Evaluation of Resource Utilization Efficiency in the Machining Process Based on the SBM-DEA Model with Non-Expected Output

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present an SBM-DEA model to evaluate factory resource utilization. There are a few areas for improvement:

1) The typo "CCR model" should be "CRR model". Kindly provide a full term for CRR.

2) Sect. 2.2, can the authors explain the statement "Therefore, most scholars will waste as the input and regard raw materials, profit as the output to make an evaluation of the efficiency of DMU." Difficult to understand what it is trying to say.

3) Does Eq. (12) share the same Vj as Eq. (11)?

4) Fig. 4, kindly leave a sufficient gap between dimensioning lines and the workpiece. Otherwise, it will be confusing if those lines were part of the workpiece.

5) Lastly, this study aims to evaluate and improve the resource utilization efficiency of the machining process. How does it improve utilization?  There are no clear results in the improvement, even though the proposed model has evaluated the resource utilization for each process.

Author Response

Thanks a lot for providing detailed review and valuable modification suggestions for our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, and the detailed corrections are listed below point by point.

1) The typo "CCR model" should be "CRR model". Kindly provide a full term for CRR.

Thank the expert for your careful review. There is indeed an input error in 2.2. We mistakenly input the "CCR" model into the "CRR" model. This error has now been modified (indicated by the yellow background)

2) Sect. 2.2, can the authors explain the statement "Therefore, most scholars will waste as the input and regard raw materials, profit as the output to make an evaluation of the efficiency of DMU." Difficult to understand what it is trying to say.

We are very sorry that the previous text was not clearly expressed. The text with yellow background is the content we modified according to the expert's prompt.

3) Does Eq. (12) share the same Vj as Eq. (11)?

Here, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their careful review!, According to this prompt, we have modified the relevant variables (marked with yellow background) in Eq. (12).

4) Fig. 4, kindly leave a sufficient gap between dimensioning lines and the workpiece. Otherwise, it will be confusing if those lines were part of the workpiece.

According to the suggestions of the review experts, we modified Figure 4 so that the contour line and dimension marking line of the workpiece can be clearly distinguished.

5) Lastly, this study aims to evaluate and improve the resource utilization efficiency of the machining process. How does it improve utilization?  There are no clear results in the improvement, even though the proposed model has evaluated the resource utilization for each process.

We greatly admire the insightful opinions given by experts, and completely agree with this point. Although the model proposed in this study can evaluate the resource utilization rate of the processing process from the perspective of reducing unexpected output, it is still necessary to further improve the resource utilization efficiency of the processing process in order to obtain more significant results. Based on the expert's opinion, we revised the relevant sentences in the abstract, and added necessary explanations in the conclusion of the paper(the part marked with yellow background).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has an interesting study about a novel mechanical processing efficiency method that could be useful for the industry. There are some points that must be checked by the authors before acceptance (see annotated manuscript), some of them are described below:

- Include a list of symbols to make the paper clear for the readers;

- Insert more case studies to support the assumptions about the method;

- Compare the results with some similar studies in the literature;

- Add more recent references to state the importance of the study;

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks a lot for providing detailed review and valuable modification suggestions for our manuscript. We have made changes according to your comments in the PDF document. These changes are marked with yellow background.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed all queries indicated earlier. The manuscript is suitable for publishing in the Journal.