An IFS-IVIFS-DEMATEL Method to Identify Critical Success Factors of Cross-Department Coordination of Emergency Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Line 86 What does a different transformation way mean? Why is this relevant?

Line 87 seems irrelevant because that is the whole subject of the paper.

Will this method only be applicable for CDCEM? I think it is better to characterize situations when your proposed method can apply. CDCEM is just one of those situations.

Lines 126-130 The introduction is confusing because it talks about a specific context. The focus of the study is developing a better method so the introduction should talk about the limitation of the current methods in prioritizing CSFs. The context can later be described as a case study to compare the results of the new method in relation to existing ones.

How do you compare the results of your work with the methods discussed in the literature review? How can you say that the method you proposed is better?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your kindly review. I have replied in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This works present an IFS-IVIFS-DEMATEL method to identify the critical success factors. In generally, I think the paper is well written and relevant to the special issue’s topic. I have the following suggestions for the authors’ consideration:

1.      The motivations of this paper should be emphasized in the abstract. It would be better if sentences can be added in abstract to explain what is the limitations or gaps left by previous works and how your work can address the gap.

2.      I recommend that authors mentioned the summarized results in the abstract. What are the results, and the derived conclusions.

3.      In the introduction, please also add a paragraph to briefly introduce your results and give the conclusions.

4.      The number of tables in the manuscript is excessive. Pleases consider refine, reduce and combine the tables or move the tables to the supplementary materials or appendix.

5.      I recommend the authors to mentioned the work’s contribution in broader context, in the abstract, introduction or conclusion section. How your work contribute to relevant works or benefit practice in bigger picture? It’s better explained.

6.      There are some important relevant missing and I recommend the authors cite: (1) The fine-scale associations between socioeconomic status, density, functionality, and spread of COVID-19 within a high-density city;   (2) Examining the diffusion of coronavirus disease 2019 cases in a metropolis: a space syntax approach;

7.      The manuscript should go through a through proofreading, some typo: Line 14 “An IFS-IVIFS-DEMATEL” -> “an IFS-IVIFS-DEMATEL”; Line 38 “1For this”->” For this”

Should carefully proofread the manuscript

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your kindly review. I have replied in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Significant changes have been made to the manuscript. My last comment is for the authors to specify the specific benefits of the method compared to the others. A comparison was made on the results obtained with the other methods - this is good. However, there was no conclusion on what are the strengths and limitations. 

There are still some spelling and grammar errors on the paper. For example, the word literature is misspelled as literature in the manuscript. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf