A Two-Step Fuzzy MCDM Method for Implementation of Sustainable Precision Manufacturing: Evidence from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is interesting for the topic addressed, the context and the methodology adopted. The Authors explore Sustainable Precision Manufacturing (SPM) in China identifying and ranking drivers of implementation of SPM through the two-step fuzzy MCDM integrated with Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS algorithms. 

The article should be improved to clarify its contribution to both the scientific community, managers and policymakers and be in line with the high standard of the target journal.

Below I provide a set of indications that the Author may consider:

Abstract - the abstract is too long and does not go straight to the point. The abstract should include briefly the context of the study, the aim, methodology and key findings. Consider the guidelines of the journal according to which the abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum.

Introduction - also appears too long, many parts can be summarized. Moreover, most of the content could be explained in the theoretical section of the article. After presenting the context, the introduction should indicate clearly the originality and contribution of the study.

Literature review the Authors specify how they have identified relevant articles for their theoretical section, which is of interest. I a not sure why sub-paragraph 2.4. is included in the literature review. It seems the presentation of the methodology. Please clarify. 

Figures - On page 18 there is a figure without a title and not recalled in a specific part of the text. There is figure 4 and then directly 5. 

Results and discussion. I suggest keeping the results and discussion in two different paragraphs.

Conclusions should address limitations and identify future research perspectives, for instance on the possibility of applying the framework and methodology to other countries. 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

 Thanks for your suggestion,

Please see the [Author’s responses to Reviewer #1] in the response letter in the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors focused on the implementation of Sustainable Precision Manufacturing (SPM) is of great strategic significance. To resolve some existing problems, drivers of SPM are identified based on combined support of prior studies and 6 groups of 18 experts consisted of 71 individuals from 6 precision manufacturing enterprises. The drivers are calculated and ranked by a two-step fuzzy MCDM method which integrated Fuzzy AHP (fuzzy analytic hierarchy process) and Fuzzy TOPSIS (fuzzy technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution) algorithm. The evaluation of drivers is based on the basic principles of sustainable development (environmental criterion, social criterion and economic criterion).

 

This paper contains a new approach for two-step fuzzy MCDM method for implementation of sustainable precision manufacturing. This paper introduces new AHP and TOPSIS applications.

 

1.      The literature review presented here is highly insufficient and generalized. Please improve it using recent papers. Please study linear Diophantine fuzzy sets, spherical linear Diophantine fuzzy sets, and new fuzzy models. Please study a recent AHP-TOPSIS approach: Topological data analysis with spherical fuzzy soft AHP-TOPSIS for environmental mitigation system.

2.      Eqn. 2, 3, 4, 5 are not clear. Please elaborate with illustrations.

3.      Please add a comparison analysis of proposed work with existing techniques.

4.      Few variables are not defined. Please correct it. Please use simple symbols.

5.      Elaborate discussions of results. Try to point out each waveform using proper justification. The comparisons need to be strong, for example with another method.

 

 

 

Author Response

 Thanks for your suggestion,

Please see the [Author’s responses to Reviewer #2] in the response letter. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is well written and has some information for the readers.  The manuscript needs revision for consideration.

1. In the Introduction, provide the advantage of using the present scheme for analysis.

2. At the end of the Introduction, don't  provide, chapter1, chapter 2 etc. provide only common introduction.

3. Sustainability aspect must be discussed properly.

4. How sustainability is arrived using this method, more detailed explanation is needed.

5. Results and discussion part needs more detailed analysis connected to sustainability.

6. How rules for the fuzzy sytem is established.

7. Improve the conclusions.

 

 

 

Author Response

 Thanks for your suggestion,

Please see the [Author’s responses to Reviewer #3] in the response letter. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors have addressed all suggestions provided in the first round of review. The paper has significantly improved and is ready for publication.

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestion and  agreeing to the publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

The revisions made by the authors are satisfactory. The manuscript just need some minor edits.

1. Please change "Although" in starting of abstract. Use proper words.

2. Check all the equations for correctness and provide reference wherever necessary.

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestion.

Comment 1:

The revisions made by the authors are satisfactory. The manuscript just needs some minor edits.

1. Please change "Although" in starting of abstract. Use proper words.

     Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. The authors discussed and consulted a professor from Zhejiang University who received a Ph.D. from Harvard University. We replaced "Although" with  "Despite that" in starting of abstract.

Comment 2: 

2. Check all the equations for correctness and provide reference wherever necessary.

    Response 2: Thanks for your suggestion. We have carefully checked all formula expressions and derivation processes again, and carefully checked the literature where the formulas come from. In order for researchers to clearly reproduce the calculation process based on the existing formulas and references, we have made changes in the following places:

-On page 9 , line 406, We have added reference [71] so that it is clearer how the matrix is obtained.

 “According to Sun. [71]，assuming that the expert committee of the decision makers is composed of K experts,”

-On page 10 , line 445, Lowercase k is changed to italics. “by the kth expert”

-On page 10 , line 468，The reference number is corrected to [71]

“can be obtained by following formula[71]”

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.