A Comprehensive Methodology for Investment Project Assessment Based on Monte Carlo Simulation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper presents a methodology to evaluate investment projects using Monte-Carlo simulation. While this is an interesting topic to study, the paper suffers from some serious shortcomings:
1. The language in the paper needs to be thoroughly edited and improved by a professional. There are numerous instances of erroneous sentences and poorly constructed paragraphs that make it very difficult to understand the writing.
2. Gaps in knowledge is not specified. It is very difficult to understand the novel contributions provided by the authors because they do not adequately articulate what the gaps in current knowledge are. Without this, it is difficult to ascertain the novelty of contributions.
3. Lack of generality of methodology: The authors start their methodology by defining a problem. It is hard to tel if their method is generalizable to other similar problems or whether it just fits this domain.
For the above reasons, my opinion is to decline the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript "A comprehensive methodology for investment project assessment based on Monte Carlo simulation” by Fabianová et al. shows a detailed methodology based on Monte Carlo simulation to assess investment projects with different steps, that are necessary for a final optimization. The work is interesting and complete, I just have some minor suggestion to make:
Sentence in lines 30-31 is difficult to understand, please rephrase it.
The figure 8 is never mentioned in the text. Please add a reminder along the manuscript.
The figures 6, 9, 10, and 11 should be enlarged to better appreciate their contents.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an interesting study of investment project assessment, using Monte Carlo simulations and optimisation. I have the following comments:
- In the introduction there should be more of an explanation of the specific contributions of this study to the literature.
- On page 7 the study refers to time series data, does this relate to table 1?You need to add some more detail on this data, for instance how many observations have been used and how was the data generated?
- A SARIMA model has been used, was a Box-Jenkins approach used to determine the stationarity of the data and the numbers of lags?
- When assessing the risk, I assume the production plan involves no debt, which could affect the project risk, some of the assumptions of the production plan should be added.
Minor points
- The acronyms need defining when first used, i.e. what is MAPE etc.
- Some sentences need finishing, such as page 1 line 30/31.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
