A Comprehensive Techno-Economic Model for Fast and Reliable Analysis of the Telecom Operator Potentials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Thank you for the opportunity to revise the article. I believe the potential is high, but, to be honest, the article is confusing and lacks an adequate link to the theory.

1. The introduction does not provide any link to existing theory nor support to a research gap where the need and pertinence of the proposed model;

2. The same applies to the conclusions

3. It Is necessary to revise the article to provide a better logical flow. The frequent link appendix is understandable, but very confusing. Eventually, some figure or flow could help

4. The journal title refers to applied science,, as such, the science must be clear, especially regarding the theoretical underpinnings. For example, the authors present vaguely the link to the theory: this can be seen in lines 373-76 where a 'tsunami' of references is presented without a minimal discussion or critical analysis.

5. The hypothesis in the introduction needs to be supported.

Author Response

I would like to thank you for your suggestions and recommendations in order to better present the CTE Model in the work. All suggestions and recommendations were analyzed and the text and layout of the work was adjusted according to them. In addition to all of the above, we additionally clarified the model, clarified the scientific approach and clarified the need to create such a model.

Reviewer 1

Thank you for the opportunity to revise the article. I believe the potential is high, but, to be honest, the article is confusing and lacks an adequate link to the theory.

1. The introduction does not provide any link to existing theory nor support to a research gap where the need and pertinence of the proposed model;

 

The Introduction has been expanded and the text of the Introduction has been supplemented according to your suggestions.

 

2. The same applies to the conclusions

 

And the Conclusion has also been expanded and the text of the Conclusion has been supplemented in accordance with your suggestions.

 

3. It Is necessary to revise the article to provide a better logical flow. The frequent link appendix is understandable, but very confusing. Eventually, some figure or flow could help.

 

This item was specially analyzed and the text was adapted in accordance with the testaments. The article has been adapted and Table 2 has been added with the main description of each area, links between areas, and Table 2 indicates in which chapter of the work and in which Appendix each area is further explained and described with the equations for all items.

 

4. The journal title refers to applied science,, as such, the science must be clear, especially regarding the theoretical underpinnings. For example, the authors present vaguely the link to the theory: this can be seen in lines 373-76 where a 'tsunami' of references is presented without a minimal discussion or critical analysis.

 

It has been corrected and adjusted according to the request. It should be noted that the development of this model is long-term and based on many years of research and professional knowledge and experience - that's why a significant amount of literature is listed.

 

5. The hypothesis in the introduction needs to be supported.

 

Made and amended in the Conclusion. This was also a remark of another reviewer, and all this was added and revised in the Conclusion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

This manuscript presents a new modular model of the telecom operator and its application in optimizing different areas of telecom operator.

The introduction is very succinct and this compromise the clarity of the research background. In line 41 it is written "After research of currently known and used models and their applications in practice, it was concluded that there is no model for the analysis of telecom operators "from top to bottom" which would also be mathematically modeled and at whose outputs would be obtained exact the results", but models are described separately in appendix 1 and there is no discussion that conducts the reader to identify this gap. Model descriptions wold better fit in the introduction section, where their characteristics should be discussed to identify the gap.

In addition, a new paragraph on the rationale and content of each section at the end of the introduction would better guide the readers through the materials of the paper.

Chapter 5: spelling mistake in the title

The discussion session can be enriched by explaining how the CTE model provides guidelines for telecom development. Lines 476-478 offer advice for telecom development, it can be explained which items suggest these recommendations (or, at least, items previously illustrated can be recalled).

The conclusion session should also consider the broader implication of the research and indicate opportunities for future research. The paper currently concludes saying "through these two examples, the set hypotheses in the paper are proven". It would be beneficial for the reader to restate the hypotheses and to briefly summarize how the examples prove them.

Author Response

I would like to thank you for your suggestions and recommendations in order to better present the CTE Model in the work. All suggestions and recommendations were analyzed and the text and layout of the work was adjusted according to them. In addition to all of the above, we additionally clarified the model, clarified the scientific approach and clarified the need to create such a model.

Reviwer 2

This manuscript presents a new modular model of the telecom operator and its application in optimizing different areas of telecom operator.

1. The introduction is very succinct and this compromise the clarity of the research background. In line 41 it is written "After research of currently known and used models and their applications in practice, it was concluded that there is no model for the analysis of telecom operators "from top to bottom" which would also be mathematically modeled and at whose outputs would be obtained exact the results", but models are described separately in appendix 1 and there is no discussion that conducts the reader to identify this gap. Model descriptions wold better fit in the introduction section, where their characteristics should be discussed to identify the gap.

 

Remarks and suggestions have been accepted and the Introduction has been adapted and expanded accordingly.

 

2. In addition, a new paragraph on the rationale and content of each section at the end of the introduction would better guide the readers through the materials of the paper.

 

This is done.

 

3. Chapter 5: spelling mistake in the title

 

The mistake is rectified..

 

4. The discussion session can be enriched by explaining how the CTE model provides guidelines for telecom development. Lines 476-478 offer advice for telecom development, it can be explained which items suggest these recommendations (or, at least, items previously illustrated can be recalled).

 

This has been done and the clarification has been expanded.

 

5. The conclusion session should also consider the broader implication of the research and indicate opportunities for future research. The paper currently concludes saying "through these two examples, the set hypotheses in the paper are proven". It would be beneficial for the reader to restate the hypotheses and to briefly summarize how the examples prove them.

 

This is also done and adjusted according to the suggestion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Congrats for the revision.

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

In my opinion what I have read, this not rigorous scientific study at all. From its beginning the abstract does not reflect any contribution to the science, and from first sentence sounds like a popular essay. Do we need a model for analysis the telecoms? It is not justified. The review of model are very sketchy and diverse, with no conclusions and generalizations. Proposed concept is not rooted in hitherto knowledge and not argued. This looks like a free concept by authors, in this way we cannot built a knowledge. For example in environmental "segments" we see factors controlled and uncontrolled by a company, what is the point? Why we do not see Corporate Social Responsibility area in this model? We have dozen similar questions? Why not proces improvement area? And so on, and so on. The study does not have define methodology, and theres is no any methodical actions. No discussion of results. I really cannot accept this study.

Reviewer 2 Report

It is interesting approach to the scientific problematic, however the authors should extend introduction part and emphasize novelty, importance, relevance. The clear goal of the article must be stated and the methodological approach presented in the introduction.

The Literature review (models analysis) could be shorter and more constructive. Not so descriptive and presented in analytical discussion style.

After theoretical review authors start discussion on model, but clear line between theoretical model and empirically tested or used model would be great. If the methodology part would appear, the research idea and logic would be presented  it would be more consistent.

The model schematic presentation could help as well.

In the conclusion part, a clear discussion on novelty and specificity would be preferable. What makes the model original? What are the limitations of this research and of the presented model itself.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this piece. In the article, the authors are attempting to present an new industry analysis model. It seems to me that you have way too much going on in this paper; it almost reads like you have taken two papers and squeezed them together. The first paper is a theory development attempt; the second paper is the survey study. When you present the existing models on page 2, you have a list of two different types of models: first, you have models that assess firm level data; second, you have models that assess industry level data. You should not include both. If you want to present a new model for assessing industry level information, then just present PESTEL, SWOT, Five-Forces, etc. If you want to assess firm level information, then just present SID, TAM, TNA, etc. 

For your equations, you do not present any rationale for the structure of the formula, you merely state what the variables are and ten the formula. You never discuss how the formulae fit together. How do you aggregate the models to make sense of the whole?

What was the source for your data? Are the commas in the tables supposed to be decimals?

The paper was very difficult to read and much too long. Your work could benefit from significant editing.