Efficiency of U.S. Oil and Gas Companies toward Energy Policies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I congratulate the authors for their article entitled "Efficiency of US oil and gas companies and energy and environmental policies" which shows that renewable energy and nuclear power contribute to explaining the distortion between the optimal and observed output of the US oil and gas companies.

Even though I find the overall article as a potential good one, more information on the following sections should be added:

• The Abstract
  • it should not contain abbreviations, as they will be mentioned in the corpus of the paper eg. stochastic frontier analysis (SFA)
  • authors should avoid phrases that are not documented enough eg. The petroleum industry faces crucial environmental problems that exacerbate business instability, such as climate changes and greenhouse gas emissions regulations
• The Introduction
  • authors should avoid phrases that are not documented enough (or should state the sources of such strong beliefs) such as Energy is the engine of development and economic growth, but governments tend to focus on environmental protection, prices, and security of supply when setting energy policy
  • abbreviations should be addressed (such as GMM is standing for ....?) and presented the first time the term appear (eg. DEA); moreover, the authors should be using them always the same (eg. US or U.S.)
• the Literature Review - I suggest having it; moreover, it should be making a smooth transition from Introduction and towards Methodology;
• Add a new section named Discussion in which you explain the findings, you draw recommendations and then you have the Conclusions part;
• The limitations and further research opportunities should be in the Conclusions.
• Check the phrases that are not really in English, nor with enough arguments (eg. The petroleum business is one of the most significant industrial sectors, contributing billions of dollars that add value each year and employing thousands of people throughout the world.)

Some other recommendations:

• Check the English used (for example, there is an error even in the 3rd author's name of university)
• Figure 1 - is it Fig. 1 or Figure 1 (be consistent); moreover, how did you compute that figure on which you based your figure? It is not clear as in Table 4 there is no Average.
• Moreover, throughout the entire paper, there should be a natural flow of ideas. Therefore, a restructure and rephrasing phase is needed. 

Author Response

Response to reviewers’ comments

Comments and Suggestions of reviewer 1

I congratulate the authors for their article entitled "Efficiency of US oil and gas companies and energy and environmental policies" which shows that renewable energy and nuclear power contribute to explaining the distortion between the optimal and observed output of the US oil and gas companies.

Even though I find the overall article as a potential good one, more information on the following sections should be added:

• The Abstract
• it should not contain abbreviations, as they will be mentioned in the corpus of the paper eg. stochastic frontier analysis (SFA)

• It is done

• authors should avoid phrases that are not documented enough eg. The petroleum industry faces crucial environmental problems that exacerbate business instability, such as climate changes and greenhouse gas emissions regulations

• This is the focus of the study

• The Introduction
• authors should avoid phrases that are not documented enough (or should state the sources of such strong beliefs) such as Energy is the engine of development and economic growth, but governments tend to focus on environmental protection, prices, and security of supply when setting energy policy

• We have added a reference

• abbreviations should be addressed (such as GMM is standing for ....?) and presented the first time the term appear (eg. DEA); moreover, the authors should be using them always the same (eg. US or U.S.)

• It is done

• the Literature Review - I suggest having it; moreover, it should be making a smooth transition from Introduction and towards Methodology;

• It is done

• Add a new section named Discussion in which you explain the findings, you draw recommendations and then you have the Conclusions part;

• The results of this research are presented in three parts, a part related to efficiency and another part for inefficiency and a third part to present and discuss the efficiency scores, so it is difficult to gather in a single left for discussion.

• The limitations and further research opportunities should be in the Conclusions.

• It is done

• Check the phrases that are not really in English, nor with enough arguments (eg. The petroleum business is one of the most significant industrial sectors, contributing billions of dollars that add value each year and employing thousands of people throughout the world.)

• It is done, deleted

 

Some other recommendations:

• Check the English used (for example, there is an error even in the 3rd author's name of university)

• It is done

• Figure 1 - is it Fig. 1 or Figure 1 (be consistent); moreover, how did you compute that figure on which you based your figure? It is not clear as in Table 4 there is no Average.

• It is done

• Moreover, throughout the entire paper, there should be a natural flow of ideas. Therefore, a restructure and rephrasing phase is needed. 

• It is done

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper "Efficiency of US oil and gas companies and energy and
environmental policies" falls within the scope of the journal "Gases" but doesn't meet the standard quality of the paper that should be published in one prestigious journal in the current version. 
The paper has potential but should be additionally improved with the following major corrections.
- The paper should be written in the official template.
- Each abbreviation should be defined in place of the first appearance. 
- Keywords are not defined well. The word "environment policy" doesn't appear in the text.
- In the introduction section you have described aims and tried to show contributions. Also, you should give an overview of the field significance, and should consider the following main questions: what are the current problems that this paper seeks to solve? What are the gaps in literature? What is novelty?
- Most of the current section Introduction should be moved to new-formed 2. Literature review and integrated with the current second section. Also, relevant references newer date should be added:
1) Kazemitash, N., Fazlollahtabar, H., & Abbaspour, M. (2021). Rough Best-Worst Method for Supplier Selection in Biofuel Companies based on Green criteria. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 4(2), 1-12.
2) Abbaspour, M., Fazlollahtabar, H., & Stevic, Z. (2022). Multi-Objective Rough Best-Worst Method to Evaluate Sustainability of a Biofuel Energy Supply Chain. International Journal of Industrial Engineering & Production Research
- You should describe the advantages of your applied model. Data are very good, but for example why you didn't use DEA model to calculate efficiency. Please explain.
-  Write discussion with implications limitations...
- Used references are out of date. Please update it.

Author Response

Response to reviewers’ comments

Comments and Suggestions of reviewer 2

The paper "Efficiency of US oil and gas companies and energy and
environmental policies" falls within the scope of the journal "Gases" but doesn't meet the standard quality of the paper that should be published in one prestigious journal in the current version. 
The paper has potential but should be additionally improved with the following major corrections.
- The paper should be written in the official template.

• We couldn't find the official template

- Each abbreviation should be defined in place of the first appearance. 

• It is done

- Keywords are not defined well. The word "environment policy" doesn't appear in the text.

• It is done

- In the introduction section you have described aims and tried to show contributions. Also, you should give an overview of the field significance, and should consider the following main questions: what are the current problems that this paper seeks to solve? What are the gaps in literature? What is novelty?

• It is done, see introduction paragraph 5

- Most of the current section Introduction should be moved to new-formed 2. Literature review and integrated with the current second section. Also, relevant references newer date should be added:
1) Kazemitash, N., Fazlollahtabar, H., & Abbaspour, M. (2021). Rough Best-Worst Method for Supplier Selection in Biofuel Companies based on Green criteria. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 4(2), 1-12.
2) Abbaspour, M., Fazlollahtabar, H., & Stevic, Z. (2022). Multi-Objective Rough Best-Worst Method to Evaluate Sustainability of a Biofuel Energy Supply Chain. International Journal of Industrial Engineering & Production Research

• It is done, see section 2

- You should describe the advantages of your applied model. Data are very good, but for example why you didn't use DEA model to calculate efficiency. Please explain.

• It is done, see section 3

-  Write discussion with implications limitations...

• It is done

- Used references are out of date. Please update it.

• It is done

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I congratulate the authors for their improvements made to the article. Though the overall scientific soundness of the article improved, there are some minor changes that need to be addressed:

* there cannot be any references in the Abstract

* mainly the new references added are from the same author (Jarboui) who happens to be one of the article's authors. I have serious ethical concerns regarding the self-citations policy.  

* in the Literature Review, you mention "Several studies have looked at this issue, such as Jarboui (2021a)...". There should be therefore several studies you mention, present, focus on, not only one. And also, you start the literature review with "Several studies have looked at this issue" - which is the issue you literally name here? The efficiency of oil and gas companies or any other ideas you present in your article?

* be consistent in your paper (Table 3 - line 395)

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 R2

I congratulate the authors for their improvements made to the article. Though the overall scientific soundness of the article improved, there are some minor changes that need to be addressed:

* there cannot be any references in the Abstract

• It is done

* mainly the new references added are from the same author (Jarboui) who happens to be one of the article's authors. I have serious ethical concerns regarding the self-citations policy.  

à The work of Jarboui 2021 is at the heart of our research, it deals with the operational and environmental efficiency of oil and gas companies.

* in the Literature Review, you mention "Several studies have looked at this issue, such as Jarboui (2021a)...". There should be therefore several studies you mention, present, focus on, not only one. And also, you start the literature review with "Several studies have looked at this issue" - which is the issue you literally name here? The efficiency of oil and gas companies or any other ideas you present in your article?

à It's corrected, and after and below we have presented the different works that deal with this question.

* be consistent in your paper (Table 3 - line 395)

• It is done

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have improved their paper. Now is more quality. I have one minor suggestion. The abstract should avoid other references, (Jarboui, 2021). Also, references in the text are not according to official instructions.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 2 R2

The authors have improved their paper. Now is more quality. I have one minor suggestion. The abstract should avoid other references, (Jarboui, 2021). Also, references in the text are not according to official instructions.

• Thank you, it’s corrected,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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.