Fuzzy Logic Analysis of the Build, Capacity Build and Transfer (B-CB-T) Modality for Urban Water Supply Service Delivery in Ethiopia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper proposes an approach using fuzzy logic for checking if the B-CB-T can be applied for different urban center populations. The language and the structure of the paper both need improvement. Although it could be an interesting approach, there are many issues that the authors have to address:

1.       The title should be modified in order to describe the used method

2.       Please replace the word “fuzzilogic” with “fuzzy logic”

3.       Literature review is weak and must be rewritten since plenty of references are placed in lines 66-69 without any explanation.

4.       The abstract has an appropriate length but it should include more phrases illustrating the results of the analysis and the research contribution of this study.

5.       Line 80: what do you mean with the sentence “decrease errors of risk factors in risk management decision making within the B-CB-T”?

6.       Line 86: the Table 1 caption is in the text body

7.       Line 110: Did you mean “expert opinion”?

8.       The information illustrated in Figures 1 & 2 is not further described in the text

9.       Figure 1 needs to be re-organized since it is not easily understood

10.   Figure 2 needs to be re-organized since it is not easily understood

11.   The conclusions section must be rewritten in order to include more information about the results of this study

The authors should better analyze the contribution of the proposed method.

Author Response

See the attached table with comments to all the editorial remarks

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article concerns a very interesting topic, but needs improvement, especially in terms of the methodology used.

I suggest intensive rewriting the paper considering clear description of the fuzzy concept (including formulas applied).

Please add in the paper an explanation to Table 2 and improve its quality.

Why the inference rules used  to risk analysis of external accountability and  Operation and  maintenance  are presented  in the different style? Please, unify this.

The discussion of  the result should be added. Conclusions should be expanded. The authors should accent scientific novelty of  the research.

 I suggest adding in the references some new publications from  the recent years

Author Response

See attached the word file with a table and comments that address all the important comments made by the reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The current version of the paper has been improved but, still, there are some issues that the authors have to address:

1.       Literature review is weak and must be rewritten since plenty of references are placed in lines 66-69 without any explanation.

2.       In the new version of Figure 1, it appears the half information in relation to the previous

3.       The authors should better analyze the contribution of the proposed method.

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Sincere thanks for the important comments from the reviewer. Rather than include a table, I have responded below to the 3 points raised by the reviewer.

1.       Literature review is weak and must be rewritten since plenty of references are placed in lines 66-69 without any explanation. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES HAVE BEEN ADDED IN YELLOW IN THE TEXT

2.       In the new version of Figure 1, it appears the half information in relation to the previous. THE TABLE HAS BEEN REVIEWED

3.       The authors should better analyze the contribution of the proposed method. ADDITIONAL TEXT IS ADDED AND EDITED IN THE CONCLUSION SECTION

Reviewer 2 Report

Good job.

Author Response

There are no further comments from the reviewers.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors improved their study, but still, the issue with the references (lines 73-76) remains. 

The authors are requested to analyze the reason why they refer each paper instead of mentioning  "for varied applications.." and referring after that all the 14 papers. 

Author Response

The authors have revised the section and edited the language as requested by the editor. A final proof read is assumed to be done by the journal before publication. I trust no further changes will be required from the authors and we thank the journal for publishing our work.