Analysis of the Eurozone’s Resilience to Crises and Disturbances in the Context of EU Development Strategies—Contemporary Approach Using Anfis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations for your very interesting paper.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank You for Your very positive review and for Your congratulations. Hopefully we will have the opportunity to be reviewed by You again in the future.

Cordially,

Sonja Brlečić Valčić

Anita Peša

Dijana Čičin-Šain

Reviewer 2 Report

I congratulates to the authors. The paper has merit and, to enhance its value, quality and clarity, I have some suggestions/considerations, as follows:

1. LITERATURE 1.1. The literature is exhaustive and the relevant literature is referenced.

 

2. General recommendations

2.1. Recommendation is that in line 243 in brackets insert Figure 6. Now there are 3 dots.

2.2. In line 276 RMSE result is written with different font. 

2.3. In line 336 erase dot after number 6 in brackets

2.4. In line 340 after "education attainment level" instead of "i" insert "and"

2.5. It could be useful if you could indicate in the "dendogram" Intersections of the clusters.   

 2.3. The paper would gain in clarity if the hypotheses were mentioned (issued) in the methodology section, and in the discussions section will be specified, briefly, which are validated; 2.3. The paper would be more valuable if, in the final part, the authors would add brief considerations regarding the possibility of replicating the model in other countries grouping (like MENA, LAC, APAC etc.).

 

 3. METHODOLOGY AND DATA 3.1. The methodology applied in is the manuscript is appropriate and adequate for this kind of analysis. But in the methodology part authors should describe what kind of methodology was carried out and why (clustering part is missing).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank You for Your very positive review and for Your constructive comments and recommendations. An overview of Your recommendations follows, as well as our responses:

2. General recommendations

2.1. Recommendation is that in line 243 in brackets insert Figure 6. Now there are 3 dots. (Accepted)

2.2. In line 276 RMSE result is written with different font. (Accepted)

2.3. In line 336 erase dot after number 6 in brackets. (Accepted)

2.4. In line 340 after "education attainment level" instead of "i" insert "and". (Accepted)

2.5. It could be useful if you could indicate in the "dendogram" Intersections of the clusters.   - It was not accepted for technical reasons. Cluster groups are explained in the text below.

 2.3. The paper would gain in clarity if the hypotheses were mentioned (issued) in the methodology section, and in the discussions section will be specified, briefly, which are validated; 2.3. The paper would be more valuable if, in the final part, the authors would add brief considerations regarding the possibility of replicating the model in other countries grouping (like MENA, LAC, APAC etc.) - (Accepted - added to text).

 3. METHODOLOGY AND DATA

3.1. The methodology applied in is the manuscript is appropriate and adequate for this kind of analysis. But in the methodology part authors should describe what kind of methodology was carried out and why (clustering part is missing) - (Accepted - added to text).

We hope You will appreciate our reasoning for rejecting the recommendation 2.5. Hopefully, we will have the opportunity to be reviewed by You again in the future.

Cordially,

Sonja Brlečić Valčić

Anita Peša

Dijana Čičin-Šain

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for inviting me as a reviewer for this manuscript. The paper “Analysis of the Eurozone’s resilience to crises and disturbances in the context of EU development strategies - contemporary approach using ANFIS” aims and scope match those of Sustainability. The paper is interesting. However, hoping to assist the authors in their research efforts, I provide several suggestions for improving the presented work:

1. Add the words „Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS)” to the list of keywords.

2. Introduction – The authors need to discuss their contributions compared to those in related papers. The research gap and motivation should be clarified in the introduction section. (Authors should begin with the problem, the gap, then propose the research question and just after that say what they want to do to address that. Where is the gap? And you should clearly why it is a gap?)

3. In the last paragraph of the Introduction, the structure of the article should be discussed.

4. In Section 2, briefly describe the general layout and features of the ANFIS model. Give a brief overview of the literature in different areas where such models have been applied, such as: Čiča, Đ., Zeljković, M., & Tešić, S. (2020). Dynamical contact parameter identification of spindle-holder-tool assemblies using soft computing techniques. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 18(4), 565-577. https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME191014012C; Abdulshahed, A., & Badi, I. (2018). Prediction and control of the surface roughness for the end milling process using ANFIS. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 1(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.31181/oresta1901201011a.

5. Give precise names of figures 1-5. Mark the parts of the pictures with a, b, and c and give them names. Describe the results shown in the figures.

6. What about the value of Minimal training RMSE = 0.752461 for model 3? Is this result acceptable?

7. Line 243, enter the number of the figure.

8. Each figure in the paper should be discussed. Each figure should be referenced in the text.

9. From figures 7-11 you can see almost nothing. Increase figure resolution.

10. Check English. There is text in Figure 6 that is not in English.

11. Is it possible to compare the obtained results with some earlier research?

12. In conclusion: Show in detail the advantages and limitations of the proposed methodology and this study; Add future research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank You for Your very positive review and for Your constructive comments and sugestions. An overview of Your sugestions follows, as well as our responses:

1. Add the words „Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS)” to the list of keywords. (Accepted - added to text)
2. Introduction – The authors need to discuss their contributions compared to those in related papers. The research gap and motivation should be clarified in the introduction section. (Authors should begin with the problem, the gap, then propose the research question and just after that say what they want to do to address that. Where is the gap? And you should clearly why it is a gap?) . (Accepted - added to text)
3. In the last paragraph of the Introduction, the structure of the article should be discussed. (Accepted - added to text)
4. In Section 2, briefly describe the general layout and features of the ANFIS model. Give a brief overview of the literature in different areas where such models have been applied, such as: Čiča, Đ., Zeljković, M., & Tešić, S. (2020). Dynamical contact parameter identification of spindle-holder-tool assemblies using soft computing techniques. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 18(4), 565-577. https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME191014012C; Abdulshahed, A., & Badi, I. (2018). Prediction and control of the surface roughness for the end milling process using ANFIS. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 1(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.31181/oresta1901201011a (Accepted - added to text)
5. Give precise names of figures 1-5. Mark the parts of the pictures with a, b, and c and give them names. Describe the results shown in the figures. It is not accepted - technically this looks more precise and concrete to us
6. What about the value of Minimal training RMSE = 0.752461 for model 3? Is this result acceptable? In the context of this research, the model 3 was accepted regardless of RMSE = 0.752461 because it benefits the general conclusions of the research
7. Line 243, enter the number of the figure. (Accepted)
8. Each figure in the paper should be discussed. Each figure should be referenced in the text. (Accepted)
9. From figures 7-11 you can see almost nothing. Increase figure resolution. (Accepted)
10. Check English. There is text in Figure 6 that is not in English. (Accepted)
11. Is it possible to compare the obtained results with some earlier research? (Accepted - added to text)
12. In conclusion: Show in detail the advantages and limitations of the proposed methodology and this study; Add future research. (Accepted - added to text)

We hope You will appreciate our reasoning for rejecting the sugestion 5. Hopefully, we will have the opportunity to be reviewed by You again in the future.

Cordially,

Sonja Brlečić Valčić

Anita Peša

Dijana Čičin-Šain

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

All the reviewers' comments have been addressed carefully and sufficiently. The revisions are rational from my point of view. I think the current version of the paper can be accepted.