An Integrated Decision-Making Model Based on Plithogenic-Neutrosophic Rough Number for Sustainable Financing Enterprise Selection
Mingli Song
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper develops an innovative fuzzy group decision-making model based on plithogenic-neutrosophic rough numbers (P-NRN) and apply it in sustainable financing business selection. This model improved the deficiency of the previous research. The paper can be considered a publication subject to the following minor revisions:
- The presentation of the paper should be improved, and some grammatical errors need to be corrected. There also require an improvement in mathematical formulas style.
- The literature review module has to improve. Check the journal for the most recent work.
- The title of Section 4 was confusing and should be amended.
- The conclusion is too long and can be reduced appropriately. It should be concise and only summarize the most significant contribution of the research.
- The significant contributions and innovation of this research should be further highlighted In a concise way, and the advantages of this study compared with state-of-the-art studies should also be stated.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we do appreciate your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We apologize for the inaccuracies in the paper. We have studied these comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Now, we will state the modifications seriously.
Point 1: The presentation of the paper should be improved, and some grammatical errors need to be corrected. There also require an improvement in mathematical formulas style.
Author action: Thanks for the reminder of the reviewer. The reviewer’s suggestions are very important for us. We immediately recognized these problems and made some changes. First, we have reviewed the full paper to correct some inappropriate expressions and grammatical errors. Then, considering that formulas are also part of the paper, we added punctuations after all formulas and removed repeated symbolic representations, as shown in Equations (1) to (33). For details, please refer to lines 45-47, lines 108-110, lines 116-118, line 124.
Point 2: The literature review module has to improve. Check the journal for the most recent work.
Author action: Thanks for the reminder of the reviewer. The reviewer’s suggestions are very important for us. We added some comparisons with existing papers to highlight the advantages of our proposed model. For details, please refer to line 116, lines 130 to 133 (literature [48], [49]).
Point 3: The title of Section 4 was confusing and should be amended.
Author action: Thanks to the reviewer for the correction, I am deeply sorry for our omission. The title should be “Numerical Application” and we corrected it immediately.
Point 4: The conclusion is too long and can be reduced appropriately. It should be concise and only summarize the most significant contribution of the research.
Author action: Thanks to the reviewer for the deficiencies raised in the paper. We immediately realized that the conclusion part of this paper was too long and unfocused. We have revised and reorganized the conclusion part, and provided direction for future research. For details, please refer to Section 6 marked in yellow (Lines 642 to 684).
Point 5: The significant contributions and innovation of this research should be further highlighted in a concise way, and the advantages of this study compared with state-of-the-art studies should also be stated.
Author action: Thanks to the reviewer for the question, we are sorry for not previously highlighting our contributions in a concise way. We have corrected it and deleted some words to make it more concise. For details, please refer to Section 1.3(lines 145-157). We also condensed the advantages of this paper compared with existing studies. For details, please refer to lines 139 to 142.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the main content and framework of the paper.
We appreciate for Reviewer’s warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper proposes an integrated Plithogenic-neutrosophic rough number decision-making model; Also, by extending the similarity measure theory and the maximizing deviation method, the weights o are derived. The method is interesting but needs some revisions:
1-There are some writing errors; the paper should be checked;
2-In problem description section; add some diagrams to understand better
3- equations 1-3; should be referred to a basic reference
4-In whole documents, some equations are out of line;
5-In equation 19; what is "where", it seems that the paper has been written carelessly; please recheck;
6-check the equation 21
7- how 25 is derived; add some more illustrations on your proof;
8- simplify Table 3; as much as possible
9-Instead of Table 4, add a graphical example; to better see the results
10-Add some comparisons with related methods;
11-Add a direction for readers; How the suggested method can be improved by type-3 FLSs such as;A type-3 logic fuzzy system: Optimized by a correntropy based Kalman filter with adaptive fuzzy kernel size
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we do appreciate your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We apologize for the inaccuracies in the paper. We have studied these comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Now, we will state the modifications seriously.
Point 1: There are some writing errors; the paper should be checked.
Author action: Thanks for the reminder of the reviewer. The reviewer reads this manuscript seriously, and we express our deep appreciation. At the same time, we also expressed regret for our negligence. We immediately reviewed the expression and structure of the paper and made several modifications. For details, please refer to line 45,46,74,78,79,80,92,93,96,98,108,110; the motivation section, lines 437 to 440, and the conclusion part.
Point 2: In problem description section; add some diagrams to understand better.
Author action: Thanks for your advice. We construct a conceptual framework of the proposed model to understand better of this paper. We also add a hierarchical structure graph, as shown in Fig. 2.
Point 3: equations 1-3; should be referred to a basic reference.
Author action: Thanks for the reminder of the reviewer. The reviewer’s suggestions are very important for us. We previously cited reference [17] at Definition 1, now highlighted in yellow.
Point 4: In whole documents, some equations are out of line.
Author action: Thanks for the reminder of the reviewer. We are really sorry for mistakes like this and corrected them immediately. The reviewer reads this manuscript seriously, and we express our deep appreciation. We have reviewed the full paper and adjusted the formatting of the formulas in question.
Point 5: In equation 19; what is "where", it seems that the paper has been written carelessly; please recheck.
Author action: Thanks for the reminder of the reviewer. The reviewer reads this manuscript seriously, and we express our deep appreciation. We re-describe the relevant formulas to avoid ambiguity. For details, please refer to line 299.
Point 6: check the equation 21.
Author action: I am happy to have the chance to answer your question. Equation 21 is an extension of equation 20 to calculate the total deviation value of all alternatives to other alternatives, while equation 20 merely obtain the deviation value between two numbers, and equation 21 can also be viewed as a summation of equation20.
Point 7: how 25 is derived; add some more illustrations on your proof.
Author action: Thanks for the reminder of the reviewer. The reviewer’s suggestions are very important for us. I'm sorry we didn't describe clearly how the formula 25 was obtained. We immediately added some operations to make the acquisition of the formula clearer, as shown in Equations (25) to 27, lines 33 4to 338.
Point 8: simplify Table 3; as much as possible.
Author action: Thanks for your suggestion, which helped a lot with the paper. In table 3, we use the significance linguistic value in form of neutrosophic numbers to express the evaluation information for criteria of alternatives by each DM. Each evaluation value of matrix is the basis for the subsequent operation. If part of the content is omitted, the evaluation information will be missing, which will affect the entire evaluation result. Therefore, we've simplified it in terms of format rather than content. For details, please refer to Table3.
Point 9: Instead of Table 4, add a graphical example; to better see the results.
Author action: Thanks a lot for the suggestion. We replace Table 4 with a simple and intuitive example to better see the results. We give an example for a brief calculation illustration. The specific modification is shown in Figure 3 and lines 475 to 497.
Point 10: Add some comparisons with related methods.
Author action: Thanks a lot for the suggestion. In Section 5, we conducted comparative analysis, selected some representative methods (NWGA operator, BWM method, extended TOPSIS method, P-NRN-based-MABAC method and VIKOR method), and applied the same real-case for operation, and the results are shown in Table 10. The results show that the proposed method is feasible and superior.
Point 11: Add a direction for readers; How the suggested method can be improved by type-3 FLSs such as;A type-3 logic fuzzy system: Optimized by a correntropy based Kalman filter with adaptive fuzzy kernel size.
Author action: Thanks for the reminder of the reviewer. The reviewer’s suggestions are very important for us. We add a future research direction and reference about type-3 logic fuzzy system in the conclusion, as shown in reference [64].
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the main content and framework of the paper.
We appreciate for Reviewer’s warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The comments have been applied and can be accepted in my opinion;
