Theoretical and Empirical Underpinnings of Hypotheses," where they dedicate space to delve into the seminal theory that underpins their assumption and how it supports their general assumption of "funding academic performance." It should also dedicate a section to empirical studies that support each specific hypothesis. In the end, the graphical model of your hypothesis system may appear. 

 

4. Statistical methodology and techniques. Perhaps in this section, there seem to be some technical and methodological decisions with epistemological contradiction. 

 

5. Measurement philosophy. I agree with the epistemology that the various methodologies and methodological techniques, rather than antagonistic, are complementary and provide a feature of the truth. However, the chosen method and technique must be a function of the research object and its object of study (nature of the data). In this case, the final scope of the research is to analyze effects and weigh the relevance of these effects. In this case, the research indiscriminately uses techniques based on variance and covariance, techniques of a parametric and non-parametric nature. Authors should use specialized statistical literature to argue the decision for each technique. Above all, to argue that each technique used was necessary and to clearly show the differentiated contribution from each measurement philosophy.

 

6. Statistical techniques. I invite the authors to question whether all the statistical techniques used to test the hypothesis of their work are necessary. Under the assumption that "more includes less," SEM techniques are robust second-generation statistics that allow for more excellent reliability than first-generation ones. SEM techniques have various tests available for various purposes: factorial, correlation coefficients, regression, loads and weights, significant differences in the multigroup relationship, and use of mediating control variables for explanation differentiation. Why is it necessary to resort to first-generation statistics (ANOVA, t, regression) if you have the resources for these purposes in the most advanced techniques?

 I recommend using the results offered by the most robust technique. Define the nature of your data first, and argue with the literature why you choose SEM (whether parametric, AMOS, or non-parametric, SmartPLS). An initial, but not sufficient, reading could be:

 

Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), "When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM", European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203. 

 

In summary, I only consider it necessary to use first-generation statistics or have two SEM techniques if their purpose is a comparison and a critique of statistical techniques. Then, the focus would be on the technique, and the data would only be the pretext of a representative case. Choose only a second-generation technique that the literature suggests to you as the relevant one. Otherwise, he is on a mission to make a strong argument based on the literature for his decision.

 

7. Description of the sample. It would help if the sample description was concentrated in a table. 

 

8. Measures of variables. A section on methodology should be explicit where the use of the measures is supported by empirical literature. Which studies have previously validated their variables using SEM? 

 

9. Common method bias. Describe within the methodology how you dealt with the common method bias in the research. 

10. Sufficiency of the sample. Present some evidence and your clear criteria about the sufficiency of the sample. Example:

 

Memon, M. A., Ting, H., Cheah, J. H.,Thurasamy, R., Chuah, F., yCham, T. H. (2020). Sample sizefor survey research: Review andrecommendations. Journal of AppliedStructural Equation Modeling, 4(2),1-20. https://doi.org/10.47263/JASEM.  

 

10. SEM results report. Once the nature of its data has been decided and substantiated, the focus of its objective and the statistical technique is taken into account, including all the reports of SEM results from the measurement model (individual quality criteria, constructs, effects, r2, f2, discriminant validity, FIV, model fit if applicable) and from the structural model (final result of coefficients,  include confidence intervals.) Being selective in the techniques will allow you to dig deeper into the reports. 

11. Discussion. The new literature supports should be reflected in the discussion, where the works are clearly cited. Show the differences between what exists and this work. Finally, include whether it reinforces the theory on which it is based or whether it refutes it.

 

12. Database. I congratulate the authors for the effort in processing and curating secondary data. Be more descriptive in the preparation of your database. Please provide the database so that the reviewer can better understand the process of your variables.

Finally, I would like to thank the authors for this important topic. After these significant revisions, an excellent article could be generated for the journal.

Fraternal,

Reviser.

Author Response

Reviewer’s comment:

The submitted manuscript aims to analyze the influence of funding allocation on the efficiency of teaching, research, and the transformation of public goods in Taiwan. The issue of financing has been crucial to ensure sustainable actions in various facets, including in education. Therefore, the document guarantees academic relevance and relevance to the spirit of the journal Sustainability. However, I want to make a few comments to contribute to improving the manuscript.

1. Congruence matrix. As for the congruence matrix between your title, question, objective, assumptions, methodology, and findings, it might be more accurate.

Title: While seeking to be attractive, your title should pay attention to the essence of its variables. The concept of "sustainable teaching" is comprehensive; it could refer to the fulfillment of academic, didactic, and pedagogical purposes or to anthropological purposes of meaning in life. It seems that the degree's wording and its dependent and independent variables should be directly referenced: financing à academic efficiency.

Summary: In your summary, I recommend keeping the essence of the basic structure: justification, objective, method techniques, and results. The most severe structural problem is the structure of the objective, which includes at the beginning an aspect of the methodology. I recommend writing an objective in the most austere and essential way possible: infinitive verb + scope + variables + unit of analysis. Example: Analyze the influence of fund allocation and sustainable academic efficiency on Taiwan's higher education. Examining "specific funding schemes" is not an end of research but a means to an end. Therefore, it does not belong to the goal but to the methodology.

Keywords: You must reframe your keyword terms after adjustments to your title and objective. This is to sustain the congruence of its critical apparatus.

Response: Thanks for your suggestions. We have modified the keywords and title to make it more consistent. The new title: An Analysis of the Influence of Fund Allocation and Sustainable Academic Efficiency Based on a Transformation of Public Goods in Higher Education

2. 2. Introduction. The introduction presents a non-exhaustive but sufficient literature review to pose the research problem. Since the introduction should be read without considering that there is a summary, it is advisable to state the problem statement at the end of the introduction.

Please express your research question and objective and delve into the method technique used. This may appear before the description of your capitulate.

Response: We have moved the research questions to the Introduction section. The summary format has been revised.

3. Theoretical and empirical support of the hypotheses: The hypothesis requires a seminal theory support supporting the variables' association. Especially for the modeling of structural equations (SEM), there must be strong support from empirical studies that support the constructs validated with SEM and the empirical support of the relationship between the variables for each hypothesis to be tested.

Authors should add a section after the "Literature Review" on "Theoretical and Empirical Underpinnings of Hypotheses," where they dedicate space to delve into the seminal theory that underpins their assumption and how it supports their general assumption of "funding academic performance." It should also dedicate a section to empirical studies that support each specific hypothesis. In the end, the graphical model of your hypothesis system may appear.

Response: We have added research hypotheses following the Literature Review section. The graphical model related to the research hypothesis is displayed in the list: Figure 1. Proposed variables and linkages in the testing model.

4. Statistical methodology and techniques. Perhaps in this section, there seem to be some technical and methodological decisions with epistemological contradiction.
5.  Measurement philosophy. I agree with the epistemology that the various methodologies and methodological techniques, rather than antagonistic, are complementary and provide a feature of the truth. However, the chosen method and technique must be a function of the research object and its object of study (nature of the data). In this case, the final scope of the research is to analyze effects and weigh the relevance of these effects. In this case, the research indiscriminately uses techniques based on variance and covariance, techniques of a parametric and non-parametric nature. Authors should use specialized statistical literature to argue the decision for each technique. Above all, to argue that each technique used was necessary and to clearly show the differentiated contribution from each measurement philosophy.

Response: We have modified this with PLS-SEM to fit the nature of the data. Related addresses have been displayed in the Methodology section.

6. Statistical techniques. I invite the authors to question whether all the statistical techniques used to test the hypothesis of their work are necessary. Under the assumption that "more includes less," SEM techniques are robust second-generation statistics that allow for more excellent reliability than first-generation ones. SEM techniques have various tests available for various purposes: factorial, correlation coefficients, regression, loads and weights, significant differences in the multi-group relationship, and use of mediating control variables for explanation differentiation. Why is it necessary to resort to first-generation statistics (ANOVA, t, regression) if you have the resources for these purposes in the most advanced techniques?

I recommend using the results offered by the most robust technique. Define the nature of your data first, and argue with the literature why you choose SEM (whether parametric, AMOS, or non-parametric, SmartPLS). An initial, but not sufficient, reading could be:

Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), "When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM", European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203.

In summary, I only consider it necessary to use first-generation statistics or have two SEM techniques if their purpose is a comparison and a critique of statistical techniques. Then, the focus would be on the technique, and the data would only be the pretext of a representative case. Choose only a second-generation technique that the literature suggests to you as the relevant one. Otherwise, he is on a mission to make a strong argument based on the literature for his decision.

Response: Thanks for your valuable suggestions. In this part, the original purposes are ambiguous. We have reorganized the related statistical techniques to make them reasonable and consistent. The methodology and the presentation of results have made significant improvements. Also, some new citations have been added.

 

7. Description of the sample. It would help if the sample description was concentrated in a table.

Response: We have redefined the sampling technique.

8. Measures of variables. A section on methodology should be explicit where the use of the measures is supported by empirical literature. Which studies have previously validated their variables using SEM?

Response: This may not be a case study. Since the targeted variables are new and selected in a specific model.

9. 9. Common method bias. Describe within the methodology how you dealt with the common method bias in the research.

Response: This concern has been addressed in the statistical analysis section.

10. Sufficiency of the sample. Present some evidence and your clear criteria about the sufficiency of the sample. Example: Memon, M. A., Ting, H., Cheah, J. H.,Thurasamy, R., Chuah, F., yCham, T. H. (2020). Sample size for survey research: Review and recommendations. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, 4(2),1-20. https://doi.org/10.47263/JASEM.

Response: This study is based on the selected data set from 157 institutes. Finally, we analyzed 156 success cases. Considering the robustness of the testing model, we extended the cases to 2000 with the bootstrapping method in PLS_SEM. Purpose sampling has been addressed in the Sampling and Data Collection section.

11. 11. SEM results report. Once the nature of its data has been decided and substantiated, the focus of its objective and the statistical technique are taken into account, including all the reports of SEM results from the measurement model (individual quality criteria, constructs, effects, r2, f2, discriminant validity, FIV, model fit if applicable) and from the structural model (final result of coefficients, include confidence intervals). Being selective in the techniques will allow you to dig deeper into the reports.

Response: Thanks! We have modified the results report with PLS-SEM to consider the consistency of the same program. The fitted measure model and structural model are reported.

12. Discussion. The new literature supports should be reflected in the discussion, where the works are clearly cited. Show the differences between what exists and this work. Finally, include whether it reinforces the theory on which it is based or whether it refutes it.

Response: The discussion has been enhanced to make it more coherent.

13. Database. I congratulate the authors for the effort in processing and curating secondary data. Be more descriptive in the preparation of your database. Please provide the database so that the reviewer can better understand the process of your variables.

Response: The data sets are defined in the Methodology section.

 

Finally, I would like to thank the authors for this important topic. After these significant revisions, an excellent article could be generated for the journal.

Fraternal,

Reviser.

 

Response: Thanks for your valuable comments and encouraging our modification of the paper.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

It was a pleasure to read the paper "Examining Sustainable Development in Higher Education through Specific Funding Allocations for Public Goods Transformation". The study provides a critical review on funding mechanism in higher education. The article is well written, has a good structure, a logical flow that makes it easy to follow. The article can serve as a compelling call to reconsider traditional funding models and prioritize sustainable development goals. It was presented he case study on Taiwan's HESP, which provides insights that can potentially inform researchers, policymakers, and educators on relation between funding, sustainable development, and higher education. Considering the above mentioned aspect, I recommend its publication in present form.

Kind regards,

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments and encouragement.

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for inviting me to read the research article "An Analysis of the Influence of Fund Allocation and Sustainable Academic Efficiency Based on a Transformation of Public Goods in Higher Education." The research is robust and timely. I think the authors have made significant revisions to their original paper. To improve the readability of the article I suggest a few suggestions for improvement:

1. First regarding the literature review: it seems to focus predominantly on the neoliberal aspects of higher education without sufficiently exploring the nuances of fund allocation and sustainable academic efficiency in depth. I wonder if the authors could expand the LR to include a more comprehensive analysis of sustainable academic efficiency and fund allocation in higher education. With this one could see a stronger theoretical foundation for the study.

2. Similarly, the methodology section lacks crucial detail regarding the selection of variables and the justification for using specific statistical models. I suggest the authors elaborate on the rationale behind the choice of variables/statistical models. Please clarify how these choices are appropriate for addressing your research questions.

3. The interpretation of the data appears to be somewhat superficial, lacking in-depth analysis of the implications of the findings. I think the authors could provide a more detailed analysis of the results, discussing their implications in the context of existing literature.

 

4. Finally the paper does not adequately discuss its limitations or suggest areas for future research.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of the manuscript, which addresses the issue of financing, has been revised and is crucial to the education agenda on the road to sustainable development. I thank the authors for their hard work. 

My main concern is the reliability of the database. Within the quality tests for the measurement models, the condition of discriminant validity between constructs is not met. As can be seen in Tables 7 and 10, the values of the diagonal (square root of the AVE) are not more significant than the rest of the cells in their respective rows and columns, so the logic of the Fornell-Larcker criterion, which is based on the idea that a construct shares more variance with its indicators than with the other constructs, is not met. This is even though the Fornell-Larcker criterion has been discouraged for being not robust compared to the HTMT criterion. 

In addition to the above, I have noted that the suggested essential revisions must be sufficiently addressed. 

 

1. There is no clear empirical support for each of the hypotheses. While the data source used is novel, the variable itself is not, as financing has been used previously in different contexts for sustainable development. The empirical foundation is essential in the construction of SEM models.

2. There is yet to be an underlying epistemology that supports the relevance of the methodology and techniques used according to the nature of the data. 

3. The authors need to present a straightforward approach to the test and interpretation to demonstrate that there is no common bias in the method.

4. There needs to be clear criteria for determining the sample's adequacy to show the model's statistical power.

 

The insufficiency of epistemological and empirical support, as well as the need for the conditions of a valid measurement model, exposes us to the risk of having spurious results where there is the presumption of statistical relationships where, in reality, they do not exist. 

I encourage the authors to conduct an exhaustive database analysis and look for alternatives for its treatment and cure.

The results of this research tend to be unreliable in the present conditions.