Measuring the Meta Efficiency and Its Determinants on Efficiency in the Korean Coffee Shop Franchise
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review Report
According to the authors, the study aims to measures “the relative efficiency of 29 coffee shop franchisors in Korea from 2015 to 2018 based on the premise that the franchisors’ brand can maintain sustainable growth by managing their franchisees effectively and efficiently.”
I believe that there is still need to conduct researches focusing on efficiency in franchising contexts, considering that this issue has been an interesting stream of research in Management literature. Moreover, the paper approaches a specific context, (coffee shop franchisors), that according to the authors has not been approached previously in studies focused on efficiency in franchising businesses.
Properly introduced and developed, the topic approached in this paper could fit well in the theme of this journal (contributing to the literature of sustainable development of Franchising businesses), and the paper is, in general, well organized and the reading flows.
Overall, I think that the paper rises to the standards expected by the Sustainability journal. Nevertheless, I just have a few concerns that, as a reviewer I would like to bring up:
- First of all, in my opinion, the paper would benefit, if authors introduce a literature review section, providing a synthesis about how efficiency has been approached in Franchising literature.
- Authors should explain the findings, in the different steps, in a way that they can be understood by someone who (like me) does not know the research method, especially in what Figure 3 concerns.
Good work …
Author Response
RESPONSES TO REFEREE #1’s COMMENTS:
Journal: Sustainability
Manuscript #: sustainability-743611
Title of Paper: Measuring the Meta Efficiency and Its Determinants on Efficiency in the Korean Coffee Shop Franchise
Date Sent: 16 March 2020
We are very excited to have been given the opportunity to revise our manuscript, which we now entitle, “Measuring the Meta Efficiency and Its Determinants on Efficiency in the Korean Coffee Shop Franchise,” for SUSTAINABILITY Journal. We carefully considered your comments as well as those offered by the two reviewers. Herein, we explain how we revised the paper based on those comments and recommendations. We want to extend our appreciation for taking the time and effort necessary to provide such insightful guidance. We hope that these revisions improve the paper such that you and the reviewers now deem it worthy of publication in SUSTAINABILITY Journal. Next, we offer detailed responses to your comments as well as those of the reviewers.
[COMMENT 1] First of all, in my opinion, the paper would benefit, if authors introduce a literature review section, providing a synthesis about how efficiency has been approached in Franchising literature.
→ (Author Response & Correction 1) Thank you for your comments, we agree with your opinion. As followed your suggestion, we introduced a ‘literature review’ in Section 2.
→ (Related page) line 87–121 and Table 1.
[COMMENT 2] Authors should explain the findings, in the different steps, in a way that they can be understood by someone who (like me) does not know the research method, especially in what Figure 3 concerns.
→ (Author Response & Correction) Thank you for your kind comment. As followed your comments, we have added some sentences to highlight our research originality in Section 7.1 Implications for Theoretical and Operating Practice, as follows;
(1) “First, this study contributes…(omitted)… in this sector of franchising.”
(2) “That is, the previous literatures …(omitted)… the Korean coffee shop franchisors.”
(3) “This research highlights the following results:…(omitted)…the individual coffee shop franchisor’s efficiency.”
→ (Related page) line 445–450, line 459–462 and 474–485.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled “Measuring the Meta Efficiency and Its Determinants on Efficiency in the Korean Coffee Shop Franchise” deals with a very interesting topic. The manuscript has included interesting ideas. The approach followed looks useful and the results are promising.
However, the following issues should be addressed before considering the manuscript for publication:
- The research question must be better contextualized and be more convincing. What is research gap? How this research will fill the gap?
- The literature review must be better contextualized and be more convincing. The authors should analyse the existing works in the way to show the gap in the literature compared to this work. For instance, the authors should organize all the reviewed papers in a table and compare the difference among these reviewed papers and this study.
- Research methodology is not clear.
- The quality of the figures should be improved.
- The combination of DEA approach and Causal loops from “dynamic systems” deserves a deeper discussion.
- The inputs and Outputs variables in the model proposed by authors must be more discussed.
- What are the main limitations of this approach?
- The main contribution of this manuscript should be compared with other similar empirical studies.
- As usual a final thorough proof-reading is recommended.
Author Response
RESPONSES TO REFEREE #2’s COMMENTS:
Journal: Sustainability
Manuscript #: sustainability-743611
Title of Paper: Measuring the Meta Efficiency and Its Determinants on Efficiency in the Korean Coffee Shop Franchise
Date Sent: 16 March 2020
We are very excited to have been given the opportunity to revise our manuscript, which we now entitle, “Measuring the Meta Efficiency and Its Determinants on Efficiency in the Korean Coffee Shop Franchise,” for SUSTAINABILITY Journal. We carefully considered your comments as well as those offered by the two reviewers. Herein, we explain how we revised the paper based on those comments and recommendations. We want to extend our appreciation for taking the time and effort necessary to provide such insightful guidance. We hope that these revisions improve the paper such that you and the reviewers now deem it worthy of publication in SUSTAINABILITY Journal. Next, we offer detailed responses to your comments as well as those of the reviewers.
[COMMENT 1] The research question must be better contextualized and be more convincing. What is research gap? How this research will fill the gap?
→ (Author Response & Correction) Thank you for your comments, we agree with your opinion. As followed your suggestion, we inserted the detailed description of 3 research question in Section 1. Introduction, as follows;
“The specific research questions …(omitted)… franchisors’ group respectively?”
→ (Related page) line 72–78
[COMMENT 2] The literature review must be better contextualized and be more convincing. The authors should analyse the existing works in the way to show the gap in the literature compared to this work. For instance, the authors should organize all the reviewed papers in a table and compare the difference among these reviewed papers and this study.
→ (Author Response & Correction) Thank you for thoughtful advice. As followed your suggestion, we introduced a ‘literature review’ in Section 2.
→ (Related page) line 87–121 and Table 1.
[COMMENT 3] Research methodology is not clear.
→ (Author Response & Correction) Thank you for your comments, we revise and insert some sentences and new Figure 1, in a way that they can be understood by someone who does not know the research method exactly in Section 3.1 Analysis Technique (1): Metafrontier DEA Model, as follows;
“Conventional DEA models…(omitted)… and the metafrontier in Figure 1 [24].”
→ (Related page) line 124–141 and Figure 1
[COMMENT 4] The quality of the figures should be improved.
→ (Author Response & Correction) As your comments, we revise the quality of the figures
→ (Related page) Figure 2–4.
[COMMENT 5] The combination of DEA approach and Causal loops from “dynamic systems” deserves a deeper discussion.
→ (Author Response & Correction) Thank you for your kind comments. In this study, we used the combination of DEA and CLD to explain the relationship between franchisor’s operating environment variables and meta efficiency in more detail. As followed your comments, we have rewritten and inserted some sentences and Figure 4 in Section 6. Determinants of Meta Efficiency, as follows;
(1) “From the perspective of ME…(omitted)… changes in the number of franchisees.”
(2) “These results demonstrated …(omitted)…sustainable growth of a Korean coffee shop franchise.”
→ (Related page) line 408–418, and 423–429 and Figure 4
[COMMENT 6] The inputs and Outputs variables in the model proposed by authors must be more discussed.
→ (Author Response & Correction 1) Thank you for your comments. As followed your comments, we have inserted the definition of input/output variables in Section 4. Research Model and Data, as follows;
“The definition of input/output variables…(omitted)… distinct from the franchise right.”
→ (Related page) line 276–289.
[COMMENT 7] What are the main limitations of this approach?
→ (Author Response & Correction) Thank you for your comments, we have inserted the main limitations of this research in Section 7.2. Limitations and Future Research, as follows;
“While providing important insights …(omitted)… of efficiency fluctuation.”
→ (Related page) line 494–508.
[COMMENT 8] The main contribution of this manuscript should be compared with other similar empirical studies.
→ (Author Response & Correction) Thank you for your kind comment. As followed your comments, we have added some sentences to highlight our research originality in Section 7.1 Implications for Theoretical and Operating Practice, as follows;
(1) “First, this study contributes…(omitted)… in this sector of franchising.”
(2) “That is, the previous literatures …(omitted)… the Korean coffee shop franchisors.”
(3) “This research highlights the following results:…(omitted)…the individual coffee shop franchisor’s efficiency.”
→ (Related page) line 445–450, line 459–462 and 474–485.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Taking into account the comments of previous reviews, the authors have made a great effort to improve it and the main weaknesses are solved. The manuscript is now more consistent and is quite interesting and informative to most readers.
Thus, in my opinion, the paper is recommendable for publication.
