Assessing Road Safety in Morocco’s Regions from 2014 to 2022: A DEA-MPI Benchmarking Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, I have read your article with great interest. The problem of correctness and objectivity of comparative assessments of the state of various systems is important.

There is always the task of comparing similar systems with each other. This is important, first of all, from an organizational and managerial point of view.

I fully approve of the approach you are using to assess the dynamics of the general state of road safety in the regions of a particular country.

In this regard, I am inclined to give a generally positive review of the article.

However, I have a number of comments on the form of the material you are presenting and on the explanation of the results obtained. So, the comments are as follows.

1. In Table 1 of the article, you use road safety assessment indicators, but do not specify their units of measurement. In addition, you are using an incorrect dimension of the evaluation of these indicators. There are no non-whole cars (for example, 2366865.13). Also, it is not necessary to indicate that the number of people killed in an accident is 819.00 people. Specify just 2366865 cars and 819 people.

2. In the comments to the table. 1 and Fig. 1, it is necessary to make a note that the road safety indicators in 2020 were affected by the situation with lockdown and restriction of human activity.

3. In the correlation matrix, Table. 2 You took into account the correlation between the 5 indicators, but initially (Table. 1) You have selected 7 indicators. It is necessary to represent the matrix of Table 2 in size 7 * 7.

4. The names of Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 should be formulated more clearly. The wording used does not allow you to quickly navigate the ideas of the authors.

5. In Fig. 1, 3, 4, 5, it is necessary to specify the names of the scales and the dimension of the indicators.

6. Figure 5 (consisting of two parts) needs to be adjusted from the position of unification for both parts of the time period (2015...2022).

7. Figure 5 characterizes the divergence of the Effch and Techch indicators. The Tfpch indicator is the resultant for the combined accounting of Effch and Techch and varies in a very small range of values. I.e., the scientific interest is primarily the awareness of the dialectical contradiction between the Effch and Techch indicators.

8. Judging by the graphs in Fig. 5, I have doubts about the correctness of these lines 363-372 of the article. According to the graphs, I can't believe that the decrease in Tfpch was 68.5%. It is necessary to double-check and correct this information.

9. Perhaps it would be interesting to see how the indicators of Table 1 (7 indicators of road safety) and the Tfpch indicator are statistically related. I ask you to carry out this work and present its results within the framework of subsection 4.3 of the article.

I would like you to take into account my comments in order to improve the quality of your article.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your detailed and insightful feedback on our article. We appreciate your positive evaluation of our approach to assessing road safety dynamics and your constructive suggestions for improvement. We have carefully reviewed your comments and addressed each point as follows:

Comments 1: In Table 1 of the article, you use road safety assessment indicators, but do not specify their units of measurement. In addition, you are using an incorrect dimension of the evaluation of these indicators. There are no non-whole cars (for example, 2366865.13). Also, it is not necessary to indicate that the number of people killed in an accident is 819.00 people. Specify just 2366865 cars and 819 people.                                                                                                                                                       Response 1: We have revised Table 1 to include the units of measurement for each road safety indicator. Additionally, we have corrected the dimensions to reflect whole numbers where appropriate. For example, the number of cars and the number of people killed in an accident will be presented as 2366865 and 819 respectively.

Comments 2: In the comments to the table. 1 and Fig. 1, it is necessary to make a note that the road safety indicators in 2020 were affected by the situation with lockdown and restriction of human activity.                                                                                                                                                        Response 2: We have added a note to Table 1 and Figure 1 to indicate that the road safety indicators for 2020 were influenced by the lockdowns and restrictions on human activity.

Comments 3: In the correlation matrix, Table. 2 You took into account the correlation between the 5 indicators, but initially (Table. 1) You have selected 7 indicators. It is necessary to represent the matrix of Table 2 in size 7 * 7.                                                                                                                                   Response 3: We expanded the correlation matrix in Table 2 to include all seven indicators, resulting in a 7x7 matrix

Comments 4: The names of Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 should be formulated more clearly. The wording used does not allow you to quickly navigate the ideas of the authors.                                                                          Response 4:  We have revised the names of Figures 3 and 4 to enhance clarity and better reflect the ideas presented.

Comments 5: In Fig. 1, 3, 4, 5, it is necessary to specify the names of the scales and the dimension of the indicators.                                                                                                                                                  Response 5: We have revised Figures 1, 3, 4, and 5 to include clear labels for the scales and dimensions of the indicators.

Comments 6: Figure 5 (consisting of two parts) needs to be adjusted from the position of unification for both parts of the time period (2015...2022).                                                                                              Response 6: We have adjusted Figure 5 to unify both parts of the time period (2015-2022) for consistency.

Comments 7: Figure 5 characterizes the divergence of the Effch and Techch indicators. The Tfpch indicator is the resultant for the combined accounting of Effch and Techch and varies in a very small range of values. I.e., the scientific interest is primarily the awareness of the dialectical contradiction between the Effch and Techch indicators.                                                                                                    Response 7: We have revised the explanation of Figure 5 to better characterize the divergence between Effch and Techch indicators, highlighting the dialectical nature of the relationship.

Comments 8 : Judging by the graphs in Fig. 5, I have doubts about the correctness of these lines 363-372 of the article. According to the graphs, I can't believe that the decrease in Tfpch was 68.5%. It is necessary to double-check and correct this information.                                                                          Response 8: Thank you for your remark. We have reviewed and corrected the information, the decrease in Tfpch is 31.35%, not 68.5%.

Comments 9: Perhaps it would be interesting to see how the indicators of Table 1 (7 indicators of road safety) and the Tfpch indicator are statistically related. I ask you to carry out this work and present its results within the framework of subsection 4.3 of the article.                                                                         Response 9:  We have examined the relationship between the seven road safety metrics and TFPCH by performing a correlation analysis. The results are included in subsection 4.3 of the article.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. We believe these revisions will enhance the quality of our article. We look forward to resubmitting the improved version.

Best regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is interesting and the content is suitable for this journal. However, the paper needs several modifications before being further considered.

1_ Objective: It might be too ambitious for a scientific article to define the way policy makers will think about road safety. Please rephrase. The term “triggering” could be a better choice.  

2_ The reviewer would like a better explanation about the impact of the pandemic period on the road safety of the country.

3_ Please explain the range of the index presented in Table 3.    

4_ Same as point No. 1 for lines 404-407. Please rephrase.

5_ I would propose the use of figure/flowchart to illustrate the methodology and its applicability potential for other countries, as proposed in the conclusions.

6_ Please fix the reference styles according to MDPI guidelines.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

moderate needs

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our article. We appreciated your suggestions and addressed each point as follows:

Comments 1: Objective: It might be too ambitious for a scientific article to define the way policy makers will think about road safety. Please rephrase. The term “triggering” could be a better choice.      Response 1: We rephrased the objective to avoid implying that we defined how policymakers would think about road safety. We used the term “triggering” to better align with the scientific focus of our article. The revised objective is as follows: “On this basis, the objective of this research is to assess the evolution of road safety performance in Morocco from 2014 to 2022. The analysis aims to offer valuable insights for decision-makers and road safety authorities in Morocco, with the intention of triggering improvements in underperforming regions and enhancing their future road safety performance.”

Comments 2: The reviewer would like a better explanation about the impact of the pandemic period on the road safety of the country.                                                                                                                 Response 2: We explained how the pandemic period affected road safety in the country, specifically addressing the impacts of lockdowns and restrictions on traffic patterns and accident rates. The explanation is as follows : The COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns and restrictions in 2020 led to a significant reduction in human activity, which had a clear impact on road safety. With fewer cars on the road and reduced travel overall, there was a noticeable decrease in road accidents, fatalities, and injuries. As shown in Figure 1, the number of traffic incidents dropped sharply compared to previous years. The unique circumstances of the pandemic unexpectedly resulted in safer roads during that period.

Comments 3: Please explain the range of the index presented in Table 3.                                      Response 3: Following table 3, we clarified the range of the index presented. This includes specifying the minimum and maximum values and discussing their implications for interpreting the index accurately.

Comments 4: Same as point No. 1 for lines 404-407. Please rephrase.                                                      Response 4: We rephrased lines 404-407 and used the term 'trigger' to better align with the scientific focus of our article. The revision is as follows: "Policymakers in various countries can leverage the insights derived from our methodology to trigger targeted action plans, fostering continuous improvement in road safety practices and ultimately contributing to safer transportation systems internationally".

Comments 5: I would propose the use of figure/flowchart to illustrate the methodology and its applicability potential for other countries, as proposed in the conclusions.                                             Response 5: We have revised the manuscript to better illustrate the applicability of the methodology to other countries, as proposed in the conclusions. We believe this clarification will help demonstrate how the methodology can be adapted for use in different contexts.

Comments 6: Please fix the reference styles according to MDPI guidelines                                                Response 6: We adjusted the reference styles according to the MDPI guidelines to ensure consistency and adherence to the journal's formatting requirements.

Besides, the language of the paper has been enhanced through proofreading by a native English speaker. Thank you once again for your constructive comments. We believe these revisions have significantly improved the quality of the manuscript.

Best regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The formatting of all figures and tables is not standardized. The titles and units of the axes are usually missing from the figures. All tables are proposed to be replaced by three-line tables.

2. The conclusion section is too long and should briefly summarize the article's research background, methodology, results, and give the appropriate conclusions. Finally discuss the limitations of this article and future research directions.

3. This paper uses some “we” to elaborate the results or findings. It is recommended to use “this paper” or “this article” or “this study”.

4. How can the effectiveness of the proposed methodology be demonstrated?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This paper uses some sentences that are too long and too complex, which results in reducing the readability of the paper. It is recommended to split these sentences to make the article more understandable. For instance, “Moreover, the Malmquist Productivity Index (MPl) approach along with the decomposition of total factor productivity change into efficiency change and technical change showed that none of these components exhibit a consistent trend throughout the studied period and that the progression of performance over time is insufficient and falls short of expectations, highlighting the immediate necessity to implement improvement measures -both technically and managerially-to effectively tackle the current challenges inroad safety.”

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your insightful feedback on our article. We have addressed each of your comments as follows:

Comments 1: The formatting of all figures and tables is not standardized. The titles and units of the axes are usually missing from the figures. All tables are proposed to be replaced by three-line tables.            Response 1: We have standardized the formatting of all figures and tables. Titles and units of the axes have been added to the figures where they were previously missing. Additionally, we have replaced the previous tables with three-line tables as recommended.

Comments 2: The conclusion section is too long and should briefly summarize the article's research background, methodology, results, and give the appropriate conclusions. Finally discuss the limitations of this article and future research directions.                                                                                         Response 2: We have revised the conclusion section to make it more concise. It now briefly summarizes the research background, methodology, results, and provides appropriate conclusions. We have also discussed the limitations of the study and suggested directions for future research.

Comments 3: This paper uses some “we” to elaborate the results or findings. It is recommended to use “this paper” or “this article” or “this study”.                                                                                       Response 3: We have replaced instances of “we” with “this paper,” “this article,” or “this study” to present the results and findings, thereby maintaining a more formal tone throughout the manuscript.

Comments 4: How can the effectiveness of the proposed methodology be demonstrated?         Response 4: To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed methodology, a paragraph has been formulated explaining the methodology's impact and its successful application across various sectors as follows : “ To capture this variability and assess the dynamics of road safety performance, the Data Envelopment Analysis based Malmquist Productivity Index approach (DEA-MPI) emerges as a powerful tool [11].The Malmquist Productivity Index (MPI) is a measure used in productivity analysis to assess efficiency changes over time [12]. It was first introduced by [13] and has been widely applied since then in different sectors, including assessing road safety demonstrating the effectiveness of the DEA-MPI methodology”.

Comments on the Quality of English Language: This paper uses some sentences that are too long and too complex, which results in reducing the readability of the paper. It is recommended to split these sentences to make the article more understandable. For instance, “Moreover, the Malmquist Productivity Index (MPl) approach along with the decomposition of total factor productivity change into efficiency change and technical change showed that none of these components exhibit a consistent trend throughout the studied period and that the progression of performance over time is insufficient and falls short of expectations, highlighting the immediate necessity to implement improvement measures -both technically and managerially-to effectively tackle the current challenges inroad safety.”

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language: Thank you for highlighting the issue with sentence complexity and readability. We have revised the manuscript to address this concern. Sentences have been split and simplified to improve clarity.

For example, the original sentence:

“Moreover, the Malmquist Productivity Index (MPI) approach along with the decomposition of total factor productivity change into efficiency change and technical change showed that none of these components exhibit a consistent trend throughout the studied period and that the progression of performance over time is insufficient and falls short of expectations, highlighting the immediate necessity to implement improvement measures—both technically and managerially—to effectively tackle the current challenges in road safety.”

has been revised to :

“Moreover, the Malmquist Productivity Index (MPI) approach, which decomposes total factor productivity change into efficiency and technical changes, revealed that neither component shows a consistent trend throughout the studied period. This indicates that performance progress over time is insufficient and falls short of expectations, underscoring the immediate need for both technical and managerial improvements to address the current road safety challenges effectively.”

Additionally, the manuscript has been proofread by a native English speaker to further enhance its readability and ensure clarity. We believe these revisions enhance the readability and overall clarity of the manuscript.

Thank you once again for your constructive comments. We believe these revisions have significantly improved the quality of the manuscript.

Best regards,

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

None.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comments.