This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
This person has a SecurePRO™ card. Because this person is not a ProZ.com Plus subscriber, to view his or her SecurePRO™ card you must be a ProZ.com Business member or Plus subscriber.
Affiliations
This person is not affiliated with any business or Blue Board record at ProZ.com.
Portuguese to English: Response from author to journal editors General field: Social Sciences Detailed field: Government / Politics
Source text - Portuguese A seguir as alterações realizadas ou justificativas para os encaminhamentos promovidos a cada comentário dos revisores.
• Reviewer #2
Major revisions
Comentário Revisor #2: First, I will start with general structural suggestions, namely with the usage of long phrases and without suitable punctuation (e.g., commas), as examples the ones starting at l. 209-213 and l.380-383.
Resposta: Realizou-se revisão geral no documento a fim de se identificar e adequar situações semelhantes à mencionada pelo revisor.
Comentário Revisor #2: Furthermore, in the sub-section Qualitative Comparative Analysis Table 1 should appear after Tables 2 and 3, please redraft such section.
Resposta: A seção foi reorganizada e a ordem das tabelas alteradas, conforme sugestão (ver l. 254-271).
Comentário Revisor #2: Also, the citation style used is not consistent with the Water Policy guide for authors (i.e. the use of uppercase citations).
Resposta: Realizou-se revisão geral no documento a fim de se identificar e adequar as citações ao padrão da revista.
Comentário Revisor #2: Second, although the particularities of the method used, it continues to be a case-study analysis, please provide a better contextualization and due requirements for possible generalizations. Indeed, case-studies are applicable to theoretical arguments and not necessarily to populations or universes, in fact, the authors should follow authors such as Yin (1994) in order to provide a better context on the possible generalizations. The use of a reduced number of case studies provides a key message that the manuscript should focus on the quality of the case study analysis through the use of a more objective method that rather on the possibility of its wide generalization.
Resposta: Como bem identificado pelo revisor, embora aplique-se uma metodologia quali-quantitativa com certo poder de generalização, o artigo possui forte embasamento qualitativo, com foco na intensidade e não simplesmente na quantificação ou na representação estatística. Foi incluído um parágrafo abordando o assunto nas l. 222-233.
Comentário Revisor #2: Third, following the results obtained in this assessment, what do you believe could be the impacts on the PLANSAB (or what should be done), as it is well-known that such plan may have some faults (please see Pinto et al., 2016).
Resposta: O PLANSAB estabelece para o Brasil, diretrizes, metas e ações para os serviços de abastecimento de água, esgotamento sanitário, limpeza pública e manejo de resíduos sólidos e drenagem urbana e manejo de águas pluviais, para um período de 20 anos (2014-2033). O Plansab também apresenta o estudo das necessidades de investimentos para a expansão do acesso e determina a elaboração de programas. Estudos relacionados à performance das prestadoras de serviços são essenciais para a avaliação do Plansab, que tem previsão de revisão a cada quatro anos. No entanto, o artigo submetido possui como objetivo a avaliação de fatores que influenciam na adoção do modelo de gestão, não sendo analisado em nenhum momento a performance dos diferentes modelos estudados. Sendo assim, a partir da análise realizada, não se pode estabelecer impactos sobre o PLANSAB.
Comentário Revisor #2: Finally, I do believe that bearing in mind the possibility that decision makers may also be willing to follow personal interests, the authors should comment something on that, perhaps following Estache and Kouassi (2002) or Davis (2004).
Resposta: Seguindo-se a lógica da discussão do artigo, A predominância de interesses pessoais dos tomadores de decisão em relação aos interesses da sociedade pode ser considerada uma condicionante política. Sendo assim, julga-se pertinente aprofundar na discussão dos fatores condicionantes e, além dos fatores políticos (ver l. 411-418), discutir brevemente as questões sociais (ver l. 419-426) e econômicas (ver l. 404-410). Os dois artigos citados pelo revisor contêm análises interessantes relacionadas à corrupção no setor de saneamento. O estudo de Estache and Kouassi (2002) enriqueceu a discussão do artigo no que se refere à importância e influência da governança na prestação dos serviços de saneamento. Já o artigo de Davis (2004), por apresentar discussões mais focadas na ocorrência de atitudes corruptas relacionadas a operação do sistema e performance da prestação do serviço não foi utilizado no artigo.
Minor revisions
Comentário Revisor #2: The usage of the words sanitation and sanitary has to be reviewed throughout the manuscript, mainly in the translations provided its usage appears doubtful.
Resposta: Realizou-se revisão geral no documento a fim de se identificar e adequar os termos mencionados pelo revisor.
Comentário Revisor #2: l.33 - Please do not use QCA and Qualitative comparative analysis as two different keywords, also between sanitation and water supply change ":" for ";".
Resposta: Revisado. Excluído “qualitative comparative analysis” como palavra-chave (ver l. 34).
Comentário Revisor #2: l.142 and l.146 - Please correct the numbering of phases.
Resposta: Revisado. Conforme sugestão do revisor #3, foi adicionado um fluxo para o melhor entendimento do procedimento metodológico (ver l. 183-184).
Comentário Revisor #2: l.148 and l.168 - Correct the numbering of sub-section headers (i.e. remove them).
Resposta: Corrigido. A numeração foi removida (ver l. 202 e l. 235).
Comentário Revisor #2: l.182 - Although not wrong, please change whenever used "matrixes" for "matrices".
Resposta: Revisado, conforme sugestão do revisor (ver l. 267, 268 e 270).
Comentário Revisor #2: l.211 - "multiply" seems a typo please correct or explain.
Resposta: Corrigido para “multiple” (ver l. 281).
Comentário Revisor #2: l.227 - The combinations should be numbered for easier references.
Resposta: As combinações foram numeradas, conforme sugestão do revisor (ver l. 306, 332, 352 e 374). Embora vale ressaltar que não se tratam de equações.
Comentário Revisor #2: l.253 and l.256 - Typo in AIM.
Resposta: Corrigido para “IMA” (ver l. 332 e l. 335).
Comentário Revisor #2: l.328 - "applying" seems a typo please correct or explain.
Resposta: Corrigido para “apply” (ver l. 432).
Comentário Revisor #2: l.425 - "Heler" is a typo for "Heller", please correct.
Resposta: Corrigido para Heller (ver l. 555).
• Reviewer #3:
Majors
Comentário Revisor #3: (i) Section I: In my opinion, this section is too long. Here, I believe the author(s) should review the structure in order to clarify the idea of the paper, i.e., (brief context, objectives, methodology and structure of the paper).
Resposta: A seção foi reorganizada. A introdução ficou mais curta (l.36-86) e focada em apresentar um breve contexto, os objetivos do artigo, a metodologia utilizada e a estrutura do artigo, conforme a sugestão do revisor. As partes cortadas da introdução deram origem as duas seções seguintes: uma contextualizando os modelos de gestão de saneamento adotados no Brasil (l .88-122) e outra apresentando a técnica e suas aplicações QCA (l. 124-176).
Comentário Revisor #3: (ii) Section II: I found that many details regarding the collect data were not fully explained. Furthermore, I believe the authors should present a frame of the proposal methodology to facilitate our understanding. Some details regarding Boolean Algebra and reasons of the QCA should be explained. Finally, I would appreciate understanding how the authors treated or reduce some bias (cognitive and motivational) bias in an interview stage. If it was not done, I recommend the authors see a paper of Gilberto Montbelier regarding this issue.
Resposta: No que se refere a coleta dos dados, foi acrescentado ao artigo um parágrafo explicando brevemente a realização das entrevistas semi-estruturadas com atores-chave locais (ver l. 185-190).
Foram inseridas duas figuras para o melhor entendimento da sequência metodológica realizada (ver l. 183-184 e l. 248-249).
Sobre os detalhes da Algébra Booleana, o processo de minimização, uma das principais etapas da QCA, foi melhor detalhado na l. 287-294. Para maiores explicações é possível consultar trabalhos específicos que explicam a utilização da técnica, como Rihoux e Ragin (2009).
Com relação a redução do viés das entrevistas qualitativas, foram tomados alguns cuidados baseados na literatura, os quais foram brevemente descritos no artigo (ver l. 191-200).
Comentário Revisor #3: (iii) Section III: In my opinion, this section is well described. I've just will present some minors in a specific section of this current analysis.
Comentário Revisor #3: (iv) Section IV: Here the authors should improve the discussion take into account that the impact of different models in WSS performance not only depends on the management model, but also the presence of a regulator. Moreover, I would appreciate hearing from the authors some comments regarding the limitation of the results in terms of (i) selected case study and (ii) QCA method in comparative way with other methods non-Boolean (e.g. Fuzzy).
Resposta: A regulação consiste em um importante mecanismo que influencia na prestação dos serviços. No entanto, essa influência pode ser percebida na performance dos prestadores de serviços. O artigo submetido não avalia a performance dos prestadores presentes nas localidades estudadas e sim os fatores que levaram à escolha do modelo de gestão vigente. Além disso, a regulação do setor de saneamento no Brasil é ainda bastante incipiente no plano nacional e variável entre as unidades da federação, mas esse é um tema que extrapola os objetivos desse artigo (ver Galvão Junior & Paganini, 2009).
No que se refere à limitação dos resultados decorrente da escolha dos estudos de caso foi acrescentado um parágrafo abordando essa discussão (ver l. 446-454).
Com relação à comparação da metodologia QCA com outras técnicas não booleanas, como a fuzzy, pode-se consultar o estudo de Rihoux (2006). A própria metodologia QCA possui uma versão baseada na lógica fuzzy, conhecida como fsQCA. No entanto, conforme explicação acrescentada ao artigo (ver l. 161-176) a aplicação da lógica fuzzy demanda uma variável resposta contínua, o que não se aplicaria ao presente artigo (variável resposta é a presença/ausência do modelo de gestão).
Comentário Revisor #3: (v) Section V: In my opinion, this section is well described. However, it should be more detail in terms of futures works and, if possible, discussed in terms of transition models in order to understanding how the factors move between governments.
Resposta: Revisado. Foi acrescentado um parágrafo com recomendações de estudos futuros (l. 525-529) e uma breve explicação sobre as transições dos modelos de gestão ao longo dos governos (l. 507-512).
Minors
Comentário Revisor #3: Line 40 - Please, check the no. of Decree-Law that approved PLANSAB in 2013.
Resposta: Revisado. Trata-se de uma portaria interministerial (ver l. 93).
Comentário Revisor #3: Line 91 - Please, check the link between the excessive pronoun.
Resposta: Revisado (ver l. 57-60).
Comentário Revisor #3: Line 107, 110, 114, 119, 123, 124, 136, 164, 185, 329, 333, 344, 345, 363, 364, and so on - Please, check the Water Policy citation in text.
Resposta: Realizou-se revisão geral no documento a fim de se identificar e adequar as citações ao padrão da revista.
Comentário Revisor #3: References: Please, check the list take into account Water Policy reference.
Resposta: Realizou-se revisão geral na lista de referências a fim de adequá-la ao padrão da revista.
Por fim, cabe mencionar algumas questões relacionadas a estrutura do artigo após a revisão. De acordo com as instruções fornecidas pela revista para a submissão de artigos, o limite máximo aceitável são 9000 palavras (menos 350 palavras a cada figura ou tabela incluída). O artigo submetido inicialmente cumpria este requisito. No entanto, após o acréscimo das discussões sugeridas pelos revisores, atingiu-se um total de 8403 palavras, além da utilização de 3 tabelas e 2 figuras. Não foram encontradas orientações sobre o limite permitido para a nova submissão do artigo. Acredita-se que as sugestões feitas pelos revisores e acrescentadas ao artigo são relevantes para o melhor entendimento do assunto, embora algumas não sejam essenciais, havendo a possibilidade de suprimir certas questões caso haja a necessidade decorrente da limitação de palavras. Pode-se citar, por exemplo, as explicações sobre a fase qualitativa da pesquisa. Observa-se que algumas publicações que aplicam a técnica QCA após a realização de pesquisa qualitativa não se aprofundam em detalhes concernentes a pesquisa qualitativa (ver Aubin & Varone, 2013 p.11; Portes & Smith, 2008 p. 112; Sager & Rielle, 2012 p. 9). Além disso, as práticas usualmente utilizadas na pesquisa qualitativa, como a busca da heterogeneidade dos entrevistados e da saturação das informações, encontram-se estabelecidas na literatura (Flick, 2011; Yin, 2014). Do mesmo modo, detalhes sobre o funcionamento da lógica booleana utilizada na QCA podem ser suprimidos, uma vez que existem trabalhos específicos que apresentam e avaliam a técnica (ver Fiss 2007, Rihoux & Ragin, 2009), os quais podem ser consultados para informações mais aprofundadas.
Também de acordo com as regras de submissão da Water Policy, artigos com poucas (25) referências podem ser recusados. Na primeira submissão, o artigo estava dentro do limite estipulado, mas após o acréscimo das discussões sugeridas pelos revisores, o número total de referências ultrapassou 25. Também não foram encontradas orientações sobre o limite de referências permitido para a nova submissão do artigo.
Translation - English Please find below detailed responses detailing the modifications made to the article and explanations of subjects mentioned in the reviewers’ comments.
Reviewer #2
Major revisions
Comment from Reviewer #2: First, I will start with general structural suggestions, namely with the usage of long phrases and without suitable punctuation (e.g., commas), as examples the ones starting at l. 209-213 and l.380-383.
Reply: A general review was performed to identify and correct the situations mentioned by the reviewer.
Comment from Reviewer #2: Furthermore, in the sub-section Qualitative Comparative Analysis Table 1 should appear after Tables 2 and 3, please redraft such section.
Reply: The section was reorganised and the order of the tables was changed as per the recommendation (see l. 254-271).
Comment from Reviewer #2: Also, the citation style used is not consistent with the Water Policy guide for authors (i.e. the use of uppercase citations).
Reply: A general review was performed to identify and correct the citation style in accordance with the journal’s standards.
Comment from Reviewer #2: Second, although the particularities of the method used, it continues to be a case-study analysis, please provide a better contextualization and due requirements for possible generalizations. Indeed, case-studies are applicable to theoretical arguments and not necessarily to populations or universes, in fact, the authors should follow authors such as Yin (1994) in order to provide a better context on the possible generalizations. The use of a reduced number of case studies provides a key message that the manuscript should focus on the quality of the case study analysis through the use of a more objective method that rather on the possibility of its wide generalization.
Reply: As highlighted by the reviewer, while a quali-quantiative methodology was used with a certain capacity for generalization, the article is strongly based on qualitative aspects. Notably, it focuses on intensity and not only on statistic quantification or representation. A paragraph was added to the article on this subject at lines l. 222-233.
Comment from Reviewer #2: Third, following the results obtained in this assessment, what do you believe could be the impacts on the PLANSAB (or what should be done), as it is well-known that such plan may have some faults (please see Pinto et al., 2016).
Reply: The PLANSAB establishes directives, goals and measures for Brazil’s services in water supply, sanitation, public hygiene, solid waste management and urban storm water drainage over a 20-year period (2014-2033). The PLANSAB also provides a study of investments required to expand access to those services and calls for the elaboration of several programmes. Studies addressing the performance of service providers are essential to evaluate the PLANSAB and should be revised every four years. The present article aims to assess factors that influence the adoption of a certain management model. It does not, however, aim to analyse the performance of those different service models. Accordingly, based on the analysis that was carried out, the article is not capable of evaluating the impact of the PLANSAB.
Comment from Reviewer #2: Finally, I do believe that bearing in mind the possibility that decision makers may also be willing to follow personal interests, the authors should comment something on that, perhaps following Estache and Kouassi (2002) or Davis (2004).
Reply: In following with the article’s rationale, the preponderance of decision-makers’ personal interests in comparison to those of the rest of society can be considered a political determinant. Accordingly, it is considered relevant to enter into greater detail on the discussion of determining factors and, beyond political factors (see 1. 411-418), briefly discuss social (1. 419-426) and economic factors (see 1. 404-410) as well. The two articles cited by the reviewer possess interesting analyses related to corruption in the water supply and sanitation sector. Estache and Kouassi’s (2002) study enriched the present article’s discussion vis-à-vis the importance and influence of governance on water supply and sanitation service provision. Meanwhile, given the focus of Davis (2004) on corrupt attitudes related to systems operations and the performance of service providers, that work was not used in the present article.
Minor revisions
Comment from Reviewer #2: The usage of the words sanitation and sanitary has to be reviewed throughout the manuscript, mainly in the translations provided its usage appears doubtful.
Reply: A general review was performed to identify and correct the situations mentioned by the reviewer.
Comment from Reviewer #2: l.33 - Please do not use QCA and Qualitative comparative analysis as two different keywords, also between sanitation and water supply change ":" for ";".
Reply: Duly revised. “Qualitative comparative analysis” was eliminated as a keyword (see l. 34).
Comment from Reviewer #2: l.142 and l.146 - Please correct the numbering of phases.
Reply: Duly revised. As per the suggestion of Reviewer #3, an additional step was added to facilitate understanding of the methodological process (see l. 183-184).
Comment from Reviewer #2: l.148 and l.168 - Correct the numbering of sub-section headers (i.e. remove them).
Reply: Corrected. The numbering was removed (see l. 202 and l. 235).
Comment from Reviewer #2: l.182 - Although not wrong, please change whenever used "matrixes" for "matrices".
Reply: Duly revised as per the reviewer’s suggestion (see l. 267, 268 and 270).
Comment from Reviewer #2: l.211 - "multiply" seems a typo please correct or explain.
Reply: Corrected for “multiple” (ver l. 281).
Comment from Reviewer #2: l.227 - The combinations should be numbered for easier references.
Reply: The combinations were numbered as per the reviewer’s suggestion (see l. 306, 332, 352 and 374). It should be highlighted, however, that the contents are not equations.
Comment from Reviewer #2: l.253 and l.256 - Typo in AIM.
Reply: Corrected for “IMA” (see l. 332 and l. 335).
Comment from Reviewer #2: l.328 - "applying" seems a typo please correct or explain.
Reply: Corrected for “apply” (see l. 432).
Comment from Reviewer #2: l.425 - "Heler" is a typo for "Heller", please correct.
Reply: Corrected for Heller (see l. 555).
• Reviewer #3:
Majors
Comment from Reviewer #3: (i) Section I: In my opinion, this section is too long. Here, I believe the author(s) should review the structure in order to clarify the idea of the paper, i.e., (brief context, objectives, methodology and structure of the paper).
Reply: The section was reorganized. The introduction was shortened (1.36-86) and focused on briefly presenting the context, the article’s objectives, methodology, and section outline, as per the reviewer’s suggestion. The contents removed from the introduction were used in two new sections: one contextualizes management models for water supply and sanitation service provision existing in Brazil (1. 88-122), while the other details the QCA technique and its applications (l. 124-176).
Comment from Reviewer #3: (ii) Section II: I found that many details regarding the collect data were not fully explained. Furthermore, I believe the authors should present a frame of the proposal methodology to facilitate our understanding. Some details regarding Boolean Algebra and reasons of the QCA should be explained. Finally, I would appreciate understanding how the authors treated or reduce some bias (cognitive and motivational) bias in an interview stage. If it was not done, I recommend the authors see a paper of Gilberto Montbelier regarding this issue.
Reply: Regarding data collection, an additional paragraph was inserted to briefly explain how the semi-structured interviews were carried out with key local actors (see l. 185-190).
Two figures were inserted to facilitate understanding of the methodology’s sequence (see l. 183-184 and l. 248-249).
Regarding the details of Boolean Algebra, the process of minimization—one of the main steps in QCA—was explained in greater detail at 1. 287-294. For greater explanations, specific works on the use of the technique may be consulted, such as Rihoux and Ragin (2009).
Regarding the reduction of bias in the qualitative interviews, caution was taken based on suggestions from the literature, as explained briefly at 1. 191-200.
Comment from Reviewer #3: (iii) Section III: In my opinion, this section is well described. I've just will present some minors in a specific section of this current analysis.
Comment from Reviewer #3: (iv) Section IV: Here the authors should improve the discussion take into account that the impact of different models in WSS performance not only depends on the management model, but also the presence of a regulator. Moreover, I would appreciate hearing from the authors some comments regarding the limitation of the results in terms of (i) selected case study and (ii) QCA method in comparative way with other methods non-Boolean (e.g. Fuzzy).
Reply: Regulation is an important mechanism that influences service provision. However, that influence is perceived in the performance of service providers. The present article does not assess the performance of the service providers in the locations that were studied; it focuses on the factors that led to the selection of the existing management model. Moreover, regulation of the water supply and sanitation sector in Brazil is still quite incipient nation-wide and varies from one State to another. Yet, this theme is beyond the scope of this article’s objectives (see Galvão Junior & Paganini, 2009).
Regarding the limitations of the article’s results owing to the choice of case studies, an additional paragraph was inserted to address that discussion (see l. 446-454).
As concerns comparison between the QCA methodology and other non-Boolean techniques, such as the fuzzy technique, Rihoux (2006) performed a relevant study. The QCA methodology possesses fuzzy logic in a basic form, known as fsQCA. However, as per the additional explanation provided in the article (see 1. 161-176), applying fuzzy logic requires a continuous response variable. The present article does not meet that requirement as the response variable is the presence/absence of a management model.
Comment from Reviewer #3: (v) Section V: In my opinion, this section is well described. However, it should be more detail in terms of futures works and, if possible, discussed in terms of transition models in order to understanding how the factors move between governments.
Reply: Duly revised. An additional paragraph was inserted with recommendations for future studies (l. 525-529) and a brief explanation of the transitions in management models throughout different governments (l. 507-512).
Minors
Comment from Reviewer #3: Line 40 - Please, check the no. of Decree-Law that approved PLANSAB in 2013.
Reply: Revised. It is an inter-ministerial ordinance (see l. 93).
Comment from Reviewer #3: Line 91 - Please, check the link between the excessive pronoun.
Reply: Revised (see l. 57-60).
Comment from Reviewer #3: Line 107, 110, 114, 119, 123, 124, 136, 164, 185, 329, 333, 344, 345, 363, 364, and so on - Please, check the Water Policy citation in text.
Reply: A general review was performed to identify and correct the citation style in accordance with the journal’s standards.
Comment from Reviewer #3: References: Please, check the list take into account Water Policy reference.
Reply: The references were modified in accordance with the journal’s standards.
In closing, it would be valuable to clarify a series of matters related to the article’s structure post-revision. In accordance with the instructions provided by the journal for new article submissions, the maximum limit of words that is accepted is 9,000 (minus 350 words for every figure or table). Initially, the article met those requirements. However, in building on the discussions identified by the reviewers, the number of words has reached a total 8,403 in addition to 3 tables and 2 figures. Instructions were not provided regarding the size of the revised article. The authors believe that the reviewers’ suggestions to further explore certain discussions are relevant to facilitate better understanding of the article’s subject. Some of the new material is not essential and, thus, could be removed if there is a need to respect a determined word limit. For example, an explanation of the research’s qualitative phase is not essential. In several publications where the QCA technique is applied after qualitative research, an in-depth discussion on the details of that qualitative research is not observed (see Aubin & Varone, 2013 p.11; Portes & Smith, 2008 p. 112; Sager & Rielle, 2012 p. 9). In addition, the techniques commonly used in qualitative research are well-established in the literature, such as efforts to attain heterogeneity among the interviewees and data saturation (Flick, 2011; Yin, 2014). Likewise, details on the functioning of Boolean logic in QCA can be removed, as it is possible to consult specific studies that have presented and assessed this technique for more in-depth information (see Fiss 2007, Rihoux & Ragin, 2009).
In accordance with the rules for new submissions to Water Policy, articles with little (25) references may be refused. In the initial submission, the article’s references were within the stipulated limit. However, after providing the additional information requested by the reviewers, the number of references has surpassed 25. Instructions on the number of references that may be permitted for a resubmitted article were not found.
More
Less
Experience
Years of experience: 9. Registered at ProZ.com: Jun 2017.
Expertise