Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis Using TOPSIS: Sustainable Approach to Technical and Economic Evaluation of Rocks for Lining Canals

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled “Multiple-criteria decision analysis using TOPSIS: Sustainable approach to technical and economic evaluation of rocks for lining canals” reports on the current research status of the evaluation of rock characteristics to determine their suitability for the construction of canal casing. All rock characteristics should be classified in terms of the technical and economic concerns related to mining rock specifications.

The article is an original contribution, and the topic is of interest to the readership of the Applied Sciences journal.

The presentation is adequate; anyway, I have detected some criticisms in the text that should be properly addressed. The Authors can benefit from the comments below to improve their paper. These have to be accomplished before manuscript acceptance.

 

Abstract

The abstract is concise and reflects the content of the article.

 

Introduction

Aims of the study are clarified in the Introduction.

It is suggested that the author add more relevant research.

Please add some references appropriately.

 

Site investigation and data collection

Figure 1. Please follow the format of the author's guide to amend.

Please consider adding the figure of the study area.

 

Mechanical and physical properties for studied samples

Limestone samples were tested to evaluate their suitability, based on their petrographic and technological features, for use in various applications. But the study samples were suggested to increase the dimensioning of the research sample.

 

Material uses

In "4.1. Limestone" section. Though limestone does not act as well in these applications as some of the harder silicate rocks do, it is extremely easier to mine limestone and does not do the same level of macerate on mining tools, screens, crushers and the vehicles' beds that transport it. These statements need more literature to support.

"4.2. Dolomite Section" also needs more literature references.

 

Methodology

This section is clear and adequately detailed. Pertinent references are provided on principal components analysis. The provided figure is clear and necessary for the presentation.

Please check the unit of "Density" in Figure 2.

Equations, please follow the format of the author's guide to amend.

 

Quality index

The "Quality index" section was suggested to be merged into the sub-section of the "Methodology” section.

 

Results and discussion

More discussion should be presented in Results and discussion section.

 

Conclusions

This part is not clearly presented. A research paper should end with a well-constructed conclusion. The conclusion is somewhat similar to the introduction. A conclusion is an important part of the paper; it provides closure for the reader while reminding the reader of the contents and importance of the paper. 

The title is suggested to be changed to "Conclusions"

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this study, the authors focus on the evaluation of rock characteristics to determine their suitability for the construction of canal casing. Unfortunately, I did not find any novelty, contribution, and need for this study. On top of that, there are fundamental errors in this analysis while selecting the negative and position ideal solutions which generated wrong results. Therefore, I must REJECT this paper. Some of my comments are given below.

 

• The authors select this manuscript as an article but to me, it looks like a case study. There is a new contribution in this study if it is an article. The authors used the traditional TOPSIS method which is a very naive approach. There are many advanced TOPSIS methods already exist in the literature. Then what is the novelty if this study is an article?

• Abstract needs modifications. The first two sentences were not suitable to start an abstract. The key outcome is missing. 
• There are numerous MCDM techniques that exist in the literature. Why do you need to use traditional TOPSIS? Why not other methods like VIKOR or ELECTRE where you can get more information like outranking and compromise solutions? No justification for this.
• The authors provide justification that this is the first application of TOPSIS to canal linings 89 and relevant construction materials. Maybe but that is not enough for a scientific paper. There are hundreds of areas where I can apply the TOPSIS method but those should not be a paper. The authors need to provide more appropriate justification.  
• I did not understand how the authors determined the weights. Why do you need assumptions? There are numerous methods to determine the weights like AHP, BWM? Why not use those? 
• Provide justification or reference of the rating mentioned in table 4.
• What do you mean by the UBC method? Why it is necessary to run a simple TOPSIS analysis?
• TOPSIS is a very well-established method. There are hundreds of papers published. At least write the mathematical equations properly. You did not defined most of the parameters like Vj+, Vj_, S+, S-, and Pi
• Major concern: Table 8. Positive ideal and negative ideal solutions
• Based on table 8, the authors considered all the lowest values as a positive ideal solution while all the highest values as negative ideal solutions. That means Uniaxial compressive strength, tensile strength, density lower value desired like the cost. This does not make any engineering sense. I don't think the authors know what they are doing and understand this basic TOPSIS method properly. As this is wrong, your whole analysis, results, and discussions are wrong.
• Where are the discussions of your results? You just showed the results not discussed those.
• The conclusion section should be more precise in the case of the presentation of scientific contributions and limitations to the work done. So that makes sure your conclusions section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Review of the paper:

Multiple-criteria decision analysis using TOPSIS: Sustainable 2 approach to technical and economic evaluation of rocks for lin-3 ing canals

 

The topic of the paper is protection of waterways to withstand the erosive action of water in their beds using the rock casing. The research focuses on the type of rock, which is most appropriate for this purpose and presents the methodology for the evaluation of the appropriate rock characteristics. The results are used to develop strategies for decision-making process in selection of appropriate rock materials for canal casing.

Comments:

 

1. Figure 1 should be made more concise as there is duplication of the photo material. Also, there is no need to show water in the waterway, the sentence in the text will suffice. Figure1 should be better explained in terms of technological sequence of canal casing.
2. ˝Middle Eocene limestone deposits have formed at sites throughout the Nile valley, 110 which have been studied by many researchers.˝… the reference is missing
3. Tables 6., 7. and 8. are not fully comprehensive and do not substantially add to the clarity of the paper so they should be omitted. A text with the explanation of the meaning and the purpose of the calculation is much more appropriate to explain the data in the tables.

Conclusions should be given in more general sense not only as a direct comment to the results of the evaluation. What was achieved with the presented methodology? How do we know that this is the optimal solution for a given location? Where there any examples on the installation of the chosen rock material for canal casing? If any, what was the experience in that particular case?

 

The authors presented interesting research but they need to put more effort to give more general significance to their results. That will also help to improve the impact of their research in terms of novelty, which is the weakest point of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled “Multiple-criteria decision analysis using TOPSIS: Sustainable approach to technical and economic evaluation of rocks for lining canals” reports on the current research status of the evaluation of rock characteristics to determine their suitability for the construction of canal casing. All rock characteristics should be classified according to the technical and economic concerns related to mining rock specifications.

The article is an original contribution, and the topic is of interest to the readership of the Applied Sciences journal.

 

Some faulty unit superscripts must be corrected.

Figure 1 looks more confusing.

 

Other suggestions

• Please review the entire document for typographical errors and any other necessary corrections; check mathematical formulas, headings, tables, and figures.
• The authors should check this manuscript for grammar.
• Authors should follow the journal format.

 

I believe that there is still time to review the entire document. I will only remind the authors that published papers follow us to all of our academic life, and sometimes, it happened also to me. We wish that we could turn back time to make some changes to our past manuscripts.

Good luck with this and all of your future publications.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors made appropriate changes in the paper following the review. The paper can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.