Efficient Expenditure Allocation for Sustainable Public Services?—Comparative Cases of Korea and OECD Countries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Some observation 
You use "Data Envelop Analysis" but in text you didn't text. 
Also you use "OECD" and you didn't write this abbreviation in full. 
Also you didn't use in "keywords".

The manuscript didn't respect editorial template for text, figures, tables and citation (References) list. Please review this. 
- Text you need to use "Justify" for all text
the main section are bolded but the rest are 

"3.1. Subsection

3.1.1. Subsubsection"

 

line 287 and 288 must be in the next page

Mathematical Components must be Centered and the number in right of page
- Figure, must be in center, the text below  must be: 
    Alignment - Justified, spacing before 6pt and after 12 pt (see template)
    The  word "Figure" must be bolded like "Figure 1. This is a figure..."
- Table, must be in center, the text before table  must be: 
  Alignment - Centered, spacing before 12pt and after 6 pt (see template)
    The  word "Table" must be bolded like "Table 1. This is a table..."
- Reference
First refence OECD at line 478, must be "Title of Site. Available online: URL (accessed on Day Month Year)"
Reference nr 3. The "3" is bigger that the other numbers. also what did you mean with "Fare et al.[3]" The citation list must respect this example " Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range. "

 

Please review all manuscript and correct like template. 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see my detailed comments in the attached file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Maybe original version looks better. 
In my copy we have some,  problems:

Between line 60 and 61 it's a space
Also from line 50 to line 71 missing, text "figure 2" for Figure 2 line 76

Between line 86 and 87 it's a space

Between line 91 and 92 it's a space

Line 153 "3. Data" and Line 154 "3.1 Public Social Expenditure" it's on page for without any text under. You can move this 2 lines in page 5.

Line 201 "3.2 Social Overhead Capital (Transportation)" it's on page 5 without any text under, you can move this line on page 6.

Also in this chapter missing "Table 2" in text (Form line 206 to 2017) (table 2 , pag 6 line 218)

From line 289 to line 312 missing, text "table  3" for Table 3 line 314

From line 317 to line 324 missing, text "table  4" for Table 4 line 324

From line 328 to line 337 missing, text "table  5" for Table 5 line 339

Line 346 why you use this expression (see [Table 6]). In my opinion it's better the expression "OECD countries (Table 6)".

Line 359  expression "in [Figure 4]" must be "in Figure 4"

Line 367  expression "in [Figure 4]" must be "in Figure 4"

From line 372 to line 374 missing, text "table  7" for Table 7 line 336

From line 379 to line 387 missing, text "table  8" for Table 8 line 389

Line 391  expression "in [Figure 5]" must be "in Figure 5"

Line 403  expression "in [shown in [Table 6] below]" must be "in shown in Table 9 below]" or "in shown in Table 6 above (from line 351)" 

From line 417 to line 422 missing, text "table  10" for Table 10 line 424

From line 448 to line 473 missing, text "table  11" for Table 11 line 475

Recommendation:
1. Use the same expression in your paper  for example "like figure 1 and table 1" or you write "like Figure 1 and Table 1"
2. We usually don't use square brackets ([]) in text but we use square brackets for indicate a citation.
3. Try to use citation not older than 10 years.

Author Response

Thanks for providing us a detailed comments about the format mistakes we have made. We carefully followed the comments and made the corrections throughout the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed most of the comments; they have also tried to make changes according to the reviewers’ suggestions. After revisions, the quality of the manuscript has been adequately enhanced. Therefore, the manuscript could be considered for the publication in the Journal. However, there are still some editing/ syntax errors present in the manuscript which need to be corrected, hence the publishing team is advised to read the manuscript carefully before publishing.

Author Response

Thanks for positive words about our efforts in the revision. We went through whole manuscript again for any mistakes we have made and try to make the correction.