Decision-Making Techniques of the Consumer Behaviour Optimisation of the Product Own Price
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Motivation for the work should be enhanced in the abstract as well as in the introduction section.
2. More insight discussions in detail based on the concluded advantages shall explored.
3. For new decision-making techniques, there are some recent proposals, you can consider them in your proposal, such as: Social network multiple-criteria decision-making approach for evaluating unmanned ground delivery vehicles under the Pythagorean fuzzy environment, Technological Forecasting & Social Change.
Author Response
Thank the you for your valuable suggestions to improve the quality and standard of the our paper for acceptance. We have taken into account all your comments. Details are in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is difficult to evaluate, mainly because it lacks several important elements. The authors did not indicate what is of its novelty and did not identify the limitations of their research. In principle, we do not know whether the proposed solution is new, whether it is a compilation of other known methods or a modification of them. There is also no part related to the discussion in the article. According to the literature review, this type of discussion is possible to be provided. It is necessary to supplement the paper with the indicated parts.
However, it is worth paying attention, that the research experiment is described in detail and clearly, but the authors should indicate the advantages and limitations of the proposed solution.
Author Response
Thank the you for your valuable suggestions to improve the quality and standard of the our paper for acceptance. We have taken into account all your comments. Details are in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
While the paper’s topic is interesting, the structure of the paper is very bad, and the authors completely failed to present the paper professionally! As a matter of fact, the authors considered the problem as an oversimplified version of the real-world problem that I believe make it unsuitable. They considered several factors in the model, while many other factors can play an important role in the final price of a product.
In addition, the paper’s logic is very bad, and it is very hard for a reader to follow the paper. I tried to read the introduction, but it seems some sentences have been merged and presented in this section. In addition, the authors’ claims are not concise in this paper; for example, in line 48, they say “The paper will outline an analytical method in which a mathematical relationship is determined between the consumer purchasing behaviour and the average cost of the product.” But in line 111,” The goal of the paper is to find an answer if the product own price can exceed the market price due to the excessive stock of semi-finished products, connected to consumer behaviour.” The aim and objective of the paper are very unclear.
All in all, the quality of the paper, particularly the presentation of the paper and the research methodology, is not high enough to be considered for publication.
Author Response
Thank the you for your valuable suggestions to improve the quality and standard of the our paper for acceptance. We have taken into account all your comments. Details are in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
It can be accepted now.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer.
Thank you very much for the second review and for the positive opinion of the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
- The logic of the introduction still has a problem. It is not clear what the aim, objective of the paper is.
- still, the gaps and the contribution of the paper is not clear.
- the literature review is very weak, there are more papers in the literature. The authors missed many relevant papers.
- figure 1 needs more clarification.
All in All, The authors didn't address my comments and just changed some pragraphs.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We deeply appreciate your comments and suggestions. We have revised the paper according to the comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The comments have been addressed.
