All Lives Matter: A Model for Resource Allocation to Fire Departments in Portugal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is very well structured, however, following comments should be addressed:

1-There is no relevant academic literature paper review. There may not be similar studies in Portugal, but there are so many studies on resource allocation in similar settings or using similar tools in different settings.

2-Table 4 is not clearly represented. Please change the format and font, and provide a better explanation.

3-Fig 6, the left display, using contrain 5 to be changed to constraint 5.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

I commend you on your research efforts; you have undertaken commendable work that warrants commendation. However, there are areas that require refinement to elevate the quality of your paper. Below are the key points for your consideration:

 

Structural Readability: The paper's structure poses readability challenges. Consider streamlining the use of items, subitems, and bullet points to enhance readability and facilitate comprehension.

 

Acronym Presentation: Introduce acronyms with capital letters upon their first appearance in the paper to aid in reader comprehension.

 

Introduction Clarity: The introduction lacks clarity in delineating the paper's scope and objectives. I suggest expanding this section, relocating any detailed subitems to the Appendix, and numbering equations for better organization.

 

Literature Review: Incorporate a comprehensive literature review to provide context and discuss the current state of the art in the field.

 

Abbreviated List: Move the abbreviated list to the Appendix to declutter the main text.

 

Explanation of Recommendations: Provide rationale for including the recommendations section and clarify its relevance to the paper's objectives.

Source Attribution for Figures and Tables: Ensure that figures and tables include proper source attributions for transparency and credibility.

 

Table 4: Consider optimizing Table 4 by either relocating it to the appendix or presenting its data in graphical format to enhance readability.

 

Clarity in Figure Labels: Improve the clarity of y-labels in Figure 5 to enhance understanding for readers.

 

Expanded Discussion: Enrich the discussion of results by incorporating insights from recent related studies.

 

Enhanced Limitations and Future Research: Extend the discussion on limitations and incorporate a detailed plan for future research directions.

 

I encourage you to carefully consider these suggestions as you proceed with revisions to advance the peer review process.

 

Best regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author/s,

You have done excellent work in improving the paper. The final version has only a few minor comments. Please avoid paragraphs that contain only one sentence (for example, line 405). Additionally, the equations are not presented consistently and use varying letters and formats. Please ensure uniformity in their presentation.

I look forward to seeing the final version.

Best regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors considered all the points I asked about. The paper can be published

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your positive feedback. Your thorough review and constructive suggestions were invaluable in enhancing the quality of our work. We are pleased that you find the paper ready for publication. 

Best regards,