Analytic Hierarchy Process-Based Airport Ground Handling Equipment Purchase Decision Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is of sound quality on a subject deserving the Journal's attention. This study attempts to developed an AGHS equipment supplier selection model based on the analytic hierarchy process and an AHP weighted fuzzy linear programming approach. Creating an AHP and AHP-FLP decision model, This paper provide useful insights for solving MDMP, the best AGHS equipment supplier. Overall, the paper is well written and well structured, therefore it is easy to follow and builds a clear conclusion from the data. Generally well written but requires some editing and revision. In literature review, this study only focused on methodological approached such as MDMP, AHP, ANP... well reviewed prior research on approaches. But reviews of the previous studies about AGHS equipment supplier decision criteria are required. Yes, research design, data collection process and data analysis method are appropriate. The processes for data analysis are appropriate and the results of it are clearly described. However, this paper just described the results of data analysis. To improve the quality of this study, author(s) need to extract more clear implications in both theoretical and practical perspectives as a discussion of the results. Additional explanations are required to link the results of data analysis and conclusions The quality of communication is appropriate. Generally, well written but requires some editing and revision.Author Response
please see attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- I consider that the implementation of the algorithm (described in steps) presented in section 4, through appropriate software technologies (programming languages) would allow the automation / efficiency of the process of using the model and would greatly increase its usefulness.
- I recommend the completion of a separate section entitled Results in which the results obtained following the application of the proposed model are presented in detail. The way in which the results are presented now is difficult for readers to follow and causes a decrease in the scientific value of the paper.
- Following the analysis of the bibliographic references of the paper, we found that many of them are quite "outdated". I recommend updating the list of bibliographic references in such a way as to appear as many papers published in the last 5 years, which present a more current way of approaching the field / topic presented in this paper.
Author Response
please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper assesses airport ground handling service equipment purchase decisions. The paper has a similarity index of 50%. Such a degree of plagiarism is completely unacceptable to any reputed journal. One might argue that some authors have a rigid writing style, and so, their new papers have some similarities with their old papers. However, this is not the case for this paper, which has an 11% similarity index with the paper by Sevkli et al. (2008), where none of the authors of this paper is a co-author. In fact, most of the papers, which have significant similarities with this paper, are not written by any of the authors of this paper. When the similarity index of a paper is 50%, it is very hard to argue that the paper is novel enough for publication in a reputed, peer-reviewed journal. In addition to substantial plagiarism, this paper has many flaws, some of which are as follows:
- The literature review section is obsolete. The newest paper, which is cited by this paper, was published in the year of 2009. Many of the gaps in the state-of-the-art, which are indicated by this paper, do not exist now.
- There are several improper uses of abbreviations. For example, the authors have used the abbreviations “AHP” and “AHP-FLP” in the abstract, where their explanations are not provided. The authors have also used the abbreviation “AHP” (analytic hierarchy process) in the paper title. How is a reader supposed to know about these abbreviations?
- There are many formatting errors from the first page. Clearly, the paper was not proofread before submission.
- The paper has a number of grammatical and typographical errors. Moreover, the texts, which were not copied from other sources, are full of these errors. And that undermines the paper even more.
- The logical flow and the structure of the paper are poor. It looks like an attempt was taken to reduce plagiarism. Obviously, the attempt was futile.
Author Response
please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have made an attempt to decrease the similarity index of the paper. However, it is still quite high. Most importantly, the main issues still exist:
- The literature review section is still quite obsolete. For example, the authors have stated that general supplier selection is discussed widely in the literature. Then, they reviewed papers that are not even from the last decade. If the literature is so rich, where are the latest studies? Here the authors are missing one vital point. One of the main purposes of a literature review is to let the reader know about the state-of-the-art and identify the gaps in the state-of-the-art. What the authors are showing is not the state-of-the-art, and the gaps are not clear.
- The contributions of this paper are not clear. The authors have just stated, “However, quite slight study has been accepted on suitably the real practice regarding AGHSESS applications of the supplier selection techniques.” What are the authors adding to the state-of-the-art? If they have done x and y, they have not backed up their claim that x or y have not been done in the past.
- In the proposed model section, the authors have merely paraphrased what they wrote before and which had an extremely high similarity index (i.e., plagiarism and no/little contributions). Paraphrasing something does not necessarily mean anything new has been added to the state-of-the-art.
- The manuscript is still full of grammatical errors. Even the title of the paper is grammatically incorrect. The language is still poor and inaccurate at numerous areas. Furthermore, the authors have now made a lot of poor paraphrases to reduce plagiarism. So, it is suggested to seek help from adept scientific writers or use a proofreading service.
- There are still several improper uses of abbreviations. For example, there are some unexplained abbreviations in the abstract. How is a reader supposed to know about them? There also many inconsistencies with abbreviations.
Author Response
please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
