Using a Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process to Formulate an Effectual Tea Assessment System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General thoughts
The article is very interesting and important from the point of view of tea producers. However, some modifications need to be made to raise the scientific level of the text. Please make the text more easy to understand for the readers.
Specific comments
line 10, 27, 29. Explain China's relationship with Taiwan, since the authors use Taiwan and China interchangeably but it is known that there are some differences.
Line 10 and 290 Please make references to the information that Taiwan is famous for tea production. In overall view there is information that China is the most famous. So please explain in few words this situation.
Line 16 – you wrote 16 experts. In line 164 – you wrote 2 experts. Please explain those difference between experts.
Line 32 and 292 – please support this information by some citations, some reports. You can’t write that some businessmen mixed poor tea quality to achieve good tea quality. Without references it could be gossip or slander. In scientific text please support this kind of information by official reports.
Line 153 – table 1 – Please explain how did you share percentages between item, what does it mean and where you will use this percentages (10%, 20%, 30%, 40%)?
Line 177 - Figure 1 – please add C1, C2…C11 because you use this in the table 2. Why you don’t use all criterion in your next analyses?
Line 190 – table 2 I can’t understand the idea of this table. Why you don’t use all Criterion listed in the table 1? And you use in the table 2 C1…C4 in different aspects, so it makes me also very confused. Please explain more your idea of the table 2. Why EI in the table 2 is underline and written in column? Is it mistake or it is important? Please explain - maybe you can write positive and negative variables in line 184? You listed 5 criterion (line 182-183), maybe you should listed all of them?
Line 192 – AHP or FAHP?
Line 204 – table 3 – why you use only odd (unpaired) numbers (1, 3, 5, 7, 9) and what they mean?
Line 254 – table 5 How did you calculated the weight of group? 0,591 0,533 and others… How did you calculated all numbers?
Editorial comments
Line 164-165 – please correct format of line 165.
Line 254 table 5 it should be weight not weight
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The basic idea of the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process is to decompose the problem itself according to the level according to the nature and overall goal of the multi-objective evaluation problem, and form a bottom-up cascade structure. Therefore, when using FAHP to make decisions, it can be roughly divided into the following four steps. (1) Analyze the problem. (2) Compare the elements of the same level (level) above the element as the criterion, and determine their relative importance according to the evaluation scale, and finally establish a fuzzy judgment matrix based on this. (3) Determine the relative importance of each element through certain calculations. (4) Prioritize all alternatives through the calculation of comprehensive importance to provide a scientific basis for decision-makers to choose the best option
The significant of this study should be identified clearly. In the introduction, it should cite more references to show the logic relationship between tea assessment system with the whole. In addition, this paper should determine the causality between the various factors in the system, and establish a multi-level (multi-level) hierarchical structure model for various elements of the decision problem. In the literature review section, this study should address more scientific or academic references to support the main issues of this study. For example, who asserted natural environmental factors that influence the quality of the tea must be identified? (line 58-81). Moreover, the section of 2.3. Pesticide types and tea pesticide residue is too short. If it is an important factor in this study, it should be discussed further.
Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has the following defects: it is very difficult to check whether the judgment matrix is consistent, and the standard CR <0.1 for testing whether the judgment matrix is consistent lacks scientific basis; the consistency of the judgment matrix is significantly different from the consistency of human thinking. In fuzzy AHP, when making a pairwise comparison between factors. Consistency ratio is a very important indicator for achieving the reliability of an individual’s pairwise comparisons in Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). In this study, triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) are used to present linguistic terms of an individual’s pairwise comparisons.
The symbols of formula should be explained more clearly, such as line 223, 231, 232. More explanations should be address as long with the tables and formula. The section of conclusions and suggestions should be made based on the findings and the limitation should be addressed as well.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much for your answers for my report. Now it's pleasure to read this article, because it is eassy to understand the idea of the research. It's very interesting.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The introduction must be improved. Excepted for introducing the topic of this study, creating solid context and background, telling about the research you plan to carry out, stating the rationale, explaining why this research is important, stating the hypothesis should be addressed. In addition, it should mention past researches attempts to solve the research problem or to answer the research question. Why did the study suing the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in this study?
The conclusion should be rewrite and remind the readers of the strength and impact of this study's argument. Concluding statements in this study should be made based on the results and supporting evidence of the arguments or position that this study presented in the research. It should be the continuing research, creating new ideas to resolve an issue this study highlighted in the paper or offering new approaches to a topic.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thanks.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
